U.S. DOT/PHMSA - Environmental Assessment (EA)

Page 1Preliminary Environmental Assessment Regulatory Development Support Services Pipeline Safety: Safety of On-Shore Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Contract No.: DPTH56-09-F-000012 Order No.: DTPH56-09-F-000012TTD002 Project No.: 1027-002 Submitted To: Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Attn: Ms. Cheryl Whetsel, COTR 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590–0001 Submitted By: Econometrica, Inc. 4416 East-West Highway, Suite 215 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 February 2, 2015 1#

Page 2Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1 List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 2 Preliminary Environmental Assessment ............................................................................. 3 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 4 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................... 5 1.4 Public Involvement ...................................................................................... 6 1.5 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 7 Requirement Area #1 – Extend Reporting Requirements to Gravity Lines .... 7 Requirement Area # 2. Extend Reporting Requirements to All Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines ................................................................................... 8 Requirement Area #3. Require Inspections of Pipelines in Areas Affected by Extreme Weather, Man-made or Natural Disasters and Other Similar Events ....................................................................................................................... 9 Requirement Area # 4. Require Periodic Assessments of Pipelines Not Already Covered Under the IM Program ...................................................... 10 Requirement Area #5. Require Leak Detection Systems on Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in All Locations ................................................................... 13 Requirement Area # 6. Modify the Provisions of Making Pipeline Repairs .. 14 Requirement Area # 7. Require All Pipelines Subject to the IM Program be Capable of Accommodating Inline Inspection Tools .................................... 15 Requirement Area #8. Clarify Other Requirements ..................................... 16 Number 8.1 Enhancing the Definition of Information Analysis to Improve the Quality of Operator Evaluations ................................................................... 16 Requirements Number 8. 2 Periodic Verification of the Identification of Covered Segments ...................................................................................... 17 Requirement Number 8.3. Clarification of IM Requirements for Non-Pipe Facilities ....................................................................................................... 18 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE RULE .......................................... 19 Hazardous Materials Transportation ............................................................ 21 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................... 21 1.8. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 24 1.9 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ............................................... 25 2.0 SOURCE DOCUMENTS ........................................................................... 26 1#

Page 3List of Acronyms ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking API-AOPL American Petroleum Institute – Association of Oil Pipelines CEQ U.S. Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EFRD Emergency flow restricting devices ESA Endangered Species Act GIS Geographic information system HCA High consequence area ILI Inline inspection IM Integrity Management NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic preservation Act NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OCS Outer continental shelf OPS Office of Pipeline Safety PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration SCC Stress corrosion cracking USA Unusually Sensitive Area 2#

Page 4Preliminary Environmental Assessment 1.1 INTRODUCTION The nation's pipelines are a transportation system that enables the safe movement of energy products to industry and consumers. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is the Federal safety authority for the nation's natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA is the Federal agency charged with the safe and secure movement of almost one-million daily shipments of hazardous materials by all modes of transportation. The agency also oversees the nation's pipeline infrastructure which accounts for 64 percent of the energy commodities consumed in the United States. 1 Federal agencies are required to evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).2 NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations3 establish policies and procedures that ensure environmental information is available to decision makers, regulatory agencies, and the public before Federal actions are implemented. This EA follows the procedures established by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT)4 to implement NEPA, pursuant to the CEQ regulations. The Federal pipeline safety regulations (1) assure safety in design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of pipeline facilities and in the siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of LNG facilities; (2) set out parameters for administering the pipeline safety program; and (3) delineate requirements for onshore oil pipeline response plans. PHMSA is proposing changes to the regulations covering the safety of hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. These changes follow from an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63774). Through the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is proposing to make certain changes to the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations. As written in the NPRM, the changes include (1) extending the reporting requirements to all gravity lines; (2) extending the reporting requirements to all gathering lines; (3) requiring inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar events; (4) requiring periodic assessments of pipelines that are not already covered under the integrity management program requirements; (5) requiring leak detection systems on pipelines in all locations; (6) modifying the 1 Hearing on “Pipeline Safety: Public Awareness and Education” http://cooperativeplan.slco.org/pdf/Projects/Pipelines/PipelineAwarenessHea.pdf. 2 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. 3 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq. 4 DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 9/18/79, as amended 7/13/82, 7/30/85. 3#

Page 5provisions for performing pipeline repairs; (7) requiring that all pipelines subject to the integrity management requirements be capable of accommodating inline inspection tools within 20 years, unless the basic construction of a pipeline cannot be modified to permit that accommodation; and (8) clarifying other requirements. 1.2 BACKGROUND PHMSA is responsible for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines located throughout the United States, which traverse of variety of environments – from highly populated urban sites to remote, unpopulated rural areas. The physical environment potentially affected by the proposed rule includes the airspace, water resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes), cultural and historical resources (e.g., properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological resources (e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and their habitat, forests, grasslands, offshore marine ecosystems), and special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their habitat, national and state parklands, biological reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly adjacent to and within the vicinity of pipelines. PHMSA’s mission is “to protect people and the environment from the risks inherent in transportation of hazardous materials – by pipeline and other modes of transportation.” PHMSA is committed to reducing the risk of harm to people and the environment resulting from the transportation of hazardous materials by pipelines. Pipeline accidents can impact surrounding populations, property, and the environment, and may result in injuries or fatalities as well as property and environmental damage. One of the major ways PHMSA’s strategic plan includes the following goals: Reduce the risk of harm to people due to the transportation of hazardous materials by pipeline and other modes. Pipeline accidents, depending on their mode and severity, can cause many health hazards, including toxicity, dizziness, asphyxiation, irritation or burns. Pipeline accidents not only have a negative impact on the environment and the economy but can also affect health and wellbeing. Reduce the risk of harm to the environment due to the transportation of oil and hazardous materials by pipeline and other modes. Ground and waterway releases can cause environmental damage, impact wildlife, or contaminate drinking water supplies. Since some petroleum product vapors are heavier than air, they can spread, creating a vapor explosion. Releases can affect ground and waterway contamination. Oil spills that spread over the permeable ground may require clean-up. Since oil products are lighter than water, spills that impact waterways can travel through or close to populated areas through storm drains, creating a pathway for flammable or combustible liquids as well as 4#

