Passage of Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

RIN 3137-AB71

[Docket No. PS-126; Notice 2]

Passage of Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Response to Petitions for

Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On April 12, 1994, RSPA published a final rule requiring that

new and replaced pipeline facilities be constructed to accommodate

inspection by instrumented internal inspection devices commonly known

as ``smart pigs.'' RSPA has received two petitions for reconsideration

of that rule as it applies to gas pipelines. In response to those

petitions, this notice proposes to modify the rule with respect to:

Replacements in gas transmission lines located in less populated areas;

and replacements in gas transmission lines located offshore. In

addition, in order to allow completion of rulemaking on these

proposals, this notice proposes limited extension of the compliance

dates for certain current requirements. Finally, this document

announces RSPA's decision with respect to other matters raised in the

petitions.

DATES: Comments on the limited extension of the compliance dates for

current requirements are due October 31, 1994. Comments on other

modifications of the rule are due November 29, 1994. Commenters should

submit as part of their written comments all the material that is

considered relevant to any statement of fact or argument made.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed or hand delivered to the Dockets Unit

[DHM-20], Room 8421, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S.

Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC

20590-0001. Telephone: (202) 366-5046. Comments should identify the

Docket No. and Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) stated in the

heading of this document; the original and two copies should be

submitted. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their

comments should include a self addressed stamped envelope. Public

Dockets may be reviewed and copied between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366-2036,

Office of Pipeline Safety, regarding the subject matter of this notice,

or Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046 for copies of this notice or other

materials in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

RSPA published a final rule under Docket No. PS-126 (Amendments

190-5, 192-72, 193-9, and 195-50) requiring operators of gas, hazardous

liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines to design and construct new

pipelines and portions of pipelines on which replacements are made to

accommodate the passage of smart pigs (59 FR 17275; April 12, 1994).

Among the provisions for gas transmission lines, 49 CFR 192.150(a)

requires that:

* * * each new transmission line and each line section of a

transmission line where the line pipe, valve, fitting or other line

component is replaced must be designed and constructed to

accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices.

The term ``line section'' was defined (in Sec. 192.3) as a

continuous run of transmission line between adjacent compressor

stations, between a compressor station and storage facilities, between

a compressor station and a block valve, or between adjacent block

valves. It was derived from a definition already in use for hazardous

liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (Sec. 195.2).

Several specific exceptions to the requirements in Sec. 192.150(a)

are provided, including one for offshore gas transmission lines less

than 10 inches in nominal diameter that transport gas to onshore

facilities. In addition, under Sec. 192.150(b)(8) an operator may seek

a specific exception to be based upon a RSPA finding that it would be

impracticable to design and construct a transmission line for the

passage of smart pigs.

Requests for Stay and Petitions for Reconsideration

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) filed a

``Request for a Stay of the Effective Date [May 12, 1994] of the Final

Rule; Passage of Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices'' dated May

4, 1994. INGAA requests that RSPA stay until at least January 1, 1995,

that provision of the final rule requiring a line section, as defined

in 49 CFR Sec. 192.3, to be modified to accommodate smart pigs whenever

a line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line component is replaced in a

line section. To support their request for a stay, INGAA notes that the

1994 summer replacement/rehabilitation work is in progress and that

funds for modification of line sections have not been allocated by

operators. INGAA also argues that there was procedural error in the

rulemaking process.

INGAA also filed a ``Petition for Reconsideration of the Final

Rule; Passage of Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices'' dated May

10, 1994. INGAA asks that the definition of ``line section'' be deleted

from 49 CFR Sec. 192.3 and that all offshore gas transmission lines be

exempt from the final rule. Issues raised by INGAA to support its

request for deletion of ``line section'' are lack of authority to

promulgate such a rule and procedural error. INGAA points to technical

infeasibility and impracticability to support its request for exemption

of offshore gas transmission lines.

