[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25576-25588]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10778]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket PHMSA-2008-0186; Amdt. 195-96]
RIN 2137-AE36

Pipeline Safety: Applying Safety Regulations to All Rural Onshore
Hazardous Liquid Low-Stress Lines

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending its pipeline safety regulations to apply
safety regulation to rural low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines that
were not covered previously by safety regulations. This change complies
with a mandate in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and
Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act).

DATES: This final rule takes effect October 1, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical contents of the final
rule contact Mike Israni by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For all other information contact Tewabe Asebe by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Until 2008, a hazardous liquid pipeline operating at low-stress in
a rural area was not regulated under Federal pipeline safety
regulations in 49 CFR part 195 unless it crossed a commercially
navigable waterway. Section 195.2 defines a ``rural area'' as one
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.
    The PIPES Act was signed into law on December 29, 2006, (Pub. L.
109-468). Section four of the PIPES Act (codified at 49 U.S.C.
60102(k)) required PHMSA to ``issue regulations subjecting low-stress
hazardous liquid pipelines to the same standards and regulations as
other hazardous liquid pipelines.'' The PIPES Act also stated that the
new regulations could be issued in phases.

Implementation of the PIPES Act Mandate

    PHMSA decided to implement the PIPES Act mandate in phases, in part
because PHMSA did not have complete data on the extent of rural low-
stress pipelines that would be covered by the statutory mandate. Phase
one, through a final rule published on June 3, 2008, (73 FR 31634),
applied full Part 195 regulation to higher-risk, larger-diameter rural
low-stress pipelines (i.e., those low-stress pipelines with a diameter
of 8 \5/8\ inches or greater located in or within one-half mile of an
unusually sensitive area (USA)). (These requirements are in 49 CFR
195.12.) These are the rural low-stress pipelines that have more
potential to cause harm to USAs. These were also the rural low-stress
pipelines on which PHMSA had the most information to prepare a
regulatory cost/benefit evaluation. PHMSA planned to regulate all
remaining rural low-stress pipelines (i.e., smaller-diameter--less than
8 \5/8\ inches diameter--rural low-stress pipelines located in or
within one-half mile of a USA and all rural low-stress pipelines, of
any diameter, located outside the one-half mile USA buffer) once PHMSA
had more complete information on the extent of these unregulated rural
low-stress pipelines. Phase one also applied reporting requirements in
Subpart B of Part 195 to all rural low-stress pipelines (Sec.  195.48).
This data was necessary for PHMSA to complete the regulatory evaluation
for the extension of all safety requirements to the remaining rural
low-stress pipelines in phase two.

Surveys

    Because PHMSA did not have adequate information on the number of
operators with rural low-stress pipelines, or on the total mileage of
these lines in service, we initiated the following actions:
    (1) We revised the Pipeline Safety Regulations to require operators
of any low-stress line (including those rural low-stress lines not
brought under safety regulations) to comply with the annual reporting
requirements and the incident reporting requirements of Part 195. This
was part of phase one, as discussed above.
    (2) On July 31, 2008, (73 FR 44800) OMB Control Number 2137-0623,
PHMSA published in the Federal Register a notice of OMB-approved survey
asking each operator of a rural low-stress hazardous liquid pipeline
for voluntary information concerning the mileage and characteristics of
these pipelines to assess the costs of subjecting rural low-stress
pipeline mileage to Part 195 regulation.
    (3) Based on the information received in response to the notice,
PHMSA conducted two follow-up inquiries: (1) A request for information
from operators who operate rural low-stress lines to determine the
potential operating costs they were likely to incur to bring these
unregulated lines into compliance with Part 195 regulation; and (2) a
request to states with the majority of rural low-stress lines to
identify any incident data the state may have collected through the
years.

Phase Two--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    With the information PHMSA gathered, we moved to phase two to
complete the requirement of the PIPES Act and to apply Part 195 safety
requirements to all rural low-stress pipelines not included in the
phase one rule. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published in
the Federal Register on June 22, 2010, (75 FR 35366) that proposed to
extend Part 195 safety requirements to rural low-stress pipelines of
any diameter located more than one-half mile from a USA and those less
than 8\5/8\ inches in diameter located in or within one-half mile of a
USA.
    The phase one rule established compliance deadlines for the rural
low-stress pipelines that it addressed. The phase two NPRM proposed no
changes to these phase one deadlines, but proposed new compliance
deadlines to apply the requirements to the phase two rural low-stress
pipelines proposed for regulation. In addition, PHMSA proposed to
define the scope of the ``could affect'' buffer for application of the
integrity management (IM) requirements in Sec.  195.452 to the phase
two pipelines. To codify the compliance dates and requirements, we
proposed to define three ``categories'' of rural low-stress pipelines
subject to the requirements of Sec.  195.12. These were as follows:
     Category 1: Those rural low-stress pipelines that were
covered under the phase one rule;
     Category 2: Rural low-stress pipelines of smaller diameter
(less than 8\5/8\ inches diameter) located in or within one-half mile
of a USA (which would be subject to all Part 195 requirements including
IM requirements); and
     Category 3: All other rural low-stress pipelines that were
not included in phase one. Category 3 lines would fall outside the
defined ``could affect'' buffer for application of IM requirements.

Integrity Management

    Section 195.452 addresses IM requirements for hazardous liquid
pipelines. Under the requirements of that section, operators must take
additional actions for each pipeline segment that could affect a high
consequence area (HCA). PHMSA has defined HCAs as populated areas,
commercially navigable waterways and USAs. HCAs are identified and
displayed on maps available from the NPMS.
    To comply with IM requirements, pipeline operators must first
determine which segments of their pipeline could affect an HCA. To do
this, an operator needs to compare its pipeline's location to the
locations of HCAs and determine which segments of the pipeline could
affect an HCA if there was a product release from the segment. These
comparisons have proven to be considerably more burdensome in practice
than PHMSA believed when IM rules were initially established. They
involve more than just comparison of maps of pipeline location to maps
of HCAs. Operators have had to consider the topography and nature of
ground cover around their pipelines to estimate the direction and
distance that released product might flow. Operators have also had to
consider the potential transport of released product via nearby
waterways, including such factors as seasonal variations in flow, the
effect of stream turbulence, and their ability to respond to a release
and contain further transport of spilled product.
    During the phase one rulemaking for rural low-stress pipelines,
PHMSA

concluded it would be unnecessarily burdensome to require operators of
these pipelines to perform a complete ``could affect'' analysis to
determine which rural low-stress pipeline segments would be subject to
IM requirements. Rather, PHMSA adopted a one-half mile buffer around
USAs \1\ as the ``could affect'' area (i.e., any rural low-stress
pipeline segment covered by the phase one rule within the one-half mile
buffer would be subject to IM requirements). PHMSA found it unlikely a
``could affect'' analysis on a rural low-stress pipeline would result
in a larger area than the one-half mile buffer for application of IM
requirements. Available data showed that the largest spill on land from
a low-stress line covered two acres. An acre is 43,560 square feet. If
this spill had been limited to a corridor 35 feet wide over its entire
length, it still would not have traveled one-half mile. This data,
coupled with the relatively lower pressure of low-stress pipelines, led
PHMSA to conclude that a one-half mile buffer was more than adequate
for application of IM requirements. In the NPRM, PHMSA proposed to
continue to use the one-half mile buffer for phase two because PHMSA
believed it would be an adequate ``could affect'' area that identifies
the vast majority (if not all) of rural low-stress pipelines that could
affect a USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The other component of HCAs (i.e., populated areas) was not
affected by the phase one rulemaking and was not included in the
phase two NPRM since pipelines in populated areas are not, by
definition, in ``rural areas'' and are already regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in phase one, PHMSA also proposed to include an option for
pipeline operators to use ``could affect'' analyses in lieu of the one-
half mile buffer to determine which of their smaller-diameter low-
stress pipelines would be subject to IM requirements. PHMSA recognized
that operators could use this option in circumstances where it is
likely the ``could affect'' analysis would determine that a pipeline
segment cannot affect a USA (e.g., where the USA is uphill from the
pipeline). Nevertheless, PHMSA concluded it would be unreasonable to
exclude this option for rural low-stress pipelines since it can
identify instances in which application of IM requirements would be
unnecessary.