Page 6the resulting vapors to travel. The spread can be undetectable from the surface. Also, runoff may cause pollution. Help maintain and improve the reliability of systems that deliver energy products and other hazardous materials in a way that increases safety and minimizes the effect of disruptions. Accidents have the potential to increase the demand for community resources. There is typically an increased demand for assistance from first responders and firefighters to control fires, and police and other law enforcement personnel to control traffic and assist in possible evacuations. These releases may also prompt demand for services from engineers or other public workers to deal with utility and infrastructure problems. Releases can cause business interruptions or loss of fuel supplies such as natural gas, gasoline, and home heating oil. Although the potential for releases to cause displacement of populations near or around fires or explosions is remote, these releases could cause the need for permanent or temporary shelter, putting more strain on community resources. Combined effects on businesses, transportation, and other economic resources can exacerbate response and recovery issues. 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED The statement of purpose and need defines the need for PHMSA action, not just for the proposed action. The statement is an explanation of why agency action is needed or proposed, and reflects the goals to be achieved. Congress established the current framework for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines in the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) of 1979 (P.L. 96-129). Like its predecessor, the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-481), the HLPSA provided the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) with the authority to prescribe minimum Federal safety standards for hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. That authority, as amended in subsequent reauthorizations, is currently codified in the Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. §§ 60101 et seq.). PHMSA has issued a set of comprehensive safety standards for the design, construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of hazardous liquid pipelines. Those standards are codified in the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 C.F.R. Part 195). Part 195 applies broadly to the transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide by pipeline, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, with certain exceptions as required by statute or for reasons of policy. Performance-based safety standards are generally favored (i.e., a particular objective is specified, but the method of achieving that objective is not). Risk management principles play a critical role in the Pipeline Integrity Management requirements for high consequence areas. Congress recently enacted the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). That legislation included several provisions that are relevant to the regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines. A comprehensive analysis of the effect of those provisions on this proceeding is provided below. 5#

Page 7PHMSA chose the proposed actions among many alternatives considered. The actions represent PHMSA’s preferred alternatives. The actions are expected to enhance PHMSA’s ability to:  Understand, measure, and assess the performance of individual operators and the industry as a whole.  Integrate pipeline safety data in a way that will allow a more thorough, rigorous, and comprehensive understanding and assessment of risk.  Improve the data and analyses PHMSA relies on to make critical, safety-related decisions and improve PHMSA decision-making.  Facilitate PHMSA’s allocation of inspection and other resources based on a more accurate accounting of risk.  Reduce the time PHMSA spends on gathering data from multiple sources to carry out pipeline oversight responsibilities. See section 1.5 Alternatives for a more detailed discussion of the purpose and need of each facet of the NPRM. 1.4 Public Involvement Public involvement is a critical aspect of the NEPA process. As such, PHMSA must consider any comments received from the public and any comments and recommendations of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee and other relevant stakeholders. PHMSA has already solicited public comments on the ANPRM5 . The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will be published. 6 PHMSA will again request public comments on the proposed rulemaking. The public will also have the opportunity to comment on this Draft EA before the Final EA is published. 7 In regard to regulatory development, OPS works with statutorily mandated advisory committees who provide peer reviews of all proposed pipeline safety rules to assure technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness and practicability. In addition to the issuance of pipeline safety regulations, OPS monitors compliance via inspections and works with stakeholders to address current and potential pipeline safety issues. OPS also issues advisory bulletins, safety alerts, special permits, and interpretations letters on a wide range of pipeline safety areas. Advisory bulletins are used to inform affected pipeline operators and Federal and state pipeline safety personnel of matters that have the potential of becoming safety or environmental risks. 8 PHMSA has two pipeline safety standards advisory committees that are mandated by legislation. The Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 established the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 5 The ANPRM may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID PHMSA-2010- 0229. 6 The NPRM may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID PHMSA-2010- 0229. 7 The EA may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID PHMSA-2010-0229. 8 http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/pipelineforum/dot-action/regulatory-guidance/. 6#

Page 8(TPSSC), and the Hazardous Liquid Safety Act of 1979 established the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC). The TPSSC and THLPSSC review PHMSA’s proposed regulatory initiatives to assure the technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness and practicability of each proposal. The committees also evaluate the cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment information of the proposals. Each committee has 15 members with equal representation from government, industry, and the public. Proceedings are published accessible on the PHMSA Web 9 1.5 ALTERNATIVES Following is an area by area listing of the proposed actions. Requirement Area #1 - Extend Reporting Requirements to Gravity Lines The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to modify § 195.48, the scope statement for Subpart B, Annual, Accident, and Safety-Related Condition Reporting, to acquire the desired data.10 The proposed revision states that Subpart B applies to all pipelines subject to Part 195 and to pipelines excepted from regulation under specific paragraphs of § 195.1(b). PHMSA is proposing no change to its exercise of jurisdiction relative to these pipelines at this time other than for reporting purposes. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the newly enacted Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). That legislation included several provisions that are relevant to the regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines that have had questions about the safety of hazardous liquid gathering lines. PHMSA requires additional information to address these concerns. Purpose: Assist in determining whether the existing Federal and State regulations for these lines are adequate. 9 http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/technical-advisory-comm/TPSSC. 10The desired data is described on the PHMSA forms. The relevant forms can be viewed on the Web at http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/forms. 7#

