[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73464-73476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33614]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket RSPA-99-5455]
RIN 2137-AC34


Pipeline Safety: Areas Unusually Sensitive to Environmental 
Damage

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule defines drinking water and ecological areas 
that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage if there is a 
hazardous liquid pipeline release. We refer to these areas as unusually 
sensitive areas (USAs). The proposed definition was created through a 
series of public workshops and our collaboration with a wide-range of 
federal, state, public, and industry stakeholders. RSPA is working on a 
pilot test that implements the proposed definition and identifies USAs 
in three states: Texas, Louisiana, and California. Other government 
agencies, environmental groups, and academia will evaluate the final 
results of this pilot test. RSPA will publish the results of the pilot 
test and technical analysis once they are complete. This proposed rule 
would not require specific action by pipeline operators. However, this 
proposed definition would be used as criteria in evaluating 
requirements by certain existing and future regulations.

DATES: Send written comments by June 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments in duplicate to the Dockets Facility, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Room #PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Persons who want confirmation of mailed 
comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Comments may 
also be e-mailed to

[[Page 73465]]

[email protected] in ASCII or text format. The Dockets Facility 
is open from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on 
Federal holidays when the facility is closed. Persons interested in 
receiving future information, including the final pilot results, should 
visit the OPS Home Page at http://ops.dot.gov, or send their name, 
affiliation, address, and phone number to Christina Sames, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, 400 Seventh 
Street SW, DPS-11, Washington, D.C. 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Sames at (202) 366-4561 or 
[email protected]. Copies of this document or other material 
in the docket, including material from the public workshops, can be 
obtained from the Dockets Facility. The public may also review material 
in the docket by accessing the Docket Management System's home page at 
http://dms.dot.gov. An electronic copy of any document published in the 
Federal Register may be downloaded from the Government Printing Office 
Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legislative Mandates

    In 1992, Congress amended the federal pipeline safety statute to 
require the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to prescribe 
regulations that establish criteria for identifying each hazardous 
liquid pipeline facility and gathering line located in an area that the 
Secretary describes as unusually sensitive to environmental damage if 
there is a hazardous liquid pipeline accident (USAs). The Secretary was 
to consider all hazardous liquid pipeline facilities and gathering 
lines, whether or not they are subject to safety regulation under 49 
U.S.C. Chapter 601. The Secretary also had to consult with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in establishing the criteria.
    The following were to be considered:
     Earthquake zones and areas subject to substantial ground 
movements, such as landslides;
     Areas where ground water contamination would be likely in 
the event of the rupture of a pipeline facility;
     Freshwater lakes, rivers, and waterways; and
     River deltas and other areas subject to soil erosion or 
subsidence from flooding or other water action, where pipeline 
facilities are likely to become exposed or undermined.
    In 1996, Congress amended the USA identification requirements (49 
U.S.C. Section 60109). The Secretary was still required to prescribe 
standards that establish criteria for identifying each hazardous liquid 
pipeline facility and gathering line located in an USA. However, in 
establishing criteria, the Secretary was now to consider areas where a 
pipeline rupture would likely cause permanent or long-term 
environmental damage, including:
     Locations near pipeline rights-of-way that are critical to 
drinking water, including intake locations for community water systems 
and critical sole source aquifer protection areas; and
     Locations near pipeline rights-of-way that have been 
identified as critical wetlands, riverine or estuarine systems, 
national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife preservation areas or 
refuges, wild and scenic rivers, or critical habitat areas for 
threatened and endangered species.
     A Presidential memorandum that accompanied the 1996 
statute clarified Administration policy on USAs. The memorandum said 
that the listed examples should be considered, but are not exclusive 
and that DOT was to accord full protection to all wetlands and other 
aquatic areas. DOT was also to consider both the potential for short 
term and permanent or long term injuries to natural resources or the 
environment.
    The Secretary was to use the identification of these unusually 
sensitive environmental areas in future rulemakings, that include 
requiring additional prevention and inventory measures in these 
sensitive areas. For instance, 49 U.S.C. 60109(a)(2) directs the 
Secretary to require operators to identify unusually sensitive 
environmental areas through maps and pipeline inventories.
    The Secretary is to consider requiring each pipeline in an 
unusually sensitive environmental area to be inspected periodically and 
to prescribe when an instrumented internal inspection device should be 
used to inspect the pipeline (49 U.S.C. 60102(f)(2)). Also, the 
Secretary is to survey and assess the effectiveness of emergency flow 
restricting devices and other procedures, systems, and equipment used 
to detect and locate hazardous liquid pipeline ruptures, and to 
prescribe regulations on the circumstances under which an operator of a 
hazardous liquid pipeline facility must use an emergency flow 
restricting device or such other procedure, system, or equipment (49 
U.S.C. 60102(j)).

June 1994 Public Meeting: Consideration of an OPA Approach to USAs

    On June 28, 1994, RSPA held a public meeting to gather data that 
would allow RSPA to establish criteria for identifying environmentally 
sensitive areas on or near hazardous liquid pipelines. RSPA would then 
use the established criteria to carry out the requirements of the Oil 
Pollution Act (OPA) and 49 U.S.C. Section 60109.
    Under our regulations that implement OPA requirements for pipelines 
(49 CFR part 194), an operator of an onshore oil pipeline that, because 
of its location, could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm 
or significant and substantial harm to the environment by a release 
into or on any navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare 
and submit an oil spill response plan. These requirements are intended 
to improve response capabilities and to reduce the environmental impact 
of oil discharged from onshore oil pipelines.
    The OPA regulations require an operator to identify the areas 
potentially affected by its pipeline that are of greatest vulnerability 
to an oil discharge, including navigable waters, public drinking water 
intakes, and environmentally sensitive areas. Environmentally sensitive 
areas were defined as ``an area of environmental importance which is in 
or adjacent to navigable waters.'' These areas included wetlands, 
national parks, wilderness and recreational areas, wildlife refuges, 
marine sanctuaries, and conservation areas.
    We hoped to create a single definition for environmentally 
sensitive areas that could be used for OPA spill response planning and 
for the preventive measures intended by the pipeline safety statute. As 
previously discussed, these pipeline safety requirements included 
increased inspection requirements, emergency flow restricting devices, 
and maps and pipeline inventories of pipelines in unusually sensitive 
areas.
    Participants at the meeting included representatives from the EPA, 
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, 
Department of Commerce, hazardous liquid pipeline industry, and the 
public. Participants discussed a draft definition that focused on areas 
where a hazardous liquid release could create significant long-term 
environmental harm or represent an imminent threat to human health. 
These areas included community water intakes; freshwater lakes, rivers 
and waterways; state or Federal wetlands, parks, natural areas, 
wilderness areas,

[[Page 73466]]

wild or scenic rivers, wildlife refuges or wildlife sanctuaries 
specifically designated, identified, and located by the Area 
Contingency Plans; and river deltas and other areas subject to soil 
erosion or subsidence from flooding or other water action, where 
pipeline facilities are likely to become exposed or undermined. 
Participants also discussed whether common criteria could be created 
for both spill response planning and prevention measures.