The American Gas Association (AGA) filed a ``Request for

Administrative Stay of the May 12, 1994 effective date and Petition for

Reconsideration of RSPA's Final Rule on Passage of Instrumented

Internal Inspection Devices.'' Arguing that immediate implementation

would harm public safety by diverting funds from other safety projects,

AGA requests that RSPA immediately stay the effective date with respect

to replacement of line sections. In addition, AGA requests that RSPA

grant reconsideration of the final rule in order to address the costs,

benefits, and practicability of the replacement requirement to modify

the complete line section to accommodate smart pigs. To support this,

AGA argues that RSPA failed to consider the standards for pipeline

safety rules set out in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 60102(b) (formerly section 3(a)

of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act); there was no opportunity for

public comment on the definition of line section; the Technical

Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) was not given opportunity

to review relevant provisions; and the final rule was not reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The three documents submitted by INGAA and AGA are in the docket.

Stay of Compliance With Line Section Replacement

In its request to stay application of the line section replacement

provision of the final rule, INGAA explained that ``almost all

decisions, to include funding, for pipeline replacement and

rehabilitation are made at least a year preceding the summer work

season * * *'' INGAA states that the one year lag time includes time

required for ``design work, obtaining bids for work, selecting

contractors, ordering material, obtaining approval from FERC (Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission), performing environmental analyses and

obtaining Federal and State environmental and archaeological permits

when necessary, and obtaining landowner approval for right-of-way work

on their property.'' As a result, INGAA believes that it is ``far too

late to comply with a May 12, 1994, effective date to make `line

sections' piggable''. AGA echoes this sentiment by stating that if the

May 12, 1994, effective date of the final rule remains in place,

``pipeline replacement projects currently in progress for 1994 would

have to be canceled, since the administrative permits and plans for

such projects were in place during the winter of 1993-94.''

The concerns expressed by INGAA and AGA led RSPA to advise INGAA,

AGA, and the American Petroleum Institute on May 12, 1994, that it was

suspending enforcement, until further notice, of the final rule insofar

as it requires making the entire line section accommodate smart pigs if

the line pipe, valve, fitting or other component is replaced. The

suspension did not effect the requirements that pipeline operators

design and construct new onshore and offshore pipelines or the actual

line pipe, valve, fitting or other line component being replaced to

accommodate smart pigs. Furthermore, operators were encouraged to

voluntarily modify any obstructions in the line section to accommodate

smart pigs whenever any replacement is made.

This notice addresses INGAA's and AGA's request for a stay in a

more formal manner. First, this notice proposes to extend the

compliance date for replacements made in gas transmission pipelines to

allow operators to continue replacing any line pipe, valve, fitting or

other line component (with a replacement that accommodates smart pigs)

without requiring that any other obstructions in the line section be

designed and constructed to accommodate smart pigs. As discussed below,

RSPA is proposing to partially grant reconsideration of the final rule

as it applies to replacements in gas transmission pipelines. At the

same time, we are proposing to extend compliance dates to allow for

completion of rulemaking on the reconsideration. Second, the suspension

of enforcement with respect to gas transmission pipelines will remain

in effect until February 2, 1995, or until RSPA finalizes action with

respect to compliance dates, whichever is earlier.

Effect on Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipelines

The petitions for reconsideration and requests for administrative

stay received addressed only gas transmission pipelines. However,

because of the possibility that the issues raised could be equally

applicable to hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines, the

suspension of enforcement applied equally to hazardous liquid and

carbon dioxide pipelines.

RSPA has considered whether the reconsideration granted in this

notice with respect to aspects of the final rule as they apply to gas

transmission lines should be expanded to hazardous liquid and carbon

dioxide pipelines. RSPA has decided not to expand the reconsideration

to include hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines. First, there

has been no request to do so. Second, hazardous liquid pipelines pose

environmental risks generally unrelated to the population surrounding

the pipelines. The relief proposed below with respect to gas

transmission lines arise from the nature of those pipelines and their

location with respect to population. Finally, based on data collected

by RSPA (below) in 1989, approximately 41.7% of (136,359 miles) of

natural gas transmission lines were not able to accommodate a smart pig

for reasons other than lack of launchers or receivers, while only 10.5%

(16,275 miles) of hazardous liquid pipelines were similarly not

piggable.