Page 9Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Should PHMSA not extend the reporting requirements to gravity lines, the unknown risks of accidental release and the subsequent damages will remain a mystery. The “No Action” alternative is used as a base-line comparison of environmental impacts if no action is taken by the Agency. Alternative 2: Subject to Regulation Only Gravity Flow Pipelines Carrying Ethanol Commenters that stated that the current exception for gravity flow pipelines is appropriate but expressed the view that the exception should not apply to pipelines that transport ethanol. This alternative was rejected because releases of all hazardous liquid products carried by gravity lines pose a threat to the physical environment. Requirement Area # 2. Extend Reporting Requirements to All Hazardous Liquid Gathering Lines The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to modify § 195.48, the scope statement for Subpart B, Annual, Accident, and Safety-Related Condition Reporting, to acquire the desired data.11 The proposed revision states that Subpart B applies to all pipelines subject to Part 195 and to pipelines excepted from regulation under specific paragraphs of § 195.1(b). PHMSA is proposing no change to its exercise of jurisdiction relative to these pipelines at this time other than for reporting purposes. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the newly enacted Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). That legislation included several provisions that are relevant to the regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines that have had questions about the safety of hazardous liquid gathering lines. PHMSA requires additional information to address these concerns. Purpose: Assist in determining whether the existing Federal and State regulations for these lines are adequate. Alternatives Considered and Rejected 11The desired data is described on the PHMSA forms. The relevant forms can be viewed on the Web at http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/forms. 8#

Page 10Alternative 1: No Action. Under this option, PHMSA would maintain existing requirements for reporting by taking no action. However, PHMSA believes this would not effectively support PHMSA’s safety mission. By not taking action, the Agency would be unresponsive to mandates imposed by Congress, and there would likely be inefficiencies and gaps identified in the NPRM that would continue to exist. Although taking no action would eliminate additional compliance costs, there would be no benefits ensuing from the proposal. Alternative 2: Require different reporting requirements for some operators. PHMSA can establish different requirements for large and small operators affected by the proposed rule, basing the requirements on estimated differences in expected costs and benefits. PHMSA is aware that some regulations, rules, and government policies place a disproportionate burden on small firms. Consequently, to promote entrepreneurship, government agencies have sometimes granted small businesses preferential regulatory treatment, such as exemptions from legislation and regulations or extended deadlines for compliance. PHMSA judged that these considerations were not sufficient to recommend reporting requirements based on business size. This option was not chosen because PHMSA concluded that allowing disparate reporting would not meet its informational needs by leaving a significant number of operators outside the reporting requirements. The Agency believes reporting must provide relevant information that is useful for the decision-making needs of groups for whom the information is provided. PHMSA determined, therefore, that not requiring the smaller operators to report would dampen the regulation’s effectiveness and that special regulatory treatment would not, in fact, help small businesses. PHMSA believes that although there may be a learning curve for small entities, with practice and guidance—which PHMSA is willing to provide—small operators will learn how to comply with the reporting requirements. Requirement Area #3. Require Inspections of Pipelines in Areas Affected by Extreme Weather, Man-made or Natural Disasters and Other Similar Events The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to add a new section, § 195.414, which will require operators to: (1) Inspect a pipeline in an area affected by extreme weather, a man-made or natural disaster, or other similar event to ensure that no conditions exist which could adversely affect the safe operation of that pipeline; (2) Consider the nature of the event and the physical characteristics, operating conditions, 9#

Page 11location, and prior history of the affected pipeline in determining the appropriate method for performing the inspection; (3) Perform the inspection within 72 hours after the cessation of the event, or as soon as the affected area can be safely accessed; and (4) Take appropriate remedial action to ensure the safe operation of a pipeline based on the information obtained as a result of performing the inspection. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the fact that natural disasters such as storms, earthquakes, floods, can damage or disrupt pipeline operations and cause fuel shortages and rising prices. Natural disasters on energy systems can have extensive ramifications for infrastructure development, the economy, public health, general quality of life, and even peaceful coexistence of communities, regions, and countries. Purpose: Ensure that pipelines are still capable of being safely operated after these events. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Under this option, PHMSA would maintain existing requirements for reporting by taking no action. However, PHMSA believes this would not effectively support PHMSA’s safety mission. By not taking action, there would likely be inefficiencies and gaps in pipeline safety. Requirement Area # 4. Require Periodic Assessments of Pipelines Not Already Covered Under the IM Program The Target Problem, Need, and Purpose of the proposed action PHMSA preferred alternative is the requirement to adopt a provision that would require operators to perform periodic assessments of hazardous liquid pipelines which are not already covered under the IM program requirements. Specifically, the proposed § 195.416 would require operators to assess non-IM pipelines with an inline inspection (ILI) tool at least once every 10 years. Other assessment methods could be used if an operator provides OPS with prior written notice that a pipeline is not capable of accommodating an ILI tool, and that the use of an alternative technology would provide a substantially equivalent understanding of its condition in light of the threats which could affect its safe operation. Such alternative technologies would include hydrostatic pressure testing or appropriate forms of direct assessment. The individuals who review the results of these periodic assessments would be subject to the operator qualification requirements in Subpart G of Part 195 and would need to consider any uncertainty in the results obtained, including ILI tool tolerance, in determining whether any conditions could adversely affect the safe operation of a pipeline. Such determinations would have to be made promptly, but no later than 180 10#