Meetings With Other Federal Agencies and the Pipeline Industry

    RSPA held several meetings with other federal agencies and the 
pipeline industry following the June 1994 public meeting. The meetings 
were held to obtain additional information on sensitive resources that 
should be considered when defining USAs. Participants at the meetings 
included the EPA; the U.S. Coast Guard; the Departments of Interior, 
Commerce, and Agriculture; and the hazardous liquid pipeline industry.
    Several participants at the meetings stated that it would be better 
to separate the OPA definition of environmentally sensitive areas from 
the USA definition. They stated that it would be better to maintain a 
broad definition within OPA for spill response functions and that a 
narrow definition should be created for USAs and the prevention 
measures the USA definition would be applied to.
    Participants at the meetings also discussed the resources that 
should be considered when defining USAs. These included community 
drinking water intakes, threatened and endangered species, populated 
areas, economic resources, and commercial water intakes. Participants 
stated that a decision tree or matrix should be developed to help 
identify which environmentally sensitive areas were USAs.
    RSPA used the information gathered at these meetings to create a 
revised draft definition for USAs. The definition built upon the values 
other Federal agencies had established for activities under OPA, but 
more narrowly identified those areas that were unusually sensitive to 
damage from a hazardous liquid release. The revised definition focused 
on areas where a release would reach the sensitive area before the 
release was contained or before the area was protected.

June 1995 Public Workshop: Consideration of a Three Tier Approach 
to USAs

    On June 15 and 16, 1995, RSPA held a public workshop to openly 
discuss the revised draft definition for USAs (60 FR 27948, May 26, 
1995). Participants included representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard; 
the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; the EPA; non-
government agencies; the hazardous liquid pipeline industry; and the 
public.
    The revised draft definition considered three tiers of USAs. RSPA 
considered phasing in the three tiers to give operators more time to 
determine which USAs could be affected by a hazardous liquid pipeline 
release.
    Tier One consisted of areas that could affect human health if 
contaminated, such as intakes for community drinking water systems and 
sole source aquifers. Sole source aquifers supply at least half of the 
drinking water consumed in the area above the aquifer and have no 
alternative sources that could supply all those who get their drinking 
water from the aquifer. In the tier model, community drinking water 
systems and sole source aquifers that could reasonably be expected to 
be affected by a release would be considered the most sensitive and 
highest priority areas.
    We gave Tier Two, USAs along surface water, the second highest 
priority. Tier Two took into account the surface water habitat's 
natural ability to restore itself to the condition that existed before 
the release, and the biological and human use resources in the body of 
water and along the water's edge. The habitat, the biological 
resources, and the human use resources were assigned numerical 
sensitivity ratings. Combining the numerical ratings of these three 
resources determined if a particular area was an USA.
    Tier Three, USAs within terrestrial environments, was given the 
third highest priority. Tier Three, like Tier Two, took into account 
biological resources and human use resources be studied to determine if 
a given area is an USA. Each was assigned a numerical sensitivity 
rating; the combination of these ratings determined if a particular 
area was an USA.
    Participants at the workshop discussed the above approach and 
criteria. Participants stated the tiered approach was complicated and 
that operators may not be able to carry out the process. Participants 
requested that additional workshops be held to further discuss this 
complex topic.

October 1995 Public Workshop: Discussions on the Three Tier 
Approach Continue and Discussions on the USA Process

    On October 17, 1995, RSPA held a second public workshop on USAs (60 
FR 44824; August 29, 1995) that focused on developing a process that 
could be used to determine if an area is an USA. Participants asked 
that the process include a series of workshops on topics such as 
guiding principles, defining terms that may be used when referring to 
USAs, and protecting drinking water sources, biological resources, and 
human use resources.
    The hazardous liquid pipeline industry provided information on its 
current research on USAs and recommended that a definition consider the 
resource to be protected, the likelihood of a given pipeline impacting 
that resource, and what can be done to reduce the risk to the resource. 
Other participants recommended integrating factors on the likelihood of 
a rupture occurring and the severity of the consequence into the USA 
definition. Participants also discussed guiding principles that could 
be used when determining if a given area is a USA.

January 1996 Public Workshop: Guiding Principles and the Creation 
of a USA Model

    RSPA held a third workshop on January 18, 1996, to further discuss 
the guiding principles for determining USAs (61 FR 342; January 4, 
1996). Participants at the workshop included the EPA; the Departments 
of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; the hazardous liquid pipeline 
industry, and the public. The participants stated that significant 
drinking water and ecological resources should be considered USAs, but 
that economic or recreational areas should not. They maintained that 
economic and recreational areas could be restored following a hazardous 
liquid release, but certain drinking water or ecological resources 
could be irreparable if affected by a release. Several participants 
also questioned including cultural resources as USAs. These 
participants stated that most cultural resources can be repaired or 
replaced if they are impacted by a hazardous liquid release. Indian 
tribal concerns were also discussed and participants requested that 
additional research be conducted in this area.
    Participants at the workshop identified consensus guiding 
principles to help RSPA determine which resources we should concentrate 
on (areas of primary concern), which areas of primary concern are the 
most sensitive to a hazardous liquid release, and how to collect and 
process resource data. The following is the list of those guiding 
principles:
     Human health and safety and serious threat of 
contamination are always to be considered.

[[Page 73467]]

     A functional definition of significant must be developed 
to determine USAs.
     Only areas in the trajectory of a potential spill, e.g. 
down gradient, should be considered.
     It is expected that no pipeline operator will be required 
to collect natural field resource data to determine USAs.
     USAs should be subject to a systematic review process. 
USAs may change through time as species migrate, change location, or 
for other reasons. The USA definition should be explicit and practical 
in application.
     All phases of the USA definition process should be pilot 
tested for validity, practicality, and workability, to the extent 
practical.
     The government agencies must describe and identify USAs so 
that the data will not be subject to various interpretations and will 
be applied consistently.
     Sources of USA data must be readily available to the 
public and uniform in criteria and standards.
     The standards and criteria for resource sensitivity should 
be uniform on a national basis such that equivalent resources receive 
equivalent sensitivity assessments regardless of regionally based 
priorities.
    In addition to the guiding principles, the following guidelines 
were created:
     Workshops for each phase of developing a USA definition 
should include technical experts, representatives, and field personnel 
with appropriate experience from agencies as well as from industry.
     Public workshops should be used to gather information on 
the criteria that will determine USAs.
     The USA definition should be complete before its use in a 
rulemaking.
     The implementation of resource assessment and protection 
under the USA definition could be phased.
     All terms in the USA definition should be defined.
     National consistency in application of the USA definition 
should be the goal.
     Guidelines for data quality should include consistency, 
accuracy, and scope.
     Encourage open communication with land or resource 
managers in USAs.
     The ranking of resources or adding of values of several 
resources to reach a threshold USA quantity, as discussed in the June 
1995 workshop, is not practical for many pipeline operators.
    Participants at the workshop also created the following model of 
how the USA process could work. In this model, all areas that have been 
designated as environmentally sensitive are considered. From this large 
set, areas of greater concern due to their sensitivity to a hazardous 
liquid release are identified. These resource areas are called areas of 
primary concern. Filter criteria are then applied to the areas of 
primary concern to determine which areas of primary concern are 
unusually sensitive to damage from a potential hazardous liquid 
release. Filter criteria are designed to consider the likelihood that 
the resource could be impacted by a release, the guiding principles, 
the sensitivity of the resource, if the resource is irreparable or 
irreplaceable, if there are substitutes for the resource, and the 
criticality of the resource.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30DE99.043



[[Page 73468]]


    This model was used in all of the ensuing workshops and technical 
meetings and continues to be used in the current proposal. Finally, 
participants considered and identified the USA terms that they thought 
needed to be clarified.

April 1996 Public Workshop: USA Terms

    The fourth public workshop on April 10-11, 1996, (61 FR 13144; 
March 26, 1996; Docket PS-140(d)), focused on criteria, components, and 
parameters of terms that have been used when describing USAs. These 
terms include the following: Significant, Threat of significant 
contamination, Contamination, Ecological, Drinking water resources, 
Recreational areas, Economic areas, Cultural areas, Readily available, 
and Uniform. Participants also discussed the scope and objectives of 
any additional USA workshops.