Economic Burden

    The phase one rule allowed operators of pipelines meeting specified
criteria to notify PHMSA if they would incur an excessive economic
burden in complying with IM assessment requirements. The criteria were
designed for rural pipelines that carry oil from a production facility
(e.g., well) and where the pipeline would be abandoned or shut down as
a result of the economic burden associated with IM assessments. The
phase one rule provided that PHMSA would stay compliance with the IM
assessment requirements while it reviews the notification. Based on the
outcome of the review, PHMSA may grant the operator a special permit
imposing alternative safety requirements in lieu of IM assessments.
    For phase two, PHMSA considered extending the economic compliance
burden provision to Category 2 pipelines--those smaller diameter rural
low-stress pipelines located in or within one-half mile of a USA that
would be subject to IM assessment requirements. (Category 3 low-stress
pipelines would not be subject to the IM requirements under the NPRM,
as described above). PHMSA concluded that this was not necessary
because no Category 2 low-stress pipeline would meet the criteria in
the economic burden compliance provision (Sec.  195.12(c)) and concerns
about preserving oil production or minimizing risk of alternative
transport of crude oil from wells would not apply to these pipelines.
Accordingly, we did not propose to extend the economic burden
compliance provision to these pipelines in the NPRM.

Pipelines Subject to USCG Regulation

    Section 195.1(b)(3) states that Part 195 requirements do not apply
to pipelines subject to safety regulations of the United States Coast
Guard (USCG). The NPRM noted that this exception had previously applied
only to low-stress pipelines subject to USCG regulation and through a
drafting error in the phase one final rule, was inadvertently expanded
to all pipelines subject to USCG requirements. PHMSA proposed to
correct this error.

Public Comments

    PHMSA received comments from three trade associations (two of which
filed joint comments), one government agency (National Transportation
Safety Board, NTSB), one pipeline consultant, and one individual. None
of the comments objected to the changes proposed in the NPRM. The
American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Association of Oil Pipelines
(AOPL), in joint comments, explicitly noted that they did not oppose
application of the baseline requirements of Part 195 to all low-stress
pipelines and a requirement that rural low-stress pipelines within one-
half mile of a USA also be subject to the IM requirements of Part 195.
NTSB supported regulating all low-stress pipelines with requirements
graded according to risk. All those commenting suggested some changes,
however.
    Several comments addressed the scope of the proposed rule. API-AOPL
requested that PHMSA clarify that the proposed rule did not apply to
gathering or production pipelines or to pipelines excluded from
regulation in Sec.  195.1(b). The Independent Petroleum Association of
America similarly requested clarification that the proposed
requirements do not apply to gathering pipelines. NTSB suggested that
the change should include all rural gathering lines and gathering lines
in inlets of the Gulf of Mexico. Tracy S. Dahl, who commented on behalf
of herself, suggested that the scope should include low-stress gas
pipelines such as those associated with coal bed methane gas
production.
    With the exception of correcting a drafting error associated with
low-stress pipelines subject to regulation by the USCG (discussed
above), the NPRM proposed no changes to the exclusions listed in Sec.
195.1(b). This section lists the types of pipelines excluded from the
requirements of Part 195. The NPRM did not propose any new requirements
for gathering pipelines, and thus no requirements applicable to those
pipelines may be included in this final rule. Regulation of rural
gathering pipelines is governed by Sec.  195.11, which is not affected
by this rulemaking. Further, PHMSA notes that Section 4 of the PIPES
Act explicitly states, ``[t]he regulations issued under this paragraph
shall not apply to gathering lines.'' \2\ Gas pipelines were not
included in the scope of the NPRM and thus no new requirements can be
applied to gas pipelines as part of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 60102(k)(1), as amended by PIPES Act Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API-AOPL specifically requested that PHMSA clarify the exclusion in
paragraph (4) of Sec.  195.1(b) applying to ``[a] low-stress pipeline
that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck, rail, or vessel terminal
facilities, if the pipeline is less than one mile long (measured
outside facility grounds) and does not cross an offshore area or a
waterway currently used for commercial navigation.'' API-AOPL noted
that PHMSA field personnel have recently informed certain pipeline
operators that these segments are part of a larger, non-low-stress
pipeline and are thus subject to Part 195, which the associations
believe is contrary to the plain language of the regulation. As noted
above, the exclusions of Sec.  195.1(b) are not changed

by this rulemaking, and low-stress inter-facility pipelines meeting
these criteria are excluded from regulation under Part 195. However,
PHMSA notes that Sec.  195.2 and the PIPES Act both define a low-stress
hazardous liquid pipeline to be one ``that is operated in its entirety
at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield
strength of the line pipe'' (emphasis added). Inter-facility pipelines
operating at less than 20% SMYS that is part of a larger pipeline
(i.e., some of which operates at higher stress levels) would not fall
under this exclusion. Such inter-facility pipelines would be subject to
Part 195. Determining whether particular inter-facility piping is part
of a larger pipeline depends on the characteristics of individual
installations and the applicability of Part 195 requirements to
specific inter-facility lines.
    API-AOPL objected to the proposed change to the exception in Sec.
195.1(b)(3) for pipelines subject to regulation by the USCG. API-AOPL
contended that this was not an error because the change was included in
the phase one NPRM and final rule, had been subject to notice and
comment and thus cannot simply be ``corrected.'' PHMSA disagrees. The
entire rulemaking record clearly demonstrates that this was an error in
the regulatory language in the phase one rule. API-AOPL is correct that
the re-write of the regulatory language of Sec.  195.1(b) in the phase
one NPRM failed to limit this exception to low-stress pipelines and
that this omission was repeated in the regulatory language in the final
phase one rule. The remainder of the record makes it clear, however,
that this change was not intended. The NPRM for the phase one rule
stated that PHMSA had

    * * * also clarified the language in several of the exceptions
from part 195's coverage. We have not changed the intent or scope of
any of these. We have simply cleaned up some of the language to make
the exceptions easier to read \3\ (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Federal Register, September 6, 2006, 71 FR 52511.

    The NPRM stated elsewhere that, ``[t]his proposal will not affect
other exempt low-stress lines, specifically pipelines subject to the
safety regulations of the USCG * * *'' \4\ (emphasis added). The
exception applicable to lines subject to USCG regulation prior to the
effective date of the phase one final rule clearly applied only to low-
stress pipelines. Further, the PIPES Act required that PHMSA continue
to except from part 195 those ``low-stress hazardous liquid pipelines''
that were subject to USCG safety regulations. Therefore, PHMSA
concludes that the record demonstrates the regulatory language in the
phase one final rule concerning the exemption for low-stress pipelines
subject to USCG regulation was an inadvertent error and that error has
been corrected in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Federal Register, September 6, 2006, 71 FR 52505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API-AOPL and the Independent Petroleum Association of America
suggested that PHMSA exclude low-stress carbon dioxide (CO2)
pipelines involved in enhanced oil recovery and/or carbon capture and
storage. The associations noted that these pipelines pose different
risks from petroleum pipelines, that releases from low-stress
CO2 pipelines would not require the cleanup that would be
associated with releases from crude oil or refined petroleum product
pipelines, and that new requirements on CO2 lines could have
a chilling effect on future investment in such pipelines. PHMSA notes
that these factors were not raised in comments on the phase one rule
even though the phase one rule applies to rural low-stress
CO2 pipelines. PHMSA never proposed such an exclusion and
also considers it inappropriate to exclude some rural low-stress
CO2 pipelines from safety regulation while regulating others
(i.e., those subject to the phase one final rule), and has not
incorporated the suggested exclusion in this final rule.
    API-AOPL also objected to the proposed requirement that a pipeline
segment subject to IM requirements must remain subject to those
requirements if subsequent changes to USA boundaries result in it being
more than one-half mile from a USA. They contended this requirement is
inappropriate and unsupported. They stated:

    ``[i]f future analyses demonstrate that a segment could affect a
USA that it previously could not affect, an operator is
appropriately required to apply IMP requirements to that segment.
Likewise, if a segment no longer could affect a USA, it is only
equitable that an operator need not apply the additional protection
of such plans to the segment.''