Page 12days after an inspection, unless operator demonstrates that the 180-day deadline is impracticable. Operators would be required to comply with the other provisions in Part 195 in implementing the requirements in § 195.416. That includes having appropriate provisions for performing these periodic assessments and any resulting repairs in an operator’s procedural manual (see § 195.402), adhering to the recordkeeping provisions for inspections, test, and repairs (see§ 195.404), and taking appropriate remedial action under § 195.422, as discussed below. Section 195.11 would also be amended to subject regulated onshore gathering lines to the periodic assessment requirement. PHMSA is also proposing to modify the IM pipeline repair criteria and apply the criteria to non- IM pipeline repairs. Specifically, the criteria in § 195.452(h) for IM repairs would be modified to:  Categorize bottom-side dents with stress risers as immediate repair conditions;  Require immediate repairs whenever the calculated burst pressure is less than 1.1 times maximum operating pressure;  Eliminate the 60-day and 180-day repair categories; and  Establish a new, consolidated 270-day repair category. PHMSA is also proposing to amend the requirements in § 195.422 for performing non- IM repairs by applying the criteria in the immediate repair category in § 195.452(h) and establishing an 18-month repair category for hazardous liquid pipelines which are not subject to the IM requirements. The existing requirements in § 195.422 would also be modified to include a general requirement for performing all other repairs within a reasonable time. A proposed amendment to § 195.11 would extend these new pipeline remediation requirements to regulated onshore gathering lines. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the fact that this requirement will ensure that pipeline operators obtain the information necessary for the prompt detection and remediation of corrosion and other deformation anomalies (e.g., dents, gouges, and grooves) in all locations, not just in areas which could affect HCAs. PHMSA believes that these changes will ensure that immediate action is taken to remediate anomalies that present an imminent threat to the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines in all locations. Moreover, many anomalies which would not qualify as immediate repairs under the current criteria will meet that requirement as a result of the additional conservatism that will be incorporated into the burst pressure calculations. The new timeframes for performing non-immediate repairs will also allow operators to remediate those conditions in a timely manner while allocating resources to those areas which present a higher risk of harm to the public, property, and the environment. PHMSA’s IM inspection experience (since 2002) has identified that some operators were not considering explicitly the accuracy of tools when evaluating the results of assessments conducted using these tools. As a result, random variation within recorded data led to both overcalls (i.e., an anomaly was identified to be more severe than it actually was) and under-calls. Overcalls are conservative, resulting in repair of some 11#

Page 13anomalies that might not actually meet repair criteria. Under-calls, however, are non- conservative, since they could result in anomalies exceeding specified repair criteria going unremediated. The inline inspection tools provide superior information about the condition of a pipeline, and mandating their broader use will improve the detection of anomalies and prevent or mitigate future accidents. Explicitly considering the accuracy of the ILI tool tends to reduce the number of overcalls. PHMSA has concluded, based on its experience inspecting operator IM program implementation, that the repair criteria changes in this proposal would be acceptable, provided that all operators explicitly consider the accuracy of the ILI tools that they use. PHMSA believes that the proposed measures will assure that anomalies requiring repair are identified regardless of whether they are within or outside of segments that could affect HCAs. Purpose: Provide critical information about the condition of these pipelines, including the existence of internal and external corrosion and deformation anomalies. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action If there are no changes to the current practices related to assessments made by ILI, the unreliable information due to inaccurate tools and the inefficiencies which result from under-calls and overcalls will continue. Unintended and untimely repairs will be made, while undetected pipeline anomalies that could lead to costly releases of hazardous liquids are not repaired. The No-Action alternative would not benefit or enhance the environment since fewer anomalies may be detected and repaired in a timely manner. Historically, more anomalies leading to repairs have occurred outside of segments that could affect HCAs. Therefore, PHMSA rejected the No Action alternative for the proposal that operators who select ILI as the method for performing IM assessments be precluded from limiting data collection to covered segments. Alternative2: Create a “Monitored” Category This alternative would include the creation of a scheduled and monitored classification of anomalies (in line with rules for the gas industry in 49 CFR Part 192), as well as the creation of a 365-day repair category. Anomalies currently part of the 60-day and 180- day classifications would be reorganized into the abovementioned categories (immediate, 365-day, scheduled, and monitored), thus eliminating the 60-day and 180-day repair categories. PHMSA states that this alternative is not needed because the rule addresses conditions which would be covered in a “monitored” category and instead is proposing that all of the current 180-day criteria become 365-day criteria. 12#