API Technical Meeting on Drinking Water Resources

    On May 9-10, 1996, the API held a meeting of technical experts to 
discuss drinking water resources. RSPA and EPA attended this meeting 
and discussed our draft paper on drinking water resources that RSPA 
intended to present at its public workshop on drinking water resources. 
The draft discussed possible resource areas of primary concern and 
filtering criteria that could be used in determining which drinking 
water resources are unusually sensitive to damage from a hazardous 
liquid pipeline release.

June 1996 Public Workshop: Drinking Water Resources

    RSPA held a fifth workshop on June 18-19, 1996, (61 FR 27323; May 
31, 1996; Docket PS-140(e)) to discuss drinking water resources. 
Participants at this workshop included the EPA, the American Waterworks 
Association, Stanford University, the University of Alaska, and the 
public. This workshop focused on identifying critical drinking water 
resources (drinking water areas of primary concern) and possible 
filtering criteria that could be used to identify drinking water 
resources that are USAs.
    Participants identified public water systems, wellhead protection 
areas, and sole source aquifers as drinking water areas of primary 
concern. Filtering criteria discussed include the depth of the aquifer, 
the geology surrounding the drinking water resource, and if the public 
water system has an adequate alternative drinking water supply.

Additional Technical Meetings

    In addition to the five public workshops, we have had over a dozen 
meetings with other government agencies to discuss drinking water, 
ecological, and cultural resources. The API has also held meetings of 
technical experts to discuss unusually sensitive drinking water and 
ecological resources. RSPA, EPA, the Departments of Interior, Commerce, 
and Agriculture, The Nature Conservancy, and academia attended the API 
meetings.
    API's technical meetings were on October 23-24, 1996, and June 25-
26, 1997. Attendees discussed possible ecological areas of primary 
concern and filtering criteria that could be used to determine which 
ecological resources are unusually sensitive to damage from a hazardous 
liquid pipeline release. The significant ecological resources that were 
identified during the meetings included threatened and endangered 
species, critically imperiled and imperiled species, depleted marine 
mammals, and areas containing a large percent of the world's population 
of a migratory waterbird species. Filtering criteria focused on the 
extent to which a species is endangered, areas that are critical to 
multiple sensitive species, and areas where a large percent of a 
species population could be impacted. Notes from these technical 
meetings are in the Docket.

How RSPA Will Use the USA Definition

    RSPA will use the definition for identifying USAs in current and 
future regulations. Any regulatory application of this definition will 
be aimed at ensuring that operators implement appropriate protective 
measures for pipelines in USAs.
    Regulations where operators may have to identify USAs include the 
Risk-based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older Hazardous Liquid and 
Carbon Dioxide Pipelines (63 FR 59475; November 4, 1998), Response 
Plans for Onshore Oil Pipelines (62 FR 67292; December 24, 1997), 
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Operated at 20% or Less of Specified Minimum 
Yield Strength (49 CFR Part 195), Emergency Flow Restricting Devices, 
(Docket PS-133), Increased Inspection Requirements, (Docket PS-141) and 
Pipeline Safety: Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas 
Transmission and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Areas, 
(64 FR 56725; October 21, 1999)
    Under the ``Risk-based Alternative to Pressure Testing Older 
Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines'' rule (49 CFR 
Sec. 195.303), operators may elect a risk-based alternative in lieu of 
hydrostatically testing certain older pipelines. The alternative 
establishes test priorities based on the inherent risk of a given 
pipeline segment. One of the risk factors is to determine the pipeline 
segment's proximity to environmentally sensitive areas when we issued 
the final rule (63 FR 59475; November 4, 1998), we explained that until 
we defined these areas, operators were to use their best judgement in 
applying this factor. We further said that we may define the 
environmental factor in a future rulemaking.
    Under 49 CFR part 194, ``Response Plans for Onshore Oil 
Pipelines,'' operators must consider areas of environmental importance 
that are in or adjacent to navigable waters for spill response 
planning. These regulations were mandated by the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
(OPA). RSPA intends to amend the definition of environmental importance 
to include USAs, once USAs are defined.
    Hazardous liquid pipelines that operate at 20% of the specified 
minimum yield strength (SMYS) or less are currently exempt from 49 CFR 
part 195 regulations if they are in rural areas. When we issued the 
final rule extending 49 CFR part 195 regulations to certain pipelines 
operating at 20% SMYS or less (59 FR 35465; July 12, 1994), we deferred 
proposing to regulate non-hazardous volatile liquid low stress 
pipelines in rural environmentally sensitive areas. We did this because 
a definition of environmentally sensitive areas did not exist. We 
stated that we would revisit the issue once we defined such areas.
    In 49 USC 60102(j), we are required to survey and assess the 
effectiveness of EFRDs and other procedures, systems, and equipment 
used to detect and locate hazardous liquid pipeline ruptures, and to 
prescribe regulations on the circumstances under which an operator of a 
hazardous liquid pipeline facility must use an EFRD or other device. In 
an EFRD rulemaking (Docket PS-133), we will consider requiring 
operators to use an EFRD or other procedure or equipment on their 
pipelines located in USAs to mitigate the extent and impact of a 
release in the event of a failure.
    We must also (49 USC 60102(f)(2)) prescribe, if necessary, 
additional standards that require the periodic inspection of certain 
pipelines in USAs using an instrumented internal inspection device or 
another inspection method that is at least as effective as using the 
device. RSPA plans to address this mandate in a proposed rule in early 
CY 2000 (Docket PS-141).

[[Page 73469]]

    RSPA recently held a public meeting to discuss the need for 
additional protection in high consequence areas. (Pipeline Safety: 
Enhanced Safety and Environmental Protection for Gas Transmission and 
Hazardous Liquid Pipelines in High Consequence Areas, 64 FR 56725; 
October 21, 1999). We stated that we planned to strengthen current 
pipeline safety regulations with respect to high consequence areas, 
including USAs. We will consider increased inspection, enhanced damage 
prevention, improved emergency response, and other preventive measures 
for pipelines in these areas.
    We recognize that inventories of USAs will have to be updated on a 
periodic basis to incorporate new information and databases, and to 
reflect changes in species listings and their locations and the 
availability of drinking water resources. We intend to identify the 
locations of USAs through a comprehensive collection and analysis of 
drinking water and ecological resource data, contingent on the 
availability of funding and resources. These areas will be mapped using 
the National Pipeline Mapping System. Operators will have access to 
these maps through the internet. Operators will then be able to 
determine which areas of their pipeline intersect USAs. Operators may 
need to contact resource agencies to obtain additional information on a 
particular species or drinking water intake.

Existing Protections for Environmentally Sensitive Areas

    Currently, pipeline safety regulations on pipeline design, 
construction, operation, maintenance, emergency and spill response 
planning generally protect all environmentally sensitive areas, 
cultural resources, and economic resources. The pipeline design and 
construction standards specify how pipeline components must be 
designed, welded together, installed in the ditch, and replaced to 
ensure the pipeline is constructed in a safe manner. The design and 
construction standards also cover the design and location of valves and 
flanges to minimize any potential release. The operation and 
maintenance standards specify the pipeline's acceptable operating 
pressure, require personnel training, and require operators to perform 
inspection, monitoring, and testing to assure that the pipeline 
continues to operate in a safe manner. Emergency and spill response 
planning regulations are also in place that require the identification 
of areas of environmental importance and that operators have response 
capabilities in place to minimize the release and impact of a pipeline 
accident on these resources.
    In addition to current and intended future pipeline safety 
regulations, there are many other Federal, state, and local government 
regulations in place to protect sensitive resources. These include 
regulations to protect drinking water resources, threatened and 
endangered species, critical habitats for various species, and spawning 
areas. Areas have been created and designated to protect and maintain 
aquatic life, wildlife, various natural resources, and water resources. 
Permits from various Federal, state, and local agencies are needed 
before a pipeline can be installed or construction to modify or repair 
an existing line take place. Environmental reviews and consultations 
with resource experts are routinely conducting as part of the permit 
process. RSPA's existing and planned regulations complement these other 
Federal, state, and local government regulations on sensitive drinking 
water and ecological resources.