    PHMSA would agree if the operator of a rural low-stress pipeline
were, indeed, required to analyze its pipelines to determine which
segments could affect a USA. They are not. This final rule uses a one-
half mile buffer as a surrogate for these expensive and complex
analyses, as did the phase one rule. While PHMSA considers this a
reasonable surrogate, it is possible, though unlikely, that a pipeline
segment slightly less than one-half mile from a USA could not affect
that USA and it is similarly possible that a pipeline segment slightly
more than one-half mile distant could affect a USA. Thus, eliminating
IM requirements that already apply solely because the distance to a USA
has increased above one-half mile is not appropriate. Operators always
have the option to perform an analysis to demonstrate that any pipeline
segment could not affect a USA, in which case IM requirements need not
apply regardless of the distance from a USA. Operators who experience a
change in USA boundaries could exercise this option to remove a
pipeline segment from IM scope. If the change in USA boundaries is
significant (e.g., the USA ceases to exist), demonstrating that a
segment could not affect a USA could be a simple analysis. PHMSA has
retained in this final rule the requirement that a pipeline segment
determined to be subject to IM requirements due to proximity to a USA
must remain subject to those requirements if boundary changes result in
more than one-half mile separation, absent a demonstration that the
segment could not affect a USA.
    Thomas Lael Services, L.P., a pipeline consultant, suggested
changes to the regulatory language to improve clarity. Specifically,
Lael suggested that proposed Sec. Sec.  195.12(c)(2)(i) and
195.12(c)(3)(i) be modified to refer specifically to the criteria
defining the pipeline segments for which identification is required.
PHMSA agrees that this change would improve the clarity of the
regulatory language and has revised the final rule accordingly.
    Lael also suggested that the provision allowing the operator of a
Category 1 rural low-stress pipeline to notify PHMSA of undue economic
burden should be extended to operators of Category 2 rural low-stress
pipelines. Lael noted that revenue is less for these smaller-diameter
pipelines while costs are the same, increasing the importance of
considering economic burden. Lael cites costs associated with
patrolling the pipeline and performing pipe-to-soil potential readings
as examples. These requirements, however, are outside the scope of the
economic burden provision. That provision allows an operator of a
Category 1 rural low-stress pipeline to notify PHMSA if the economic
burden of complying with IM assessment requirements, not other
provisions as cited by Lael, would be sufficient to cause the operator
to shut down its pipeline. The provision is applicable only to
pipelines carrying crude oil from a production facility (among other
criteria). Pipelines of 8\5/8\ inches or less nominal outside
diameter--the size that would

categorize a rural low-stress pipeline as Category 2--and that carry
crude oil from a production facility are, by definition, gathering
pipelines. Gathering pipelines, as noted above, are not subject to the
provisions of Sec.  195.12 and are not subject to IM requirements.
Thus, PHMSA concludes that no change to the economic burden provision
is needed.
    Lael also suggested that the time allowed for operators to identify
Category 2 and 3 rural low-stress pipelines be extended to 12 months
from the proposed nine months. Lael noted that this would correct an
apparent inconsistency with discussion in the NPRM preamble noting the
proposed timeframes were the same as those required in phase one;
therefore, 12-month timeframes were being proposed for operators of
Category 2 and 3 rural low-stress pipelines in instances where 12
months was required of operators of Category 1 rural low-stress
pipelines. There is no inconsistency. The NPRM preamble discussion
cited by Lael clearly uses 12 months only as an example. The phase one
rule required operators of Category 1 rural low-stress pipelines to
identify pipeline segments meeting the criteria in the rule before nine
months after the effective date of the phase 1 rule. Nine months is
also required for Category 2 and 3 rural low-stress pipelines in this
final rule, thus affording the consistency discussed in the NPRM.
    Lael also questioned the logic of a statement in the phase two NPRM
that available data showed that the largest spill on land from a low-
stress pipeline traveled two acres and that this justified a one-half
mile buffer as a surrogate for analyses of whether a pipeline segment
could affect a USA. Lael noted that an acre is a measure of area rather
than a measure of distance. PHMSA agrees that the NPRM statement was
unclear about the assumptions we used to conclude that this data
demonstrated a one-half mile buffer was adequate. PHMSA considered that
a spill covering two acres would need to be limited to 35 feet in width
over its entire length if it were to extend one-half mile from the
pipeline. We concluded that it was unlikely that a spill would behave
in this manner and that based on the data we could conclude that a one-
half mile buffer was adequate. PHMSA has revised the discussion in the
preamble of this final rule to better explain its reasoning.
    API-AOPL raised a number of concerns regarding the draft regulatory
analysis and regulatory flexibility (i.e., small business) analysis
supporting the NPRM. These included use of data from parent companies
rather than distinct operating subsidiaries in determining whether
small businesses could be affected and use of inappropriate data to
estimate costs. These comments have been addressed in the final
regulatory analysis that is included in the rulemaking docket.
    Finally, NTSB suggested that PHMSA should be given sole
jurisdiction over offshore pipelines on the outer continental shelf.
NTSB noted, in making this suggestion, that regulation of offshore
pipelines was outside the scope of this NPRM. PHMSA agrees that changes
in PHMSA jurisdiction over offshore pipelines are beyond the scope of
this proceeding.

Consideration by Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards
Committee

    On December 3, 2010, PHMSA discussed the proposed rule with the
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(THLPSSC). The THLPSSC is a statutorily mandated advisory committee
that advises PHMSA about the technical feasibility, reasonableness and
cost-effectiveness of its proposed regulations. PHMSA discussed the
comments received in response to the NPRM (e.g., concerns over effect
on pipelines excluded from regulation and on rural gathering
pipelines). These comments have been previously discussed in this
document.
    After careful consideration, the THLPSSC voted unanimously to find
the NPRM and supporting regulatory evaluation technically feasible,
reasonable, practicable, and cost effective. A transcript of the
meeting is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Final Rule

    This final rule revises 49 CFR part 195 to cover: (1) Rural onshore
low-stress pipelines with a diameter smaller than 8\5/8\ inches located
in or within one-half mile of a USA and (2) rural onshore low-stress
pipelines of any diameter located more than one-half mile from a USA.
With the publication of this final rule, and with limited exceptions,
all low-stress pipelines regardless of location or size are now subject
to the pipeline safety regulations. The final rule continues in place
the one-half mile buffer to be used as the ``could affect'' area for
application of IM requirements.
    Our phased approach resulted in several distinct groups of rural
low-stress pipelines:
     Rural low-stress pipelines that cross navigable waterways.
These have historically been subject to the safety requirements of Part
195. These pipelines were not affected by phase one and are not
affected by this rulemaking.
     Rural low-stress pipelines 8\5/8\ inches or greater in
diameter that are located in or within one-half mile of a USA. The
requirements of Part 195 were made applicable to these rural pipelines
in the phase one rule.
     Rural low-stress pipelines less than 8\5/8\ inches in
diameter that are located in or within one-half mile of a USA. These
pipelines are made subject to the safety requirements of Part 195,
including the IM requirements in Sec.  195.452, by this final rule.
     Rural low-stress pipelines of any diameter that are
located more than one-half mile from a USA. These pipelines are also
made subject to the safety requirements of Part 195, excluding the IM
requirements in Sec.  195.452, by this final rule.
    The phase one rule established a number of compliance deadlines for
the rural pipelines it addressed, now referred to as Category 1 rural
low-stress pipelines. These deadlines varied from relatively near term
(e.g., identifying all pipeline segments subject to the phase one rule
by April 3, 2009) to long term (e.g., completing baseline IM
assessments by July 3, 2015). This final rule retains the compliance
deadlines established in phase one for Category 1 rural low-stress
pipelines. This rule subjects Category 2 rural low-stress pipelines to
the same Part 195 requirements as those made applicable to Category 1
pipelines in phase one but with different compliance deadlines.
Finally, this rule applies all requirements of Part 195 to Category 3
rural low-stress pipelines except for the IM requirements of Sec.
195.452. Consistent with the phase one rule, pipeline segments will
have to be identified within nine months of publication of this final
rule, baseline IM assessments will have to be completed within five
years of publication of the final rule, compliance with the
requirements of subpart H of Part 195, Corrosion Control, will have to
occur within three years and compliance with all other applicable
requirements will have to occur with 12 months of publication of the
final rule.
    This final rule includes, as did the phase one rule, an option for
operators to determine which pipeline segments are subject to IM
requirements by performing analyses to determine whether pipeline
segments could affect a USA in lieu of using the one-half-mile buffer.
    This rule includes, as did the phase one rule, a provision
addressing newly

identified USAs. Such new USAs could result in additional pipeline
segments meeting criteria for Category 1 or 2 rural low-stress
pipelines and thus become subject to IM requirements. This final rule
requires that pipeline segments identified as Category 1 or 2 continue
to meet the requirements applicable to those Categories even if the
boundaries of a USA are redefined so that the pipeline segment (or
portion thereof) is no longer within one-half mile of the USA unless
the operator determines that the segment could not affect the USA. This
provision adds no additional burden because pipeline operators may
simply continue to treat their pipelines as they would have without the
redefinition of USA boundaries.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 195.1