Page 14Requirement Area #5. Require Leak Detection Systems on Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in All Locations The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to amend § 195.134 to require that all new hazardous liquid pipelines be designed to include leak detection systems. PHMSA is also proposing to amend § 195.444 to require that operators have a means for detecting leaks on all portions of a hazardous liquid pipeline system, and to require that an evaluation be performed to determine what kinds of systems must be installed to adequately protect the public, property, and the environment. The factors that must be considered in performing that evaluation would include the characteristics and history of the affected pipeline, the capabilities of the available leak detection systems, and the location of emergency response personnel. A proposed amendment to § 195.11 would extend these new leak detection requirements to regulated onshore gathering lines. The need for PHMSA’s action is is based on the recent pipeline accident in Marshall, Michigan which demonstrates the importance of having a means for promptly detecting leaks in all locations. The preliminary findings from that accident indicate that the operator failed to detect the rupture in its pipeline for nearly 18 hours, resulting in the release of approximately 819,000 gallons of crude oil into the Talmadge Creek and Kalamazoo River.12 Other recent pipeline accidents, including a pair of related failures that occurred in 2010 on a crude oil pipeline in Salt Lake City, Utah, further corroborate the significance of having an adequate means for identifying leaks in all locations. These changes will ensure that immediate action is taken to remediate anomalies that present an imminent threat to the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines in all locations. Many anomalies that would not qualify as immediate repairs under the current criteria will meet that requirement as a result of the additional conservatism that will be incorporated into the burst pressure calculations. The new timeframes for performing other repairs will allow operators to remediate those conditions in a timely manner while allocating resources to those areas that present a higher risk of harm to the public, property, and the environment. Purpose: Help to mitigate the effects of hazardous liquid pipelines failures that occur outside of HCAs. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Under this option, PHMSA’s safety mission would be compromised. By not taking action on leak detection, the Agency would be unresponsive, and there would likely be 12 http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enbridge (last accessed January 13, 2012). 13#

Page 15inefficiencies and gaps in pipeline safetyInefficiencies and compromised safety would not benefit the public or the environment. Alternative 2: Change Criteria for Identifying HCAs PHMSA considered proposing to make changes to the criteria for identifying HCAs, but changing or broadening the existing Census-based approach for determining high population and other populated areas is not currently justified. The existing approach ensures uniformity and provides an adequate margin of safety by including some less densely populated areas. PHMSA recognizes that other areas of ecological, cultural, or national significance could be designated as PHMSA notes that the new safety standards that are being proposed for hazardous liquid pipelines are not located in an HCA, such as proposing to adopt other regulations that require inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, natural disasters, provides an adequate margin of safety. Also, most surface waters are already covered under the present criteria Requirement Area # 6. Modify the Provisions of Making Pipeline Repairs The Target Problem, Need, and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is to make certain modifications to the IM repair criteria and to establish similar repair criteria for pipeline segments that are not located in HCAs. Specifically, under the current proposal, the repair criteria in § 195.452(h) would be amended to:  Categorize bottom-side dents with stress risers as immediate repair conditions;  Require immediate repairs whenever the calculated burst pressure is less than 1.1 times maximum operating pressure (MOP);  Eliminate the 60-day and 180-day repair categories; and Establish a new, consolidated 270-day repair category. PHMSA is also proposing to adopt new requirements in § 195.416 that would:  Apply the criteria in the immediate repair category in § 195.452(h) to pipelines that are not subject to the integrity management requirements; and  Establish an 18-month repair category for hazardous liquid pipelines that are not subject to the integrity management requirements. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the need to ensure that immediate action is taken to remediate anomalies that present an imminent threat to the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines and environment. If adopted as proposed, these changes will ensure the prompt remediation of anomalous conditions on all hazardous liquid pipeline segments, while allowing operators to allocate their resources to those areas that present a higher risk of harm to the public, property, and the environment. 14#

Page 16Purpose: To facilitate timely repairs which will mitigate the likelihood of environmental damage and the disruption of supply to the public. Also, to improve the condition of hazardous liquid pipelines.Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Under this option, PHMSA’s safety mission would be compromised. By not action on modifying pipeline repair provisions, there would likely be inefficiencies and gaps in pipeline safety. Repairing pipelines in a timely manner is likely to reduce the risk to the environment and public. Requirement Area # 7. Require All Pipelines Subject to the IM Program be Capable of Accommodating Inline Inspection Tools The Target Problem, Need, and Purpose of the Proposed Action PHMSA’s preferred alternative is the requirement to require that all hazardous liquid pipelines in areas that could affect an HCA be made capable of accommodating ILI tools within 20 years, unless the basic construction of a pipeline will not accommodate the passage of such a device. PHMSA is proposing to establish a new provision in § 195.452(n) which would require all pipelines in areas which could affect an HCA be made capable of accommodating ILI tools within 20 years. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the ability of operators to use inline inspection tools in performing integrity assessments. This will enhance public safety and protect the environment, because modern ILI tools : (1) provide a relatively complete examination of the entire length of a pipeline, including information about threats that cannot always be identified using other assessment methods; and (2) superior information about incipient flaws (i.e., flaws that are not yet a threat to pipeline integrity, but that could become so in the future), thereby allowing these conditions to be monitored over consecutive inspections and remediated before a pipeline failure occurs. Purpose: Broadening the use of ILI tools will improve the detection of anomalies and prevent or mitigate future accidents in high-risk areas. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action If there are no changes to the current practices related to assessments, There will be gaps in basic knowledge about the condition of any given pipeline not subject to assessments. The risk from spills will not be curtailed or improved, and pipeline operator will not take 15#