Our Current Proposal for Identifying USAs

    We have developed our current proposed process for identifying USAs 
after extensive consultation with drinking water experts, conservation 
biologists, government agencies, and other stakeholders. This 
identification uses a process that begins by designating and assessing 
environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), determining which of these ESAs 
are potentially more susceptible to permanent or long term damage from 
a hazardous liquid release (areas of primary concern), and finally 
identifying filtering criteria to determine which areas of primary 
concern can be reached by a release and sustain permanent or long-term 
damage. The areas that result are USAs.
    RSPA has considered, but has not included, everything listed in the 
pipeline safety statute and the Presidential memorandum that 
accompanied the 1996 statute. RSPA has focused on the resources that 
could suffer permanent or long-term environmental damage if affected by 
a hazardous liquid release. RSPA has looked beyond the boundaries of 
the national parks, wetlands, wildlife preservation areas, refuges, 
etc. to the ecological species and drinking water resources that could 
suffer irreparable harm if affected by a hazardous liquid release.
    Cultural resources, recreational resources, and economic resource 
areas are not being considered in this NPRM. These areas should be 
addressed as a separate risk factor and under separate regulations. We 
also believe that drinking water and ecological resources that do not 
qualify as USAs should also be addressed as a separate risk factor and 
under separate regulations. RSPA currently protects these resources 
under OPA's spill response plan requirements and will consider if 
additional measures are needed to better protect these areas. RSPA will 
issue additional regulations to protect these resources if it is 
determined that additional protections are needed.
    The following discusses the areas of primary concern and filtering 
criteria that RSPA proposes as standards for drinking water and 
ecological resources.

Drinking Water Resources: Areas of Primary Concern

    Drinking water resource areas of primary concern are a subset of 
all surface intakes and groundwater-based drinking water supplies that 
provide potable water for domestic, commercial, and industrial users. 
Drinking water resource areas of primary concern include drinking water 
resources for permanent communities such as cities and towns, transient 
communities such as campgrounds, or individual domestic supplies for 
residential consumption. As defined by the EPA, the drinking water 
areas of primary concern that we are proposing include the following:
    A. Public Water Systems (PWS): provide piped water for human 
consumption to at least 15 service connections or serve an average of 
at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year. These systems 
include the sources of the water supplies--i.e., surface or ground. PWS 
can be community, non-transient non-community, or transient non-
community systems, as described below:
    1. Community Water System (CWS): a PWS that provides water to the 
same population year round.
    2. Non-transient Non-community Water System (NTNCWS): a PWS that 
regularly serves at least 25 of the same people at least six months of 
the year. Examples of these systems include schools, factories, and 
hospitals that have their own water supplies.
    3. Transient Non-community Water System (TNCWS): a PWS that caters 
to transitory customers in nonresidential areas. Examples of these 
systems include campgrounds, motels, rest stops, and gas stations.
    B. Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA): the surface and subsurface 
area surrounding a well or well field that supplies a public water 
system through which contaminants are likely to pass

[[Page 73470]]

and eventually reach the water well or well field.
    C. Sole Source Aquifers (SSA): areas designated by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency under the Sole Source Aquifer program 
as the ``sole or principal'' source of drinking water for an area. Such 
designations are made if the aquifer's ground water supplies 50% or 
more of the drinking water for an area, and if that aquifer were to 
become contaminated, it would pose a public health hazard.

Drinking Water Resources: Filtering Criteria

    Filtering criteria would be applied to the drinking water areas of 
primary concern to determine which of these areas are USAs. We believe 
the following filtering criteria would help identify which drinking 
water areas of primary concern are necessary for uninterrupted 
consumption by human populations and could be permanently affected, or 
have long term damage, from a hazardous liquid release.
    A. Filter Criterion #1: TNCWS intakes would not be designated as 
USAs.
    B. Filter Criterion #2: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water 
supply primarily from surface water sources, and do not have an 
adequate alternative source of water, the water intakes would be 
designated as USAs.
    C. Filter Criterion #3: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water 
supply primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is 
identified as a Class I or Class IIa (as identified in Pettyjohn et 
al., 1991; EPA Document: EPA/600/2-91/043, August 1991; see Attachment 
A), and do not have an adequate alternative source of water, the WHPAs 
for such systems would be designated as USAs.
    D. Filter Criterion #4: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water 
supply primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is 
identified as a Class IIb, III, or Class U (as identified in Pettyjohn 
et al., 1991; EPA Document: EPA/600/2-91/043, August 1991; see 
Attachment A,) the public water systems that rely on these aquifers 
would not be designated as USAs.
    E. Filter Criterion #5: For CWS and NTNCWS that obtain their water 
supply primarily from ground water sources, where the source aquifer is 
identified as a Class I or Class IIa (as identified in Pettyjohn et 
al., 1991; EPA Document: EPA/600/2-91/043, August 1991; see Attachment 
A), and the aquifer is designated as a sole source aquifer, an area 
twice the WHPA would be designated a USA.

Ecological Resources: Areas of Primary Concern

    On April 10-11, 1996, RSPA held a public workshop to discuss the 
elements that should define ecological resources (61 FR 13144, March 
26, 1996). Participants concluded that ecological resources should 
include fish, wildlife, plants, biota and their habitats which may 
include land, air, and/or water. Examples of ecological resources are 
provided in a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
Guidance Document issued in March 1994 (59 FR 14714). Ecological 
resources include sensitive fish, wildlife, plant, and habitat 
resources that are at risk from hazardous liquid spills. These include 
such resources as breeding, spawning, and nesting areas; early life 
stage concentration and nursery areas; wintering or migratory areas; 
rare, threatened, and endangered species locations; and other types of 
high concentration or sensitive areas.
    Ecological areas of primary concern are a subset of all ecological 
resources. These areas of primary concern are areas that contain 
ecological resources that are potentially more susceptible to permanent 
or long term environmental damage.
    We are proposing four resource categories as ecological areas of 
primary concern. These categories are susceptible to permanent or long 
term ecological damage due to inherent characteristics of rarity, 
imperilment, or the potential for loss of large segments of an abundant 
population during periods of migratory concentration.
    A. Areas Containing Critically Imperiled and Imperiled Species and 
Subtaxa: These areas contain known occurrences of animal and plant 
species that have such limited distribution that a hazardous liquid 
pipeline release could affect a significant percentage of the species 
population. There are a number of species that are at risk of 
extinction due to their extremely restricted distribution or limited 
numbers. These resources are identified, ranked, and inventoried by 
Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers in conjunction 
with The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Under the TNC approach, each species 
is assigned a Global (or range-wide) Conservation Status Rank. This 
rank is based on several specific factors, including the number of 
known occurrences or populations, number of individuals, health of the 
population, its extinction potential, whether it is experiencing an 
increasing or decreasing trend, and if there are known threats to the 
species. Ecological areas of primary concern include occurrences of 
species and subtaxa with the following Global Ranks:
    1. Critically imperiled: These species demonstrate extreme rarity 
(5 or fewer occurrences or fewer than 1,000 individuals) or extreme 
vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. 
There are approximately 1,300 species in the United States which are 
ranked as critically imperiled globally. Rare or extremely vulnerable 
subtaxa which are critically imperiled are included in this category, 
despite the conservation status of the species as a whole.
    2. Imperiled: These species demonstrate rarity (6 to 20 occurrences 
or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals) or vulnerability to extinction due to 
some natural or man-made factor. There are approximately 1,800 species 
in the United States ranked as imperiled. Rare or vulnerable subtaxa 
which are imperiled are included in this category, despite the 
conservation status of the species as a whole.
    B. Areas Containing Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered 
(T&E) Species: These areas contain known occurrences of animal and 
plant species that have been listed and are protected under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA73) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.). A summary of these listed species is published annually as the 
``List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants'' (50 CFR 17.11 
and 17.12). There are currently more than 1,000 listed T&E species in 
the United States.
    The term ``endangered species'' is defined as ``any species which 
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term ``threatened species'' is 
defined as ``any species which is likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term species includes 
species, subspecies, and distinct vertebrate populations.
    In addition, a species that has been proposed or is a candidate to 
become a T&E species will become an ecological area of primary concern 
upon its final listing as a T&E species in the Federal Register.
    C. Areas Containing Depleted Marine Mammal Species: These areas 
contain known occurrences of depleted species identified and protected 
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA) (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The term ``depleted'' refers to marine mammal 
species that are listed