Which pipelines are covered by this Part?
    Section 195.1 has been revised numerous times over the years to
include changes to the pipelines covered or excluded from the scope of
Part 195. Section 195.1 was revised in the phase one rule to provide
more clarity and to include the phase one rural low-stress pipelines
within the scope of Part 195. This final rule revises Sections 195.1(a)
and (b) to include the rural low-stress pipelines brought under Part
195 regulations in phase two. The changes to this section do not affect
any of the other covered or excluded pipelines previously identified in
Sec.  195.1.
    This final rule also corrects an inadvertent error to Sec.  195.1
that was introduced by the changes made under the phase one rule. The
error concerns the long-standing exception for low-stress pipelines
subject to the regulations of the USCG. Under the phase one rule, Sec.
195.1 was incorrectly revised to state that Part 195 does not apply to
any pipeline subject to the safety regulations of the USCG. In this
final rule, we are correcting Sec.  195.1 to state again that Part 195
does not apply to any low-stress pipeline subject to the safety
regulations of the USCG.

Section 195.12

What requirements apply to low-stress pipelines in rural areas?
    This Section is being revised to clarify that all previously
unregulated low-stress pipelines in rural areas are now covered under
Part 195 regulation. This Section does not apply to rural low-stress
pipelines that cross a waterway used for commercial navigation because
they have been regulated under Part 195 before either of the
rulemakings addressing rural low-stress pipelines.
    This section has been revised to define three categories of rural
low-stress pipelines (Section 195.12(b)):
     Category 1 lines are those that were regulated in phase
one (i.e., rural low-stress pipelines with a diameter of 8\5/8\ inches
or more located in or within one-half mile of a USA).
     Category 2 pipelines are those rural low-stress pipelines
of smaller diameter (less than 8\5/8\ inches) located in or within one-
half mile of a USA.
     Category 3 are all remaining rural low-stress pipelines
except for those that cross navigable waterways (which are already
regulated under Sec.  195.1 and are not addressed in Sec.  195.12).
    Section 195.12(c) also sets forth the required deadlines for
compliance with various portions of Part 195. The compliance deadlines
established by the phase one final rule for Category 1 rural low-stress
pipelines remain unchanged. Except for the compliance deadlines for the
completion of baseline IM assessments, this final rule establishes
deadlines for Category 2 and Category 3 rural low-stress pipelines in
the same manner as was done for Category 1 pipelines. For example,
operators of Category 1 rural low-stress pipelines were required to
identify these pipelines within nine months of the effective date of
the phase one final rule and this final rule requires the same nine-
month time frame for an operator of a Category 2 or Category 3 rural
low-stress pipeline. In phase one, PHMSA adopted a compliance deadline
of three and one-half years for completing 50% of baseline IM
assessments and seven years for completing all baseline assessments.
PHMSA concluded that it was appropriate to reduce the compliance
deadlines for these requirements for the pipelines covered by this
final rule considering the amount of time that has transpired since the
passage of the PIPES Act and the relatively small number of miles that
would be subject to these requirements. Thus, this final rule requires
that operators of Category 2 pipelines complete all baseline IM
assessments within five years of the effective date of the final rule
and that at least 50 percent of the assessments be completed within two
and one-half years.
    As discussed above, PHMSA did not change the provision allowing
operators of some Category 1 rural low-stress pipelines to notify PHMSA
if they conclude that implementing the IM assessment requirements would
pose such an economic burden that they would abandon their pipelines.
This provision continues to be limited to Category 1 rural low-stress
pipelines carrying crude oil from production facilities and where
shutdown of the pipeline would cause loss of oil supply or a transition
to truck transportation. PHMSA (with assistance from DOE, as
appropriate) will review notifications and, if justified, may grant the
operator a special permit to allow continued operation of the pipeline
subject to alternative safety requirements.
    PHMSA's reasoning for not extending the provision to Category 2
pipelines is based on the definition of ``gathering line'' in Sec.
195.2. That Section defines any ``pipeline 219.1 mm (8\5/8\ inch) or
less nominal outside diameter that transports petroleum from a
production facility'' as a gathering line. Gathering lines are not
subject to the provisions of Sec.  195.12. Instead, requirements
applicable to regulated rural gathering lines are found in Sec.
195.11, and do not include IM requirements. As a result, no rural low-
stress pipeline of 8\5/8\ inch or less nominal diameter that carries
crude oil from a production facility is subject to IM requirements, and
it is not necessary to provide an economic burden provision for these
pipelines to ameliorate unintended impacts on production.

Section 195.48 Scope

    This Section was added in the phase one final rule. There had not
previously been a scope Section in Subpart B because all pipelines
subject to Part 195 were subject to all the reporting requirements in
Subpart B. This Section was added in phase one because the reporting
requirements of Subpart B were made applicable to all rural low-stress
pipelines, even those not subject to the safety requirements of the
phase one rule. Operators of those rural low-stress pipelines not
subject to the technical requirements of Part 195 under phase one were
not required to complete those portions of the annual report form that
relate to IM requirements and inspections.
    With this final rule, all rural low-stress pipelines are now
subject to all requirements of Part 195, except that Category 3
pipelines are not subject to the IM requirements in Sec.  195.452. The
exclusion of portions of the annual report form related to IM has
therefore been modified to apply only to operators of Category 3
pipelines.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    PHMSA considers this final rule a non-significant regulatory action
under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

(58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993). The rule is also non-significant under DOT
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979).
PHMSA prepared a Regulatory Evaluation, a copy of which has been placed
in the docket.
    This final rule affects those rural low- stress pipelines of any
diameter that are more than one-half mile outside a USA and rural low-
stress pipelines less than 8\5/8\ inches in diameter that are located
in or within one-half mile of a USA. The following table presents the
estimates for the mileage affected by this rulemaking:
 Phase Two Eligible Mileage

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Miles         Miles
              Pipeline  diameter                 inside USA  outside USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 8\5/8\''....................................        100.5        443.2
>= 8\5/8\''...................................           NA        840.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four sources of mileage data that provide varying levels of detail
were analyzed to derive these final mileage estimates:
     The Regulatory Analysis for the low-stress phase 1 final
rule by PHMSA published in August 2006.
     A survey of operators of low-stress pipelines.
     The annual mileage data pipeline operators report to
PHMSA.
     Mileage estimates reported to the NPMS.
    PHMSA concluded that the estimate of 5,624 miles of rural low-
stress pipeline made in the phase one regulatory analysis was a high-
end estimate. The results of the survey PHMSA conducted identified
1,575 miles and the NPMS reports 1,672.9 miles, with the NPMS data
excluding both intra-plant miles and lines regulated in phase one. The
PHMSA annual report database includes 1,536 newly-reported low-stress
rural miles. Since the data collected in the survey includes a variety
of other information used in this analysis, including characteristics
of the reported mileage, it was used for phase two rural low-stress
pipeline mileage estimates. Distribution percentages and assumptions
relating to the three phase two rural low-stress pipeline segments
result in a slightly lower estimate of total miles than the original
estimate that resulted from the survey data. This final estimate is
approximately 1,384 miles of eligible rural low-stress pipeline.