Page 17advantage of the latest technology available to them to help protect the public and the environment. Historically, more anomalies leading to repairs have occurred outside of segments that could affect HCAs. Therefore, PHMSA rejected the No Action alternative for the proposal that operators who select ILI as the method for performing IM assessments be precluded from limiting data collection to covered segments. Alternative 2: Require that all Pipelines be Capable of Accommodating Inline (ILI) Inspection Tools within 10 Years PHMSA considered proposing to use the authority provided in § 60102(f)(1)(B) to further facilitate the “gradual elimination” of pipelines that are not capable of accommodating smart pigs. Specifically, That alternative would propose to modify § 195.120 to require that all hazardous pipelines be capable of accommodating smart pigs within 10 years, unless the Administrator finds under 49 C.F.R. § 190.9 that the basic construction of a pipeline cannot be modified to permit the passage of such a device. Operators would be required to comply with the other provisions in Part 195 in implementing the inline inspection requirements in § 195.416. This alternative would limit the other circumstances where a pipeline can be constructed without being able to accommodate a smart pig. Under the current provision, an operator can seek to obtain such an allowance for emergencies, construction time constraints, and other unforeseen construction problems. The Agency rejected this alternative as unfeasible. Requirement Area #8. Clarify Other Requirements Number 8.1 Enhancing the Definition of Information Analysis to Improve the Quality of Operator Evaluations The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Rule PHMSA preferred alternative is the requirement to revise § 195.452(g) with language that would specify pipeline attributes that must be analyzed and require spatial analysis of information. Paragraphs (2) and (3) currently require operators to analyze data gathered through the integrity assessment requirement or in conjunction with other inspections, tests, surveillance, and patrols required by this Part; the revisions would replace these requirements with new language which would specify 20 types of information and pipeline attributes that must be analyzed. PHMSA also proposes to add a new paragraph which would require operators to identify spatial relationships among anomalous 16#

Page 18information (e.g., corrosion coincident with foreign line crossings; evidence of pipeline damage where aerial photography shows evidence of encroachment). The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the ability to information from several pieces of data which is often more informative than separate analyses of the individual pieces. While operators have been collecting significant amounts of information, inspection experience indicates that integrated analysis of that data has been inadequate. Purpose: Alleviate PHMSA’s concern that a major benefit to pipeline safety intended in the initial rule is not being realized because of inadequate information analyses. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1. No Action Leaving the current language in place was rejected because data integration is a key element of the Integrity Management Rule. Alternative 2. Integrated Data Elements This alternative would have listed the data elements that have to be integrated but also would have dictated how operators would have to integrate those listed data elements. PHMSA rejected this alternative because it was felt that it might unduly interfere with some management decisions (for example, how companies choose to manage their spatial data). This alternative would have specified that all information be included on a single drawing of specified size and scale (among other requirements), which would have required companies using a modern geographical information system (GIS) to keep information on a hard copy drawing solely to meet a regulatory requirement. Instead, PHMSA chose an intermediate approach, which was much more specific about the minimum attributes that operators must consider in data integration and explicitly required that spatial relationships be considered but did not prescribe the methods for doing so. Requirements Number 8. 2 Periodic Verification of the Identification of Covered Segments The Target Problem, Need and Purpose of the Rule PHMSA’s preferred alternative is to require operators to verify their segment identification annually by determining whether factors considered in their analysis has changed. This would not require that operators re-perform their segment analyses. Instead, operators would be required to identify the factors considered in their original analyses and determine whether those factors have changed. If so, operators would be required to evaluate whether the change would be likely to significantly affect the results of the original identification of covered segments. If so, the operator would be required to perform a new analysis to validate or change the endpoints of the identified covered segments affected by the change. 17#

Page 19PHMSA proposes to revise § 195.452(c)(1) to require an operator to assess the integrity of the pipe using an internal inspection tool, or tools, whenever the pipe can accommodate passage of such tools. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the fact that there is currently no explicit requirement that operators assure that their identification of covered segments remains current. As time goes on, the likelihood increases that factors considered in the original identification of covered segments may change. PHMSA considers that it is appropriate that operators periodically re-visit their initial analyses to determine whether they need to be updated. Purpose: Make plans current and reflect changes in pipelines, including, the presence of populated areas near the pipeline (new HCAs), presence of drinking water inlets, topography, product transported, hydraulic profile, and response capabilities considered in the operator’s analysis. Construction activities or erosion near the pipeline could change local topography in a way that could cause product released in an accident to travel further than initially analyzed. Changes in agricultural land use could affect an operator’s analysis of the distance released product could be expected to travel. Changes in the deployment of emergency response personnel could increase the time required to respond to a release. This could also result in a larger area being affected by a potential release if the original segment identification included reliance on emergency response to limit the transport of released product. Requirement Number 8.3. Clarification of IM Requirements for Non- Pipe Facilities PHMSA’s preferred alternative is t to add a new sub-paragraph (4) to § 195.452(b) stipulating compliance deadlines for non-pipe facility IM. Unlike integrity assessments for line pipe, § 195.452 does not include explicit deadlines for completing analysis of other facilities within the definition of “pipeline” or for implementing actions in response to those analyses. Through IM inspections, PHMSA has learned that some operators have not completed assessments that could affect analyses of their non-pipe facilities and have not implemented appropriate protective and mitigative measures. PHMSA is proposing to make more explicit the applicability of IM to portions of “pipelines” other than line pipe. The need for PHMSA’s action is based on the fact that Section 195.452(b) requires that operators identify each segment of their pipeline that could affect an HCA in the event of a release. These segments, referred to as covered segments, are the principal focus of IM requirements. The regulations also address what an operator must do if an HCA is newly- identified (§ 195.452(d)(3)), including incorporating the new area into its baseline assessment plan and completing an assessment within 5 years. 18#