[[Page 73471]]

as T&E or are below their optimum sustainable populations (16 U.S.C. 
1362). The term ``species'' includes species, subspecies, or population 
stocks. There are currently 18 species listed as ``depleted'' under the 
MMPA. Eleven of these species are also listed as endangered and three 
of these species are listed as threatened under the ESA73.
    The term ``marine mammal'' is defined as ``any mammal which is 
morphologically adapted to the marine environment (including sea otters 
and members of the orders Sirenia, Pinnipedia, and Cetacea), or 
primarily inhabits the marine environment (such as the polar bear)'' 
(16 U.S.C. 1362). The order Sirenia includes manatees, the order 
Pinnipedia includes seals, sea lions, and walruses, and the order 
Cetacea includes dolphins, porpoises, and whales.
    D. Areas Containing a Large Percentage of the World's Population of 
a Migratory Waterbird Species: These areas contain very high 
concentrations of the world's population of a species for a short time. 
An example would be those areas of the Delaware Bay where a major 
portion of the world population of red knot (a shorebird species) stop-
over to feed during migration.
    Two programs of international significance are responsible for 
identifying and delimiting areas where significant populations of 
migratory waterbirds congregate during critical periods. The first 
program, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN), 
ranks migratory shorebird concentration areas into four different 
categories on the basis of biological criteria. These four categories 
are:
    1. Hemispheric reserves--these areas host at least 500,000 
shorebirds annually or 30% of a species flyway population;
    2. International reserves--these areas host 100,000 shorebirds 
annually or 15% of a species flyway population;
    3. Regional reserves--these areas host 20,000 shorebirds annually 
or 5% of a species flyway population; and
    4. Endangered species reserves--these areas are critical to the 
survival of endangered species and no minimum number of birds is 
required.
    Eighteen WHSRN sites have been established in the United States 
(Table 1).
    A second program, The Convention on Wetlands of International 
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar), is dedicated to 
identifying globally critical wetland areas supporting migratory 
waterfowl. The establishment of a Ramsar site (Ramsar Articles, 1996) 
includes the following specific criteria for waterfowl:
    1. A wetland area that regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl, or
    2. A wetland area that regularly supports substantial numbers of 
individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland 
values, productivity, or diversity, or
    3. Where data on populations are available, a wetland area that 
regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species 
or subspecies of waterfowl.
    There are a total of 17 Ramsar sites in the United States. See 
table 1 in the appendix to this document.
    Additional information on the Ramsar and WHSRN sites is available 
on the internet or from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 
International Affairs.

Ecological Resources: Filter Criteria

    Filter criteria would be applied to the ecological resource areas 
of primary concern to determine which are most susceptible to permanent 
or long term environmental damage from a hazardous liquid pipeline 
spill. These resources would be ecological USAs.
    We are proposing three ecological filter criteria that are 
consistent with current trends in conservation ecology to identify 
areas with critically imperiled species, multi-species protection 
sites, and migratory waterbird concentrations. The three criteria would 
be applied in a multi-tiered process where all ecological areas of 
primary concern receive repetitive consideration for USA status. For 
example, an ecological area of primary concern is first subjected to 
filter criterion 1, areas with critically imperiled species, and may be 
designated an USA at this point. If the ecological area of primary 
concern does not meet filter criterion 1, it then receives 
consideration under filter criterion 2, multi-species protection areas, 
and may be designated an USA at this point. If the ecological area of 
primary concern does not meet filter criterion 2, it receives 
consideration under filter criterion 3, migratory waterbird 
concentration areas, and may be designated an USA at this point. If the 
ecological area of primary concern does not meet filter criterion 3, it 
remains an ecological area of primary concern. All ecological areas of 
primary concern must be periodically reviewed to consider changes in 
resource information or status. An ecological area of primary concern 
would become a USA once it meets one of the filtering criteria.
A. Filter Criterion 1: Areas With Critically Imperiled Species
    Filter criterion 1 selects those ecological areas of primary 
concern that contain viable occurrences of species or subtaxa 
designated as critically imperiled globally to be USAs. These species 
or subtaxa demonstrate extreme rarity or extreme vulnerability to 
extinction due to some natural or man-made factor. They typically have 
five or fewer occurrences or fewer than 1,000 individuals globally. In 
some cases, species or subtaxa may be identified as critically 
imperiled because they are subject to an extreme threat of extinction 
due to factors other than low number of occurrences or individuals.
    The critically imperiled designation includes a wide variety of 
plant and animal species and subtaxa. It includes approximately 64% of 
the listed threatened and endangered species and 53% of those species 
currently designated by the Departments of Interior and Commerce as 
proposed or as candidates for listing under ESA73. This filter 
criterion also selects an additional number of plant and animal species 
and subtaxa not designated under ESA73. All ecological areas of primary 
concern meeting this criterion would be considered USAs. Ecological 
areas of primary concern that do not meet filter criterion 1 would then 
be considered under filter criteria 2 and 3.
B. Filter Criterion 2: Multi-species Protection Areas
    Filter criterion 2 selects the ecological areas of primary concern 
that form multi-species assemblages. Multi-species assemblages are 
defined as areas where three or more different critically imperiled or 
imperiled species, threatened or endangered species, depleted marine 
mammals, or migratory waterbird concentrations co-occur. These areas 
are valuable since they often represent unique ecosystems. Multi-
species protection areas also protect a greater number of sensitive 
resources per site location.
C. Filter Criterion 3: Migratory Waterbird Concentration Areas
    Filter criterion 3 selects the ecological areas of primary concern 
that are designated Ramsar sites. Filter criterion 3 also selects the 
ecological areas of primary concern that are WHSRN sites ranked as 
hemispheric, international, or endangered species reserves. These areas 
are valuable since significant populations of migratory waterbirds 
congregate in these areas during critical periods. Relatively common 
species may be at risk at such sites. In some

[[Page 73472]]

cases, as much as 80% of the entire North American population of a 
particular species may occur at one of these sites during critical 
concentration periods.