Costs of the Regulation

    PHMSA estimates the 30-year net present values \5\ of compliance
costs for this final rule to be $104.9 million. The operators of the
pipelines affected by the regulatory changes included in the final rule
are expected to incur costs attributable to those changes. The costs of
the rulemaking will be those associated with bringing the affected
pipelines into compliance with Part 195, which has the following eight
Subparts:

 Subpart A--General
 Subpart B--Annual, Accident, and Safety-Related Condition
Reporting
 Subpart C--Design Requirements
 Subpart D--Construction
 Subpart E--Pressure Testing
 Subpart F--Operation and Maintenance
 Subpart G--Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
 Subpart H--Corrosion Control

    In addition, operators of the low-stress pipelines brought under
Part 195 would also need to comply with 49 CFR part 199, the alcohol
and drug testing requirements.

Benefits of the Regulation

    The 30-year net present value of benefits of this final rule is
$326.5 million. PHMSA expects the regulatory changes to reduce the
number of incidents and the incident costs and consequences. The
ability of the final rule to reduce or avoid these costs is considered
to be the primary benefit of the regulation and is referred to as
traditional benefits. Data on incident costs for rural low-stress
pipelines are generally not available because PHMSA has not regulated
these pipelines in the past. Moreover, the reduction in costs that the
regulation would cause is also unknown. The final 30-year net present
values of benefits of this final rule are $326.5 million.
    This final rule also may produce benefits by preventing disruptions
in the fuel supply caused by pipeline failures. Any interruption in the
fuel supply impacts the U.S. economy by putting upward pressure on the
prices paid by businesses and consumers, as incidents on Alaskan low-
stress pipelines feeding major petroleum trunk lines have illustrated.
Supply disruptions also have national security implications because
they increase dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, requires
Federal agencies to conduct a separate analysis of the economic impact
of rules on small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires
that Federal agencies take small entities' concerns into account when
developing, writing, publicizing, promulgating, and enforcing
regulations.

Need for Final Rule

    This final rule covers certain rural onshore low-stress hazardous
liquid pipelines. Beginning in 1991, Congress paid greater attention to
the risks that hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines pose to the
environment. In the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-508),
Congress gave DOT greater authority to protect the environment from
risks posed by pipelines. Congress continued to emphasize the need to
better protect the environment from the risks pipelines pose in the
Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-
304). With the PIPES Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-468), Congress went
further and instructed DOT to apply all Part 195 requirements to
unregulated rural low-stress pipelines.
    PHMSA decided to apply Part 195 requirements to rural low-stress
pipelines as a two-phase process. The phase one rulemaking covered
large diameter pipe (greater than or equal to 8\5/8\ inches in
diameter) located in or within one-half mile of a USA. These were the
higher-risk rural low-stress pipelines. This final rule addresses the
remaining unregulated rural low-stress pipelines.

Description of Actions

    PHMSA is bringing the remaining rural onshore low-stress pipelines
not regulated by phase one under the safety regulations of 49 CFR part
195. These lines include rural low-stress pipelines with a diameter of
less than 8\5/8\ inches that are within one-half mile of a USA and
rural low-stress pipelines of any size diameter that are outside of the
one-half mile USA buffer.

Related Federal Rules and Regulations

    There are currently no related rules or regulations issued by other
departments or agencies of the Federal Government.

Identification of Potentially Affected Small Entities

    In accordance with size standards published by the Small Business
Administration, a pipeline transportation business with 1,500 or fewer
employees is considered a small entity.\6\ Depending on the products
being transported, low-stress pipeline operators belong to the North
American Industry Classification System Code (NAICS) 486110, Pipeline
Transportation of Crude Oil, or NAICS 486910, Pipeline Transportation
of Refined Petroleum Products. For both NAICS codes, a business with
1,500 or

fewer employees is considered a small entity.
    PHMSA made an extensive effort to identify small and other
operators of rural low-stress lines. PHMSA surveyed these operators to
get better information about the number of miles and compliance costs
of rural hazardous liquid low-stress pipelines.
    To ensure that the response rate was maximized, PHMSA publicized
its plans to conduct the survey in (1) a 60-day Federal Register (FR)
notice published on September 6, 2006, (71 FR 52504) and (2) a 30-day
FR notice published on September 7, 2007, (72 FR 51489). No comments
were submitted to either notice. PHMSA then announced the availability
of the survey in a FR notice published on July 31, 2008, (73 FR 44800).
    PHMSA delivered the survey and a letter explaining the importance
of the study via three methods:
    1. A version of the survey that allowed operators to directly input
responses was posted on the PHMSA OPS Online Data Entry Web site
(ODES). An e-mail announcing the survey was sent to the contact person
responsible for each company's most recent annual report submission.
    2. Respondents were also able to print an electronic version of the
survey directly from the e-mail received and mail or fax a completed
hard copy to the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe
Center).
    3. Finally, in an effort to reach companies that currently operate
unregulated pipelines exclusively, PHMSA and the Volpe Center worked
with the American Petroleum Institute, the Association of Oil Pipelines
and the Independent Petroleum Association of America to announce and
distribute the survey to their members via their email newsletters.
    Of the 112 operators that responded, 20 reported rural low-stress
pipeline mileage. PHMSA then conducted additional follow-up discussions
with these operators. Only 12 of the 20 operators were identified as
actually having rural low-stress pipeline mileage that would be
addressed by the phase two rulemaking. Two of the 12 relevant operators
are owned by the same parent company. Therefore, there are 11
businesses that may be potentially affected by this rule.
    In order assess the potential business compliance impact,
information on the size of the ultimate parent companies for the
potentially affected pipeline operators was collected from a
compilation of Dun & Bradstreet data, online company profiles, and
direct phone calls. This use of data for the ultimate parent enterprise
is consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act which directs Federal
agencies to use the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA)
definition of a small business. The SBA's definition of a small
business considers a firm's parent company and all affiliates to be a
single entity. The enterprise name, number of employees, revenues,
profits, compliance costs and affected mileage are listed in the
following table.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05MY11.129

    The table above shows that three of the 11 enterprises employ less
than 1,500 persons and are thus considered small entities. The cost
estimation analysis, described in the Regulatory Analysis, concluded
that the rural low-

stress mileage held by two of these operators is already in compliance
with Part 195. Therefore, these two small entities will not be
adversely affected by the rulemaking. The other small entity, which has
four miles of affected rural low- stress mileage, reports an initial
compliance cost of $475,000 and recurring costs of $100,000 every five
years.

Alternate Proposals for Small Businesses

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish
exceptions and differing compliance standards for small businesses,
where it is possible to do so, and still meet the objectives of
applicable regulatory statutes.
    The phase two Regulatory Analysis analyzes six regulatory
alternatives. They are as follows:
    Alternative 1: Apply all Part 195 requirements to all eligible
rural low-stress pipelines.
    Alternative 2: Apply all Part 195 requirements to small diameter
rural low-stress pipelines located in or within one-half mile of a USA.
    Alternative 3: Apply all Part 195 requirements to rural low-stress
pipelines equal to or greater than 8\5/8\ inches in diameter located
farther than one-half mile from a USA.
    Alternative 4: Apply all Part 195 requirements to rural low-stress
pipelines less than 8\5/8\ inches in diameter outside one-half mile of
a USA.
    Alternative 5: Apply all Part 195 requirements except Subpart H
(Corrosion Control) to all rural low-stress pipelines not currently
regulated.
    Alternative 6: Apply all Part 195 requirements except the IM
Program to all rural low-stress pipelines not currently regulated.
    Alternative 1 is the alternative that PHMSA has selected. This
alternative not only complies with the statutory requirement but also
increases the level of safety and environmental protection associated
with the transportation of hazardous liquids through low-stress
pipelines to a level commensurate with other pipelines that are already
subject to the pipeline safety regulations.

Conclusion

    From the information we have gathered, this final rule will have an
economic impact on one known small entity. Therefore, under Section 605
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, this final rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to the principles and
criteria in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments.'' Because this final rule would not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal
governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding
and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA used the NPRM to provide
interested members of the public and affected agencies with an
opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping
requests. PHMSA identified four information collections that would bear
some impact as a result of this rulemaking. No comments were received.
Upon review of the burden impacts on the identified information
collection requests, PHMSA believes that the minimal impact to these
information collections do not warrant revisions to the currently
approved information collections.
    The following information is provided for each information
collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control
number; (3) type of request; (4) abstract of the information collection
activity; (5) description of affected public; (6) estimate of total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (7) frequency of
collection. PHMSA estimates that based on the requirements in this
rule, the current information collection burden for the following
information collections will remain as follows:
    Title of information Collection: Transportation of Hazardous
Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0047.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators must keep records to
ensure that their pipelines are operated safely. Operators must also
report accidents.
    Type of Respondents: Hazardous Liquid Operators.
    Total Annual Responses: 847.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,329 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Title of information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: The operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution
lines and gathering lines) provides information to PHMSA on the
characteristics of its pipeline system. The submitted information
includes updates to annual mapping information for each mile of
pipeline.
    Type of Respondents: Pipeline Facility Operators (except
distribution lines and gathering lines).
    Total Annual Responses: 894.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,312 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: Annual.