Page 20Purpose: Reflect changes in pipeline, including the presence of populated areas near the pipeline (new HCAs), presence of drinking water inlets, topography, product transported, hydraulic profile, and response capabilities considered in the operator’s analysis. Construction activities or erosion near the pipeline could change local topography in a way that could cause product released in an accident to travel further than initially analyzed. Changes in agricultural land use could affect an operator’s analysis of the distance released product could be expected to travel. Changes in the deployment of emergency response personnel could increase the time required to respond to a release. This could also result in a larger area being affected by a potential release if the original segment identification included reliance on emergency response to limit the transport of released product. Alternatives Considered and Rejected Alternative 1: No Action Should PHMSA leave the IM plan requirements unchanged, there will remain the uncertainty that segments of pipelines which could affect HCAs have undergone change. Non-pipe facilities are already subject to IM plans, and not taking the proposed action of specifying compliance dates allows operators which have not fully complied with the original IM rule to continue to delay doing so. With respect to validation, no action could mean that areas that should be afforded additional protection (i.e., that meet criteria as an HCA) do not receive it. The risks associated with this alternative are the continuance of incidents that could have been avoided with more thorough IM plans. 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE RULE PHMSA is responsible for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines located throughout the United States, which traverse a of variety of environments – from highly populated urban sites to remote, unpopulated rural areas. This EA focus only on those resource categories that are potentially impacted by the alternatives, those that are of interest to the public, and/or important to the decision. The resource categories to be analyzed in this EA are: physical environment, public health and safety, hazardous materials transportation, and socioeconomics. Physical Environment The physical environment potentially affected by the proposed rule includes the airspace, water resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes), cultural and historical resources (e.g., properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological resources (e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and their habitat, forests, grasslands, offshore marine ecosystems), and special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their habitat, national and state parklands, biological reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly adjacent to and within the vicinity of pipelines. 19#

Page 21Because the pipelines subject to the proposed rule contain hazardous materials, these resources within the physical affected environment, as well as public health and safety, may be affected by hazardous liquid pipeline accidents such as spills and leaks. Accidents on pipelines can result in fires and explosions, with resulting damage to the local environment. The physical environment potentially affected by the action includes: the airspace, water resources (e.g., streams, lakes), cultural and historical properties (e.g., properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological resources (e.g., wetlands, plant and animal species and their habitats, forests, grasslands), and special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and animal species and their habitat, National and State parklands, biological reserves, and Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly adjacent to, and in the vicinity of the pipelines. Figure 1 depicts the national pipeline system. No construction is planned for this action. These areas have therefore been dismissed from detailed analysis. Public Health and Safety 20#

Page 22PHMSA’s primary mission is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries from pipeline accidents and incidents. The mission of PHMSA is to administer programs to reduce the risk to people, property, and the environment from the transportation of hazardous materials by pipeline and other modes of transportation. Within PHMSA, the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has been tasked to carry out a national program to ensure the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the Nation’s pipeline transportation system. This program is detailed in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190 – 199) which are available online at the following URL: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. These regulations are the framework for all states that partner with PHMSA to enforce pipeline safety requirements.13 Thus the rules and actions taken by PHMSA primarily involve regulations which achieve this goal Hazardous Materials Transportation No changes to the pipeline regulations or the pipelines themselves would occur under the no action alternative. Therefore, no changes in impacts to hazardous materials transportation would result. As previously stated, the proposed operation and maintenance requirements are expected to produce beneficial impacts by reducing the number of accidents related to the transportation of hazardous liquids. In addition to a potential reduction in accidents, the proposed action is expected to also result in increased pipeline efficiency, reduced remediation, increased environmental safety because there will be fewer releases of hazardous liquids into the physical environment. Together, these consequences are expected to result in beneficial impacts to hazardous materials transportation. Socioeconomics Different proposed requirements affect a different set of operators and different mileage segments are also affected by different parts of the proposal. Some of the requirements are directed only to pipelines in HCAs and others are directed only to pipelines outside of HCAs. Some requirements incorporate only onshore pipelines and others refer to offshore also. Table 2 shows the estimated number of entities, hazardous liquid pipeline miles affected, and segments affected by the 8 proposed requirements. Table 2. Estimates of Entities and Pipelines Affected by the NPRM by Proposed Requirement Area Requirement Area Entities Pipeline Segments Affected Affected Number of Operators Estimate of Pipeline Miles Affected Onshore Offshore 13 http://opsweb.phmsa.dot.gov/pipelineforum/dot-action/regulatory-guidance/. 21#

Page 231. Extend the reporting requirement for gravity lines 5 NA √ 2. Extend the reporting requirements to all gathering lines 23 NA √ 3. Require inspections of pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar events 351 182,420 √ √ 4. Require periodic assessments of pipelines that are not already covered under the integrity management program requirements 351 99,407 √ √ 5. Require leak detection systems on pipelines in all locations. 18 NA √ √ 7. Modify the provisions for performing pipeline repairs 351 182,420 √ √ 7. Require that all pipelines subject to the integrity management requirements be capable of accommodating inline inspection tools within 20 years, unless the basic construction of a pipeline cannot be modified to permit that accommodation 351 6,280 √ √ 8. Clarify other requirements 351 182,420 √ √ PHMSA expects the proposed requirements to have beneficial impacts on community health and resources:  Although gravity lines are believed to be the source of a minimal percentage of spills, regulating gravity lines (and other rural onshore gathering lines) will help prevent dangerous contaminants from endangering pipeline workers and the public.  Amending the requirements for performing non-IM repairs by: Applying the criteria in the immediate repair category in § 195.452(h) and Establishing an 18- month repair category for hazardous liquid pipelines that are not subject to the integrity management requirements, will ensure that immediate action is taken to remediate anomalies that present an imminent threat to the integrity of hazardous liquid pipelines in all locations. The new timeframes for performing non- immediate repairs will also allow operators to remediate those conditions in a 22#