Pilot Test

    RSPA published a Notice of Intent to Pilot Test (64 FR 38173) on 
July 15, 1999. This notice announced the commencement of a pilot test 
to determine if the definition described in this NPRM could be used to 
identify and locate unusually sensitive drinking water and ecological 
resources using available data from government agencies and 
environmental organizations. RSPA is conducting the pilot test using 
the States of Texas, California, and Louisiana to test this proposed 
USA definition due to the large number of hazardous liquid pipelines in 
these states and the considerable drinking water and ecological 
resources that exist in these states. RSPA and others will use the 
results to evaluate whether the proposed definition identifies the 
majority of unusually sensitive areas and whether environmental data is 
accessible and appropriate to support the proposed definition. The 
results of this pilot test will be used to create an industry guidance 
document on unusually sensitive areas.
    In this pilot test RSPA is:
     Identifying pertinent drinking water data that have been 
created and maintained by Federal or state government agencies, 
environmental groups, or private organizations. This includes data on 
public drinking water systems, aquifers, sole source aquifers, wellhead 
protection areas, alternative drinking water resources, and aquifer 
vulnerabilities.
     Identifying pertinent ecological data that have been 
created and maintained by Federal or state government agencies, 
environmental groups, or private organizations. This includes data on 
threatened and endangered species, critically imperilled and imperilled 
species, depleted marine mammal species, and areas containing a large 
percentage of the world's population of a migratory waterbird species.
     Identifying data on land features, such as the location of 
wetlands, rivers, transportation networks, and water routes (including 
flow direction).
     Obtaining, where possible, all pertinent drinking water, 
ecological, and land feature data. All problems encountered in 
gathering the data are being documented.
     Determining if the obtained data can be used with the 
proposed USA definition to identify and locate USAs. This includes 
reviewing the data for accuracy, attributes, format, restrictions on 
use, and determining if the resources and features were mapped with 
sufficient precision.
     Processing the data, using a geographic information system 
(GIS), according to the proposed USA definition. Identifying all 
problems encountered in processing the data.
     Comparing the USA pilot results to other preservation area 
identification efforts, where possible, and to all threatened and 
endangered specie areas.
    RSPA will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register 
and put the results of this pilot test on the OPS's Web Page: http://
ops.dot.gov for review and comment as soon as the results are 
available. We currently expect to have the results in April 2000.

Technical Review

    Drinking water and ecological resource experts will review the 
pilot test to determine whether the results identify the majority of 
unusually sensitive areas within the three pilot states. These experts 
will come from the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, state Nature Conservancies and 
Heritage Programs. We will also use experts on drinking water and 
ecological resources from state agencies, including the Texas Railroad 
Commission, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Louisiana Department of 
Environmental Quality, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and 
Fisheries, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the 
California State Fire Marshals Office.
    These peer reviewers will help to identify other data sets that 
might be utilized and other resources that might be considered, and to 
improve the capability of the proposed USA definition to identify the 
majority of USAs within the three states. RSPA will publish a Notice of 
Availability in the Federal Register and the results of this peer 
review on OPS's Web Page: http://ops.dot.gov as soon as the results are 
available.
    RSPA will also present this NPRM and the USA pilot results to the 
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
(THLPSSC). The THLPSSC is responsible for reviewing proposed federal 
hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards and reporting on their 
feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability. Representatives on the 
THLPSSC include the Minerals Management Service, City of Fredericksburg 
Virginia, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Virginia State Corporation Commission, Environmental Defense Fund, The 
Nature Conservancy, Kenai Peninsula, Atlantic Consultants, Southwest 
Research Institute, Buckeye Pipe Line, Lakehead Pipe Line, Kinder 
Morgan Energy Partners, and Mobil Pipe Line.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not consider this 
proposed rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action under Section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). 
Therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rulemaking document. DOT does not 
consider this proposed rulemaking significant under its regulatory 
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    This proposed definition will have no cost impact on the pipeline 
industry or the public because it is only a definition. It requires no 
immediate action on the part of pipeline operators. Potentially, it 
could impact current or future regulations but this would require 
specific rulemaking action. Because there is no accompanying action 
requiring anything of pipeline operators, there is no need to examine 
the cost impact. If future rulemakings require that operators take any 
specific actions on pipelines that are in unusually sensitive areas, 
then RSPA will perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine any 
potential impact. Because operators are taking no actions there are 
also no specific benefits attributable to this proposed definition.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule would not impose additional requirements on 
pipeline operators, including small entities that operate regulated 
pipelines. Based on the above information showing that there is no 
economic impact of this proposed rulemaking, I certify, pursuant to 
Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this 
proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 13084

    The proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' 
Because the proposed rules would not significantly or uniquely affect 
the Indian tribal governments, the funding and consultation 
requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

[[Page 73473]]

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rulemaking contains no information collection that is 
subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates under 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs 
of $100 million or more to either State local, or tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and would be the least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed the proposed rule for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) The information and 
analysis provided in the Environmental Assessment demonstrate that the 
proposed action to define USAs in Part 195.2 and 195.6 will not have 
any significant environmental impact. However, as discussed in the 
Environmental Assessment, RSPA is considering several rulemakings that 
will provide additional protection for the USAs that will be identified 
using this definition. At the time these rulemakings are proposed, RSPA 
will perform Environmental Assessments to determine the impacts on the 
environment of these new requirements. The Environmental Assessment 
document is available for review in the docket.

G. Impact on Business Processes and Computer Systems

    Many computers that use two digits to keep track of dates will, on 
January 1, 2000, recognize ``double zero'' not as 2000 but as 1900. 
This glitch, the Year 2000 problem, could cause computers to stop 
running or to start generating erroneous data. The Year 2000 problem 
poses a threat to the global economy in which Americans live and work. 
With the help of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, 
Federal agencies are reaching out to increase awareness of the problem 
and to offer support. We do not want to impose new requirements that 
would mandate business process changes when the resources necessary to 
implement those requirements would otherwise be applied to the Year 
2000 Problem. This notice of proposed rulemaking does not propose 
business process changes or require modifications to computer systems. 
Because this notice apparently does not affect the ability of 
organizations to respond to the Year 2000 problem, we do not intend to 
delay the effectiveness of the regulatory definition proposed in this 
notice.

H. Executive Order 12612

    This action would not have substantial direct effects on states, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 
FR 41685; October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that the proposed 
regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

    Anhydrous Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Hazardous liquids, Petroleum, 
Pipeline Safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA hearby proposes to amend 49 
CFR Part 195 as follows:

PART 195--[AMENDED]

    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.

    2. Section 195.2 would be revised by adding the following 
definition in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 195.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Unusually sensitive area (USA) means a drinking water or ecological 
resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from 
a hazardous liquid pipeline release, as identified under Sec. 195.6.
    3. Section 195.6 would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 195.6  Unusually Sensitive Areas (USAs).