    Title of information Collection: Pipeline Integrity Management in
High Consequence Areas (Operators with less than 500 Miles of Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines).
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0605.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Hazardous Liquid Operators with less than 500 miles of
Pipelines are required to continually assess and evaluate the integrity
of their pipeline through inspection or testing. Such operators must
also implement remedial, preventive, and mitigative actions on these
pipelines.
    Type of Respondents: Hazardous Liquid Operators (with less than 500
miles of pipelines).
    Total Annual Responses: 132.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 267,960 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Title of information Collection: Public Awareness Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0622.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Current regulations require pipeline operators to develop
and implement public awareness programs. Public awareness and
understanding of pipeline operations is vital to the continued safe
operation of pipelines. Upon request, operators must submit their
completed programs to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline
facility operator, the appropriate state agency.
    Type of Respondents: Pipeline Operators.
    Total Annual Responses: 22,500.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 517,480 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Any questions regarding these information collections should be
directed to Cameron Satterthwaite, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30),
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd
Floor,

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$141.3 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the regulatory action.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to
integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by
considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and
reasonable alternatives to those actions. PHMSA conducted an
environmental assessment of the application of phase two safety
regulations to rural onshore hazardous liquid pipelines. This
environmental assessment examined the environmental impacts of the
requirements proposed in the NPRM, and reasonable alternatives to those
actions, on the environment.
    The environmental assessment found that the NPRM requirements would
not significantly affect the quality of the environment. Only limited
physical modification or other work that would disturb pipelines would
be required, such as identifying segments of pipelines meeting the
regulatory definitions, inspection and testing, installing and
maintaining line markers, implementing corrosion controls, pipeline
cleaning, and establishing integrity assessment programs. The
environmental assessment preliminarily concluded the expected
reductions in hazardous liquid spills are a minor to moderate positive
environmental impact offsetting the negligible negative environmental
impacts associated with implementing the rulemaking. The full final
environmental assessment is available for review in the public docket.
We did not receive any comment on the assessment or preliminary
conclusion. Therefore, we conclude that this rulemaking will not result
in any significant negative or positive environmental impacts affecting
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132

    PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule would not (1) have substantial direct effects on the states,
the relationship between the national government and the states, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government; (2) impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and
local governments; or (3) preempt state law. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not
apply.

Executive Order 13211

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211. It is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Furthermore, this
final rule has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

    Regulated rural gathering, Rural low-stress pipelines.

    For the reasons provided in the preamble, PHMSA amends 49 CFR Part
195 as follows:

PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE

0
1. The authority citation for Part 195 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.

0
2. Section 195.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.1  Which pipelines are covered by this Part?

    (a) Covered. Except for the pipelines listed in paragraph (b) of
this Section, this Part applies to pipeline facilities and the
transportation of hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide associated with
those facilities in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
including pipeline facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Covered pipelines include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Any pipeline that transports a highly volatile liquid;
    (2) Any pipeline segment that crosses a waterway currently used for
commercial navigation;
    (3) Except for a gathering line not covered by paragraph (a)(4) of
this Section, any pipeline located in a rural or non-rural area of any
diameter regardless of operating pressure;
    (4) Any of the following onshore gathering lines used for
transportation of petroleum:
    (i) A pipeline located in a non-rural area;
    (ii) A regulated rural gathering line as provided in Sec.  195.11;
or
    (iii) A pipeline located in an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico as
provided in Sec.  195.413.
    (b) Excepted. This Part does not apply to any of the following:
    (1) Transportation of a hazardous liquid transported in a gaseous
state;
    (2) Transportation of a hazardous liquid through a pipeline by
gravity;
    (3) Transportation of a hazardous liquid through any of the
following low-stress pipelines:
    (i) A pipeline subject to safety regulations of the U.S. Coast
Guard; or
    (ii) A pipeline that serves refining, manufacturing, or truck,
rail, or vessel terminal facilities, if the pipeline is less than one
mile long (measured outside facility grounds) and does not cross an
offshore area or a waterway currently used for commercial navigation;
    (4) Transportation of petroleum through an onshore rural gathering
line that does not meet the definition of a ``regulated rural gathering
line'' as provided in Sec.  195.11. This exception does not apply to
gathering lines in the inlets of the Gulf of Mexico subject to Sec.
195.413;
    (5) Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in an
offshore pipeline in state waters where the pipeline is located
upstream from the outlet flange of the following farthest downstream
facility: The facility where hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide are
produced or the facility where produced hydrocarbons or carbon dioxide
are first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed;
    (6) Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide in a
pipeline on the OCS where the pipeline is located upstream of the point
at which operating responsibility transfers from a producing operator
to a transporting operator;
    (7) A pipeline segment upstream (generally seaward) of the last
valve on the last production facility on the OCS where a pipeline on
the OCS is producer-operated and crosses into state waters without
first connecting to a transporting operator's facility on the OCS.
Safety equipment protecting PHMSA-regulated pipeline segments is not
excluded. A producing operator of a segment falling within this
exception may petition the Administrator, under Sec.  190.9 of this
chapter, for approval to operate under PHMSA regulations governing
pipeline design, construction, operation, and maintenance;
    (8) Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide through
onshore production (including flow lines), refining, or manufacturing
facilities or storage or in-plant piping systems associated with such
facilities;

    (9) Transportation of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide:
    (i) By vessel, aircraft, tank truck, tank car, or other non-
pipeline mode of transportation; or
    (ii) Through facilities located on the grounds of a materials
transportation terminal if the facilities are used exclusively to
transfer hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide between non-pipeline modes
of transportation or between a non-pipeline mode and a pipeline. These
facilities do not include any device and associated piping that are
necessary to control pressure in the pipeline under Sec.  195.406(b);
or
    (10) Transportation of carbon dioxide downstream from the
applicable following point:
    (i) The inlet of a compressor used in the injection of carbon
dioxide for oil recovery operations, or the point where recycled carbon
dioxide enters the injection system, whichever is farther upstream; or
    (ii) The connection of the first branch pipeline in the production
field where the pipeline transports carbon dioxide to an injection well
or to a header or manifold from which a pipeline branches to an
injection well.
    (c) Breakout tanks. Breakout tanks subject to this Part must comply
with requirements that apply specifically to breakout tanks and, to the
extent applicable, with requirements that apply to pipeline systems and
pipeline facilities. If a conflict exists between a requirement that
applies specifically to breakout tanks and a requirement that applies
to pipeline systems or pipeline facilities, the requirement that
applies specifically to breakout tanks prevails. Anhydrous ammonia
breakout tanks need not comply with Sec. Sec.  195.132(b), 195.205(b),
195.242(c) and (d), 195.264(b) and (e), 195.307, 195.428(c) and (d),
and 195.432(b) and (c).

0
3. Section 195.12 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.12  What requirements apply to low-stress pipelines in rural
areas?