Page 24timely manner while allocating resources to those areas that present a higher risk of harm to the public, property, and the environment. Also, scheduling flexibility would minimize disruption to the affected public as well as overall environmental impact by preventing multiple excavation work on a given property,  Evaluating and modifying the capability of leak detection system will protect the public, property, and the environment by reducing releases of hazardous liquids into the physical environment.  Expanding the ability of operators to use of in-line inspection tools in performing integrity assessments will further promote public safety and the protection of the environment in these high-risk areas by detecting potential leaks that can be avoided so that hazardous liquids are not released into the environment.. Unaffected Areas The following areas are not expected to be significantly impacted under any of the alternatives set forth in this proposed rule. Section 4(f) Compliance: Section 4(f) of the DOT Act (49 U.S.C. 303) requires agencies within DOT to make a special effort to preserve the natural beauty of historic sites, public parks, and recreation lands. If a transportation program, project, or activity requires the use of public land in a public park, it must include all possible planning to minimize harm to the park or historic area. PHMSA does not expect such 4(f) properties to be impacted and consequently, no 4(f) statement needs to be prepared for this rulemaking. Endangered Species: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. §1531) requires all Federal departments and agencies to seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species. The Endangered Species Act defines a threatened species as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Critical habitat for an endangered or a threatened species is defined as specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed that contain the physical or biological features essential to conservation of the species and that might require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat also includes specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed that are essential to conservation of the species. This rulemaking is not expected to impact endangered species. Archaeological, Cultural, and Historic Resources: The National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470f and 470h-2(a)) establishes a national policy to preserve, restore, and maintain historic and cultural resources. The Act establishes the National Register of Historic Places as the mechanism to designate public or privately owned properties for protection. Section 106 (36 CFR 800) of the Act requires Federal agencies to “take into account” the effect of a project on any property included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Section 106 prescribes the following for consideration of historic 23#

Page 25properties under NEPA: early coordination, inclusion of historic preservation issues, and actions categorically excluded under NEPA. This rulemaking is not expected to affect any archaeological, cultural, or historic resources. Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961, 1977) entitled, “Protection of Wetlands,” requires Federal agencies to provide leadership on and work toward minimizing the destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands. The Order also requires agencies to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands while discharging their responsibilities for acquiring, managing, using, and disposing of Federal lands. This rulemaking is not expected to affect wetlands. Environmental Justice: PHMSA evaluated the environmental effects of this rule in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and preliminarily determined that there are no environmental justice issues associated with its proposed regulatory provisions nor any collective environmental impacts that could result from its promulgation. Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were ‘‘disproportionate’’ and ‘‘high and adverse impact’’ on minority or low-income populations. The Agency now determines that none of the alternatives analyzed in the EA, discussed under NEPA, would result in disproportionate or high and adverse environmental impacts. Noise: The PHMSA does not expect any significant impact on noise levels from this rulemaking. Clean Air Act Requirements: In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air quality, we have also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended by section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA’s general conformity requirement since it would not result in any potential increase in emissions that are above the general conformity rule’s de minimis emission threshold levels (40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)). 1.8. CONCLUSION If the pipeline industry complies with the proposed rule, PHMSA expects that the actions will lead to reduced adverse impacts on the physical environment and fewer possibilities for environmental degradation. Below is an area by area summary of the expected environmental and public benefits from the NPRM. Area (1) Extend the reporting requirement for gravity lines Better understanding of gravity line safety issues 24#

Page 26Equal treatment for all pipelines operating at low pressure and short distances Improved Overall Pipeline Operations - prevents or reduces the release of hazardous liquids from gravity lines Area (2) Extend the reporting requirements to all hazardous liquid gathering lines More complete data for risk analysis Area (3) Require inspections of areas affected by extreme weather, man-made and natural disasters, and other similar events Increased safety Less potential for unintentional releases Area (4) Require periodic assessments of all hazardous liquid pipelines not covered by the IM program Reduced over-calls; reduced false-positives Needed repairs will not be overlooked Reduced environmental damages Area (5) Requiring leak detection systems on hazardous liquid pipelines in all locations. Improved spill mitigation Area (6) Modify provisions of pipeline repairs More timely repairs, resulting in less unintentional releases Area (7) Requiring that all pipelines subject to IM requirements be capable of accommodating ILI tools Fewer incidents and less damage in HCA Greater awareness of risk in HCAs Area (8) Clarify other requirements. Revising IM Fewer incidents and less damage in non-covered segments Greater awareness of risk in non-HCA areas 1.9 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS This EA was prepared by Econometrica, Inc. staff and reviewed by PHMSA program staff and the Environmental Specialists within PHMSA. Prepared by: Warren Prunella, Vice-president, Econometrica Inc. Priscila Jimenez Prunella, Senior Economist, Econometrica Inc. 25#

Page 27Alex Thackeray, Economist, Econometrica, Inc. Reviewed by: Elizabeth Kennett, Environmental Protection Specialist, PHMSA Sherri Pappas, Deputy Chief Counsel, office of Chief Counsel, PHMSA 2.0 SOURCE DOCUMENTS National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Policies and Guidance. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/. Pipeline Safety of Onshore Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No PHMSA 2010-0229. Pipeline Safety of Onshore Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No PHMSA 2010-0229. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Several Documents: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/PipelineBasics.htm; http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/iim/perfmeasures.htm; http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/AllPSIDet_1992_2011_US.html?nocac he=3805#_liquidon; http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSIDet_1991_2010_US.html?nocac he=6578#_liquidon; http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/House%20T&I%20Int egrity%20Management%20on%20Haz%20Liq%20Pipes_July%2015%202010.pdf; http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/S10-080623-002- Signed.pdf. http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c /?vgnextoid=e875afe58ddcd210VgnVCM1000001ecb7898RCRD&vgnextchannel=f351 d95c4d037110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCRD&vgnextfmt=print. PHMSA Preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment, Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0229, RIN 2137-AE66 26#