    As used in this part, an USA means a drinking water or ecological 
resource area that is unusually sensitive to environmental damage from 
a hazardous liquid pipeline release.
    (a) For drinking water resources: (1) The water intake for a 
Community Water System (CWS), as defined under Sec. 195.6(c), or a Non-
transient Non-community Water System (NTNCWS), as defined under 
Sec. 195.6(c), that obtains its water supply primarily from a surface 
water source and does not have an adequate alternative source of water,
    (2) The Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) for a CWS, as defined under 
Sec. 195.6(c), or a NTNCWS that obtains its water supply from a Class I 
or Class IIA aquifer, as defined under Sec. 195.6(c), and does not have 
an adequate alternative source of water, or
    (3) An area twice the WHPA for a CWS or a NTNCWS that obtains its 
water supply primarily from a sole source Class I or Class IIa aquifer 
and does not have an alternative source of water.
    (b) For ecological resources: (1) An area containing critically 
imperiled species, as defined under Sec. 195.6(c),
    (2) A multi-species protection area, as defined under 
Sec. 195.6(c), or
    (3) A migratory waterbird concentration area, as defined under 
Sec. 195.6(c).
    (c) As used in this part--Class I Aquifer means an aquifer that is 
surficial or shallow, permeable, and is highly vulnerable to 
contamination. A Class I aquifer may be a:
    (1) Unconsolidated Aquifer (Class Ia) that consists of surficial, 
unconsolidated, and permeable alluvial, terrace, outwash, beach, dune 
and other similar deposits. These aquifers generally contain layers of 
sand and gravel that, commonly, are interbedded to some degree with 
silt and clay. Not all Class Ia aquifers are important water-bearing 
units, but they are likely to be both permeable and vulnerable. The 
only natural protection of these aquifers is the thickness of the 
unsaturated zone and the presence of fine-grained material.
    (2) Soluble and Fractured Bedrock Aquifer (Class Ib). Lithologies 
in this class include limestone, dolomite, and, locally, evaporitic 
units that contain documented karst features or solution channels, 
regardless of size. Generally these aquifers have a wide range of 
permeability. Also included in this class are sedimentary strata, and 
metamorphic and igneous (intrusive and extrusive) rocks that are 
significantly faulted, fractured, or jointed. In all cases groundwater 
movement is largely controlled by secondary openings. Well yields range 
widely, but the important feature is the potential for rapid vertical 
and lateral ground water movement along preferred pathways, which 
result in a high degree of vulnerability.
    (3) Semiconsolidated Aquifer (Class Ic) that generally contains 
poorly to moderately indurated sand and gravel that is interbedded with 
clay and silt. This group is intermediate to the unconsolidated and 
consolidated end members. These systems are common in the Tertiary age 
rocks that are exposed throughout the Gulf and Atlantic coastal states. 
Semiconsolidated conditions also arise from the presence of 
intercalated clay and caliche within primarily unconsolidated to poorly 
consolidated

[[Page 73474]]

units, such as occurs in parts of the High Plains Aquifer.
    (4) Covered Aquifer (Class Id) that is any Class I aquifer overlain 
by less than 50 feet of low permeability, unconsolidated material, such 
as glacial till, lacustrian, and loess deposits.
    Class IIa aquifer means a Higher Yield Bedrock Aquifer that is 
consolidated and is moderately vulnerable to contamination. These 
aquifers generally consist of fairly permeable sandstone or 
conglomerate that contain lesser amounts of interbedded fine grained 
clastics (shale, siltstone, mudstone) and occasionally carbonate units. 
In general, well yields must exceed 50 gallons per minute to be 
included in this class. Local fracturing may contribute to the dominant 
primary porosity and permeability of these systems.
    Community Water System (CWS) means a public water system that 
provides water to the same population year round.
    Critically imperiled species means a species of extreme rarity, 
based on The Nature Conservancy's Global Conservation Status Rank. 
These species have 5 or fewer occurrences or fewer than 1,000 
individuals, or are extremely vulnerable to extinction due to some 
natural or man-made factor.
    Depleted Marine Mammal species means a species that has been 
identified and is protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
1972, as amended (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.). The term ``depleted'' 
refers to marine mammal species that are listed as threatened or 
endangered, or are below their optimum sustainable populations (16 
U.S.C. 1362). The term ``marine mammal'' means ``any mammal which is 
morphologically adapted to the marine environment (including sea otters 
and members of the orders Sirenia, Pinnipedia, and Cetacea), or 
primarily inhabits the marine environment (such as the polar bear)'' 
(16 U.S.C. 1362). The order Sirenia includes manatees, the order 
Pinnipedia includes seals, sea lions, and walruses, and the order 
Cetacea includes dolphins, porposes, and whales.
    Imperiled species means a rare species, based on The Nature 
Conservancy's Global Conservation Status Rank. These species have 6 to 
20 occurrences or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals, or are vulnerable to 
extinction due to some natural or man-made factor.
    Migratory waterbird concentration area means a designated Ramsar 
site or Western Hemisphere Shoreline Reserve Network site ranked as 
hemispheric, international, or endangered species reserve.
    Multi-species protection area means an area where three or more 
different critically imperiled or imperiled species, threatened or 
endangered species, depleted marine mammals, or migratory waterbird 
concentrations co-occur.
    Non-transient Non-community Water System (NTNCWS) means a public 
water system that regularly serves at least 25 of the same people at 
least six months of the year. Examples of these systems include 
schools, factories, and hospitals that have their own water supplies.
    Public Water System (PWS) means a system that provides piped water 
for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serves an 
average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year. These 
systems include the sources of the water supplies--i.e., surface or 
ground. PWS can be community, non-transient non-community, or transient 
non-community systems.
    Ramsar site means a site that has been designated under The 
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as 
Waterfowl Habitat program. Ramsar sites are globally critical wetland 
areas that support migratory waterfowl. These include wetland areas 
that regularly support 20,000 waterfowl; wetland areas that regularly 
support substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of 
waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity, or diversity; or 
wetland areas that regularly support 1% of the individuals in a 
population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl.
    Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) means an area designated by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency under the Sole Source Aquifer program 
as the ``sole or principal'' source of drinking water for an area. Such 
designations are made if the aquifer's ground water supplies 50% or 
more of the drinking water for an area, and if that aquifer were to 
become contaminated, it would pose a public health hazard.
    Species means species, subspecies, population stocks, or distinct 
vertebrate populations.
    Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) means an animal or plant 
species that has been listed and is protected under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA73) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 
``Endangered species'' is defined as ``any species which is in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' 
(16 U.S.C. 1532). ``Threatened species'' is defined as ``any species 
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' (16 
U.S.C. 1532).
    Transient Non-Community Water System (TNCWS) means a public water 
system that caters to transitory customers in nonresidential areas. 
Examples of these systems include campgrounds, motels, rest stops, and 
gas stations.
    Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) means the surface and subsurface 
area surrounding a well or well field that supplies a public water 
system through which contaminants are likely to pass and eventually 
reach the water well or well field.
    Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) site means an 
area that contains migratory shorebird concentrations and has been 
designated as a hemispheric reserve, international reserve, regional 
reserve, or endangered species reserve. Hemispheric reserves host at 
least 500,000 shorebirds annually or 30% of a species flyway 
population. International reserves host 100,000 shorebirds annually or 
15% of a species flyway population. Regional reserves host 20,000 
shorebirds annually or 5% of a species flyway population. Endangered 
species reserves are critical to the survival of endangered species and 
no minimum number of birds is required.

Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

Appendix

    Note:  This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

                 Table 1.--Currently Recognized Migratory Waterbird Protection Areas in the U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site name                        State             Size  (ha)           Location coordinates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramsar Sites:
    Ash Meadows National Wildlife     Nevada.................           9,509  36 deg.25'N 116 deg.20'W
     Refuge.
    Bolinas Lagoon..................  California.............             445  37 deg.55'N 112 deg.41'W

[[Page 73475]]

 
    Cache-Lower White Rivers........  Arkansas...............          81,376  34 deg.40'N 091 deg.11'W
    Cache River-Cypress Creek         Illinois...............          24,281  37 deg.13'N 089 deg.08'W
     Wetlands.
    Caddo Lake......................  Texas..................           8,382  32 deg.45'N 094 deg.08'W
    Catahoula Lake..................  Louisiana..............          12,150  31 deg.30'N 092 deg.06'W
    Chesapeake Bay Estuarine Complex  Virginia...............          45,000  38 deg.00'N 076 deg.20'W
    Cheyenne Bottoms State Game Area  Kansas.................           8,036  38 deg.29'N 098 deg.40'W
    Connecticut River Estuary &       Connecticut............           6,484  41 deg.15'N 072 deg.18'W
     Tidal Wetland Complex.
    Delaware Bay Estuary............  Delaware and New Jersey          51,252  39 deg.11'N 075 deg.14'W
    Edwin B Forsythe National         New Jersey.............          13,080  39 deg.36'N 074 deg.17'W
     Wildlife Refuge.
    Everglades National Park MR.....  Florida................         566,143  25 deg.00'N 080 deg.55'W
    Horicon Marsh...................  Wisconsin..............          12,911  43 deg.30'N 088 deg.38'W
    Izembek Lagoon National Wildlife  Alaska.................         168,433  55 deg.45'N 162 deg.41'W
     Refuge.
    Okefenokee National Wildlife      Georgia, Florida.......         159,889  30 deg.49'N 082 deg.20'W
     Refuge.
    Pelican Island National Wildlife  Florida................           1,908  27 deg.48'N 080 deg.25'W
     Refuge.
    Sand Lake National Wildlife       South Dakota...........           8,700  45 deg.45'N 098 deg.15'W
     Refuge.
WHSRN Sites:
    Copper River Delta..............  Alaska.................
    Kachemak Bay....................  Alaska.................
    Mono Lake.......................  California.............
    Grasslands......................  California.............
    San Francisco Bay...............  California.............
    Delaware Bay....................  Delaware, New Jersey...
    American Falls..................  Idaho..................
    Cheyenne Bottoms................  Kansas.................
    Quivira.........................  Kansas.................
    Barrier Islands.................  Maryland, Virginia.....
    Benton Lake.....................  Montana................
    Stillwater......................  Nevada.................
    Salt Plains.....................  Oklahoma...............
    Cape Roman......................  South Carolina.........
    Bolivar Flats...................  Texas..................
    Brazoria Refuge Complex.........  Texas..................
    Great Salt Lake.................  Utah...................
    Gray's Harbor...................  Washington.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment A

    Recommended Data Source: EPA Report 600/2-91/043. Regional 
Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability and Sensitivity in the 
Conterminous United States. Office of Research and Development. 
Washington, DC. 319pp.
    The following information was obtained from pages 6-8 of the 
above report:

Class I Aquifers (Surficial or Shallow, Permeable Units; Highly 
Vulnerable to Contamination)

Unconsolidated Aquifers (Class Ia)

    Class Ia aquifers consist of surficial, unconsolidated, and 
permeable alluvial, terrace, outwash, beach, dune and other similar 
deposits. These units generally contain layers of sand and gravel 
that, commonly, are interbedded to some degree with silt and clay. 
Not all deposits mapped as Class Ia are important water-bearing 
units, but they are likely to be both permeable and vulnerable. The 
only natural protection of aquifers of this class is the thickness 
of the unsaturated zone and the presence of fine-grained material.

Soluble and Fractured Bedrock Aquifers (Class Ib)

    Lithologies in this class include limestone, dolomite, and, 
locally, evaporitic units that contain documented karst features or 
solution channels, regardless of size. Generally these systems have 
a wide range in permeability. Also included in this class are 
sedimentary strata, and metamorphic and igneous (intrusive and 
extrusive) rocks that are significantly faulted, fractured, or 
jointed. In all cases groundwater movement is largely controlled by 
secondary openings. Well yields range widely, but the important 
feature is the potential for rapid vertical and lateral ground water 
movement along preferred pathways, which result in a high degree of 
vulnerability.

Semiconsolidated Aquifers (Class Ic)

    Semiconsolidated systems generally contain poorly to moderately 
indurated sand and gravel that is interbedded with clay and silt. 
This group is intermediate to the unconsolidated and consolidated 
end members. These systems are common in the Tertiary age rocks that 
are exposed throughout the Gulf and Atlantic coastal states. 
Semiconsolidated conditions also arise from the presence of 
intercalated clay and caliche within primarily unconsolidated to 
poorly consolidated units, such as occurs in parts of the High 
Plains Aquifer.

Covered Aquifers (Class Id)

    This class consists of any Class I aquifer that is overlain by 
less than 50 feet of low permeability, unconsolidated material, such 
as glacial till, lacustrian, and loess deposits.

Class II Aquifers (Consolidated Bedrock Aquifers; Moderately 
Vulnerable)

Higher Yield Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIa)

    These aquifers generally consist of fairly permeable sandstone 
or conglomerate that contain lesser amounts of interbedded fine 
grained clastics (shale, siltstone, mudstone) and occasionally 
carbonate units. In general, well yields must exceed 50 gpm to be 
included in this class. Locally fracturing may contribute to the 
dominant primary porosity and permeability of these systems.

Lower Yield Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIb)

    In most cases, these aquifers consist of sedimentary or 
crystalline rocks. Most commonly, lower yield systems consist of the 
same clastic rock types present in the higher yield systems, but in 
the former case grain size is generally smaller and the degree of 
cementation or induration is greater, both of which lead to a lower 
permeability. In many existing and ancient mountain regions, such as 
the Appalachians (Blue Ridge and Piedmont), the core consists of 
crystalline rocks that are fractured to some degree. Well yields are 
commonly less than 50 gpm, although they may be larger in valleys 
than on interstream divides.

Covered Bedrock Aquifers (Class IIc)

    This group consists of Class IIa and IIb aquifers that are 
overlain by less than 50 feet of unconsolidated material of low

[[Page 73476]]

permeability, such as glacial till, lacustrian, or loess deposits. 
It is assumed that most Class V wells are relatively shallow and, 
therefore, 50 feet or less of fine grained cover could reduce but 
not necessarily eliminate the vulnerability of underlying Class II 
systems.

 Class III (Consolidated or Unconsolidated Aquifers That Are 
Overlain by More Than 50 Feet of Low Permeability Material; Low 
Vulnerability)

    Aquifers of this type are the least vulnerable of all the 
classes because they are naturally protected by a thick layer of 
fine grained material, such as glacial till or shale. Examples 
include parts of the Northern Great Plains where the Pierre Shale of 
Cretaceous age crops out over thousands of square miles and is 
hundreds of feet thick. In many of the glaciated states, till forms 
an effective cover over bedrock or buried outwash aquifers, and 
elsewhere alternating layers of shale, siltstone, and fine grained 
sandstone insulate and protect the deeper major water bearing zones 
* * *

Class U (Undifferentiated Aquifers)

    This classification is used where several lithologic and 
hydrologic conditions are present within a mappable area. Units are 
assigned to this class because of constraints of mapping scale, the 
presence of undelineated members within a formation or group, or the 
presence of nonuniformly occurring features, such as fracturing. 
This class is intended to convey a wider range of vulnerability than 
is usually contained within any other single class.

Subclass V (Variable Covered Aquifers)

    The modifier ``v'', such as Class IIa-v, is used to describe 
areas where an undetermined or highly variable thickness of low 
permeability sediments overlie the major water bearing zone. To 
provide the largest amount of information, the underlying aquifer 
was mapped as if the cover were absent, and the ``v'' designation 
was added to the classification. The ``v'' indicates that a variable 
thickness of low permeability material covers the aquifer and, since 
the thickness of the cover, to a large degree, controls 
vulnerability, this aspect is undefined.
[FR Doc. 99-33614 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P