    (a) General. This Section sets forth the requirements for each
category of low-stress pipeline in a rural area set forth in paragraph
(b) of this Section. This Section does not apply to a rural low-stress
pipeline regulated under this Part as a low-stress pipeline that
crosses a waterway currently used for commercial navigation; these
pipelines are regulated pursuant to Sec.  195.1(a)(2).
    (b) Categories. An operator of a rural low-stress pipeline must
meet the applicable requirements and compliance deadlines for the
category of pipeline set forth in paragraph (c) of this Section. For
purposes of this Section, a rural low-stress pipeline is a Category 1,
2, or 3 pipeline based on the following criteria:
    (1) A Category 1 rural low-stress pipeline:
    (i) Has a nominal diameter of 8\5/8\ inches (219.1 mm) or more;
    (ii) Is located in or within one-half mile (.80 km) of an unusually
sensitive area (USA) as defined in Sec.  195.6; and
    (iii) Operates at a maximum pressure established under Sec.
195.406 corresponding to:
    (A) A stress level equal to or less than 20-percent of the
specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe; or
    (B) 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) gauge.
    (2) A Category 2 rural pipeline:
    (i) Has a nominal diameter of less than 8\5/8\ inches (219.1mm);
    (ii) Is located in or within one-half mile (.80 km) of an unusually
sensitive area (USA) as defined in Sec.  195.6; and
    (iii) Operates at a maximum pressure established under Sec.
195.406 corresponding to:
    (A) A stress level equal to or less than 20-percent of the
specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe; or
    (B) 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.
    (3) A Category 3 rural low-stress pipeline:
    (i) Has a nominal diameter of any size and is not located in or
within one-half mile (.80 km) of an unusually sensitive area (USA) as
defined in Sec.  195.6; and
    (ii) Operates at a maximum pressure established under Sec.  195.406
corresponding to a stress level equal to or less than 20-percent of the
specified minimum yield strength of the line pipe; or
    (iii) 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.
    (c) Applicable requirements and deadlines for compliance. An
operator must comply with the following compliance dates depending on
the category of pipeline determined by the criteria in paragraph (b):
    (1) An operator of a Category 1 pipeline must:
    (i) Identify all segments of pipeline meeting the criteria in
paragraph (b)(1) of this Section before April 3, 2009.
    (ii) Beginning no later than January 3, 2009, comply with the
reporting requirements of Subpart B for the identified segments.
    (iii) IM requirements--
    (A) Establish a written program that complies with Sec.  195.452
before July 3, 2009, to assure the integrity of the pipeline segments.
Continue to carry out such program in compliance with Sec.  195.452.
    (B) An operator may conduct a determination per Sec.  195.452(a) in
lieu of the one-half mile buffer.
    (C) Complete the baseline assessment of all segments in accordance
with Sec.  195.452(c) before July 3, 2015, and complete at least 50-
percent of the assessments, beginning with the highest risk pipe,
before January 3, 2012.
    (iv) Comply with all other safety requirements of this Part, except
Subpart H, before July 3, 2009. Comply with the requirements of Subpart
H before July 3, 2011.
    (2) An operator of a Category 2 pipeline must:
    (i) Identify all segments of pipeline meeting the criteria in
paragraph (b)(2) of this Section before July 1, 2012.
    (ii) Beginning no later than January 3, 2009, comply with the
reporting requirements of Subpart B for the identified segments.
    (iii) IM--
    (A) Establish a written IM program that complies with Sec.  195.452
before October 1, 2012 to assure the integrity of the pipeline
segments. Continue to carry out such program in compliance with Sec.
195.452.
    (B) An operator may conduct a determination per Sec.  195.452(a) in
lieu of the one-half mile buffer.
    (C) Complete the baseline assessment of all segments in accordance
with Sec.  195.452(c) before October 1, 2016 and complete at least 50-
percent of the assessments, beginning with the highest risk pipe,
before April 1, 2014.
    (iv) Comply with all other safety requirements of this Part, except
Subpart H, before October 1, 2012. Comply with Subpart H of this Part
before October 1, 2014.
    (3) An operator of a Category 3 pipeline must:
    (i) Identify all segments of pipeline meeting the criteria in
paragraph (b)(3) of this Section before July 1, 2011.
    (ii) Beginning no later than January 3, 2009, comply with the
reporting requirements of Subpart B for the identified segments.
    (A)(iii) Comply with all safety requirements of this Part, except
the requirements in Sec.  195.452, Subpart B, and the requirements in
Subpart H, before October 1, 2012. Comply with Subpart H of this Part
before October 1, 2014.
    (d) Economic compliance burden.
    (1) An operator may notify PHMSA in accordance with Sec.
195.452(m) of a situation meeting the following criteria:

    (i) The pipeline is a Category 1 rural low-stress pipeline;
    (ii) The pipeline carries crude oil from a production facility;
    (iii) The pipeline, when in operation, operates at a flow rate less
than or equal to 14,000 barrels per day; and
    (iv) The operator determines it would abandon or shut-down the
pipeline as a result of the economic burden to comply with the
assessment requirements in Sec.  195.452(d) or 195.452(j).
    (2) A notification submitted under this provision must include, at
minimum, the following information about the pipeline: its operating,
maintenance and leak history; the estimated cost to comply with the
integrity assessment requirements (with a brief description of the
basis for the estimate); the estimated amount of production from
affected wells per year, whether wells will be shut in or alternate
transportation used, and if alternate transportation will be used, the
estimated cost to do so.
    (3) When an operator notifies PHMSA in accordance with paragraph
(d)(1) of this Section, PHMSA will stay compliance with Sec. Sec.
195.452(d) and 195.452(j)(3) until it has completed an analysis of the
notification. PHMSA will consult the Department of Energy, as
appropriate, to help analyze the potential energy impact of loss of the
pipeline. Based on the analysis, PHMSA may grant the operator a special
permit to allow continued operation of the pipeline subject to
alternative safety requirements.
    (e) Changes in unusually sensitive areas.
    (1) If, after June 3, 2008, for Category 1 rural low-stress
pipelines or October 1, 2011 for Category 2 rural low-stress pipelines,
an operator identifies a new USA that causes a segment of pipeline to
meet the criteria in paragraph (b) of this Section as a Category 1 or
Category 2 rural low-stress pipeline, the operator must:
    (i) Comply with the IM program requirement in paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(A) or (c)(2)(iii)(A) of this Section, as appropriate,
within 12 months following the date the area is identified regardless
of the prior categorization of the pipeline; and
    (ii) Complete the baseline assessment required by paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(C) or (c)(2)(iii)(C) of this Section, as appropriate,
according to the schedule in Sec.  195.452(d)(3).
    (2) If a change to the boundaries of a USA causes a Category 1 or
Category 2 pipeline segment to no longer be within one-half mile of a
USA, an operator must continue to comply with paragraph (c)(1)(iii) or
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, as applicable, with respect to
that segment unless the operator determines that a release from the
pipeline could not affect the USA.
    (f) Record Retention. An operator must maintain records
demonstrating compliance with each requirement applicable to the
category of pipeline according to the following schedule.
    (1) An operator must maintain the segment identification records
required in paragraph (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(i) or (c)(3)(i) of this Section
for the life of the pipe.
    (2) Except for the segment identification records, an operator must
maintain the records necessary to demonstrate compliance with each
applicable requirement set forth in paragraph (c) of this Section
according to the record retention requirements of the referenced
Section or Subpart.

0
4. Section 195.48 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  195.48  Scope.

    This Subpart prescribes requirements for periodic reporting and for
reporting of accidents and safety-related conditions. This Subpart
applies to all pipelines subject to this Part. An operator of a
Category 3 rural low-stress pipeline meeting the criteria in Sec.
195.12 is not required to complete those parts of the hazardous liquid
annual report form PHMSA F 7000-1.1 associated with IM or high
consequence areas.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2011.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-10778 Filed 5-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30767-30769]
[DOCID:fr29my08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0519; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Restricted Areas R-5314A, B, C, D, E, F, H, and
J; and Revocation of Restricted Area R-5314G; Dare County Range, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action realigns the internal boundaries and amends the
time of designation and using agency title for restricted areas R-
5314A, B, C, D, E, and F; amends the time of designation and using
agency title for R-5314H and J; and revokes R-5314G. The FAA is taking
this action to enhance the safety and operational efficiency of the
Dare County Range.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Restricted Area R-5314 is part of the Dare County Range in North
Carolina. R-5314 is divided into nine subareas, designated A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H and J. These subareas support the Air Force Dare bombing
range and the Navy Dare bombing range and are used to train aircrews in
various tactics such as air-to-ground ordnance delivery and night
vision goggle operations. The current layout of R-5314 requires
aircrews using the two ranges to share R-5314A and R-5314F. This
involves extensive coordination between aircrew and the Range Control
Officers at both ranges to deconflict the two operations. The U.S. Air
Force requested that the FAA take action to reconfigure the internal
alignment and boundaries of R-5314 to better delineate the airspace
between the Navy and Air Force ranges. Under the reconfiguration, Air
Force Dare users will operate in R-5314A, B, and C, while Navy Dare
users will operate in R-5314D, E, and F. The airspace currently
designated as R-5314G is subdivided into two areas and redesignated as
R-5314C and R-5314F. The designation R-5314G will be revoked. To the
east of the newly realigned C and F subareas, the current areas R-
5314A, B, C, D, E and F are reconfigured into R-5314A, B, D, and E.
This rearranges the location of several subareas within the current
restricted area boundaries, but does not alter the existing geographic
footprint or altitude floors of the R-5314 complex. The changes will
simplify the restricted area

layout, enhance range boundary awareness for aircrews, eliminate much
of the coordination and deconfliction actions currently required, and
thereby enhance the safety and operational efficiency of the Dare
County Range. The boundaries for restricted areas R-5314H and J are not
being modified by this rule.
    The FAA is also modifying the time of designation for all R-5314
subareas by removing the term ``intermittent'' from the descriptions.
The term ``intermittent'' is used in the time of designation to denote
sporadic or irregular use of an area. A review of over five years of
utilization data for the Dare County Range shows regular and frequent
use of the restricted areas; therefore, the term ``intermittent'' is
inappropriate and is being deleted to more accurately represent actual
usage of the areas. Other than removing the term ``intermittent,'' this
change does not alter the current published restricted area time of
designation of ``0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-1800 local
time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in advance.'' The
change has no effect on the current or projected use of the Dare County
Range restricted areas.
    In addition, the name of the using agency for all of the restricted
areas is changed to add the military service and correct the using
agency name.

The Rule

    This action realigns the internal boundaries and layout of
restricted areas R-5314A, B, C, D, E and F, and revokes R-5314G. The
airspace formerly within R-5314G is further subdivided and redesignated
as restricted areas R-5314C and F. The boundaries for R-5314H and J are
not modified by this rule and will remain as currently published. This
action also removes the term ``intermittent'' from the time of
designation for R-5314A, B, C, D, E, F, H and J. In addition, the name
of the using agency for all of the above restricted areas is changed
from ``Commander, 4th Tactical Fighter Wing'' to ``U.S. Air Force,
Commander, 4th Fighter Wing.'' This change adds the name of the
military service and corrects the title of the 4th Fighter Wing.
    This rule is an administrative change to realign the internal
boundaries of existing restricted airspace, update the name of the
using agency and correct the time of designation. These changes do not
expand restricted airspace beyond the current lateral or vertical
boundaries, or increase the available times of use, or alter the
activities conducted within the restricted areas. Therefore, notice and
public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies restricted airspace in North Carolina.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has reviewed the above referenced action according to
Department of Transportation Order 5610.1C, ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' and FAA Order 1050.1E,
``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.'' In accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1E paragraphs 311d and 401p (5), it is determined that
the action qualifies for categorical exclusion from further
environmental review. Additionally, the implementation of this action
will not result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance with
Order 1050.1E paragraph 304. Therefore, on February 15, 2008, the FAA
issued a categorical exclusion declaration for the change in the
internal boundaries for R-5314.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.53  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.53 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-5314A Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, time of designation and
using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]42'36'' N., long.
75[deg]49'49'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]40'08'' N., long. 75[deg]50'14''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]40'25'' N., long. 75[deg]52'15'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]38'41'' N., long. 75[deg]52'34'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]39'01''
N., long. 75[deg]54'34'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]40'41'' N., long.
75[deg]54'09'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]41'31'' N., long. 76[deg]00'19''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]44'10'' N., long. 75[deg]59'41'' W.; to the point
of beginning.
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

R-5314B Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, time of designation and
using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]41'52'' N., long.
75[deg]45'11'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]34'41'' N., long. 75[deg]46'49''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]36'46'' N., long. 76[deg]01'19'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]41'31'' N., long. 76[deg]00'19'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]40'41''
N., long. 75[deg]54'09'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]39'01'' N., long.
75[deg]54'34'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]38'41'' N., long. 75[deg]52'34''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]40'25'' N., long. 75[deg]52'15'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]40'08'' N., long. 75[deg]50'14'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]42'36''
N., long. 75[deg]49'49'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

R-5314C Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, designated altitudes, time
of designation, and using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]44'10'' N., long.
75[deg]59'41'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]38'55'' N., long. 76[deg]00'52''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]39'21'' N., long. 76[deg]04'59'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]44'48'' N., long. 76[deg]03'44'' W.; to the point of
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 200 feet above the surface to 15,000 feet
MSL.
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.

    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

R-5314D Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, time of designation and
using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]47'51'' N., long.
75[deg]48'49'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]42'36'' N., long. 75[deg]49'49''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]44'10'' N., long. 75[deg]59'41'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]47'01'' N., long. 75[deg]58'59'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]46'08''
N., long. 75[deg]52'35'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]48'01'' N., long.
75[deg]51'59'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

R-5314E Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, designated altitudes, time
of designation and using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]48'31'' N., long.
75[deg]43'39'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]41'52'' N., long. 75[deg]45'11''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]42'36'' N., long. 75[deg]49'49'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]47'51'' N., long. 75[deg]48'49'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]48'01''
N., long. 75[deg]51'59'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]46'08'' N., long.
75[deg]52'35'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]47'01'' N., long. 75[deg]58'59''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]51'36'' N., long. 75[deg]57'54'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]49'31'' N., long. 75[deg]44'59'' W.; to the point of
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 500 feet above the surface to FL 205.
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

R-5314F Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, designated altitudes, time
of designation and using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]51'36'' N., long.
75[deg]57'54'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]44'10'' N., long. 75[deg]59'41''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]44'48'' N., long. 76[deg]03'44'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]51'53'' N., long. 76[deg]02'08'' W.; to the point of
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 200 feet above the surface to 15,000 feet
MSL.
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

R-5314G Dare County, NC [Removed]

* * * * *

R-5314H Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current time of designation and using agency and
substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

R-5314J Dare County, NC [Amended]

    By removing the current time of designation and using agency and
substituting the following:
    Time of designation. 0600-2400 local time, Monday-Friday; 0700-
1800 local time Saturday-Sunday; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, 4th Fighter Wing,
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 22, 2008.
Stephen L. Rohring,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
 [FR Doc. E8-11975 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 43118]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2894-013]

Flambeau Hydro, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: P-2894-013.
    c. Date filed: December 31, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Flambeau Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Black Brook Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Apple River
near the City of Amery, Polk County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jason P. Kreuscher, Vice President,
Renewable World Energies, LLC, 100 S State Street, P.O. Box 264,
Neshkoro, WI 54960;<PHONE_NUMBER>6 ext 102; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Michael Davis at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: September 13, 2019. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2894-013.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. Project Description: Black Brook Project consists of the
following existing facilities: (1) A 131-foot-long by 32-foot-high
concrete gravity dam with three 12-foot-high by 12-foot-wide radial
gates, a 32.5-foot-wide by 23.6-foot-high overflow section with a 6-
inch flashboard, a 315-foot-long by 12-foot-wide by 8.3-foot-high left
embankment, and a 75-foot-long by 38.5-foot-wide by 31.2-foot-high
right embankment; (2) a 10-foot-long by 3.17-foot-wide by 15-foot-high
reinforced concrete intake structure containing two 7-foot-wide by 12-
foot-high steel dewatering gates and two 65-degree inclined 16-foot-
wide by 15-foot-high trash racks with a 1.5-inch clear-bar spacing; (3)
a cement block powerhouse with two generating units providing a total
of 0.645 megawatt of installed capacity; (4) a tailrace; (5) a 13.2-
kilovolt (kV) substation facility; (6) a 20-foot-long, 2,400-volt
transmission line and a 1.25-mile-long, 13.2-kV transmission line; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The project has a normal pool elevation of
1045.47 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1988 with a surface area
of about 98 acres and no usable storage capacity. The project generates
about 7,336 megawatt-hours annually.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to address the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in Item H above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process: The Commission staff intends to prepare a
single Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-
specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
    At this time, we do not anticipate holding on-site public or agency
scoping meetings. Instead, we are soliciting your comments and
suggestions on the preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be
addressed in the EA, as described in scoping document 1 (SD1), issued
August 14, 2019.
    Copies of the SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in
the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list
and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on
the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 14, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17899 Filed 8-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P