Because RSPA is not proposing any changes in the final rule with

respect to hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines, the

suspension of enforcement with respect to those lines is immediately

(insert date of publication of this NPRM) lifted and compliance will be

enforced.

Replacements

A. Authority for Requirement

INGAA argues that RSPA lacks the authority to promulgate a rule

requiring operators to modify line sections to accommodate smart pigs

when portions of the sections are replaced. INGAA bases its argument on

the assumption that the statutory authority for the rule is the change

to the basic authorities for requiring modification of existing

pipelines to accommodate smart pigs that was made by sections 103 and

203 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-508, Oct. 24, 1992).

That change authorizes RSPA to require changes to existing lines whose

basic construction would accommodate a smart pig. The 1992 authority

would allow RSPA to require the installation of launchers and receivers

in lines that already can be smart ``pigged'' should the decision be

made in a future rulemaking that the line must be so inspected. INGAA's

assumption that RSPA was relying on this 1992 amendment in this

rulemaking is incorrect.

The requirement in the final rule for replacement of the line

section is based upon authority enacted in 1988 that now reads:

The Secretary shall prescribe minimum safety standards requiring

that the design and construction of a new gas pipeline transmission

facility or hazardous liquid pipeline facility, and the required

replacement of an existing gas pipeline transmission facility,

hazardous liquid pipeline facility, or equipment, be carried out, to

the extent practicable, in a way that accommodates the passage

through the facility of an instrumented internal inspection device

(commonly referred to as a ``smart pig'').

49 U.S.C. 60102 (f). This section supports the final rule that requires

any needed changes to the line section to accommodate smart pigs

whenever one or more components must be replaced. A more narrow

reading, one in which only the individual components must be made smart

``piggable'', would render the provision virtually meaningless. This is

so because the factors that restrict ``piggability'' are often related

to the geometry of the line (such as bends) rather than to an

individual component (such as a valve). The use of valves that cannot

accommodate smart pigs is largely in pipelines in which the geometry

does not allow inspection by smart pigs. Thus a more narrow reading, in

which only the single component being replaced must accommodate the

internal inspection by smart pigs, would result in virtually no change

in the ``piggability'' of existing pipelines. Congress clearly intended

that change in the ``piggability'' occur.

Accordingly, RSPA has the authority to issue the final rule.

However, as discussed below, RSPA agrees that there may be instances in

which the final rule requires that modifications be made to the entire

line section which may not be feasible.

B. Scope of the Notice

AGA and INGAA argue that both the definition of ``line section''

and the mandatory modification of line sections were not included in

the proposed rule, effectively precluding meaningful comment. AGA and

INGAA claim that the notice of proposed rulemaking was so inadequate as

to violate the requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

for notice and comment in the informal rulemaking process.

The notice proposed that each ``replacement transmission line''

(or, for hazardous liquid pipelines, each ``replacement pipeline'') be

made to accommodate smart pigs. Much of the comment on the issue of

replacement questioned the scope of the terms ``replacement

transmission lines'' and ``replacement lines.'' Commenters speculated

about the end points of the segments of lines that had to be made to

accommodate smart pigs when a replacement was required. Under the

proposed language, any replacement in a transmission line could require

modification of the entire line to accommodate smart pigs. AGA itself

expressed concern that the proposed rule would be read to require

altering an entire transmission line.

Recommendations to narrow the terms for replacement used in the

proposed rule by substituting the term ``line section'' came from

comments to the proposed rule filed by a pipeline trade association and

a pipeline operator. These two commenters favored the term because it

was already defined in 49 CFR 195.2 and it clearly set out the length

to be made to accommodate smart pigs. Other commenters suggested

similar terms such as ``replacement transmission section'' (recommended

by AGA), ``segment'', and ``line segment''. However, none of these

terms was as clearly defined as ``line section'', and RSPA, on the

basis of the comments, chose to adopt the more recognized term to

clarify the intent of the rule. This solution to the concerns raised by

the commenters is clearly within the scope of the broadly worded

proposal.

Accordingly, RSPA provided an opportunity for meaningful comment,

consistent with the APA.

C. Advisory Committee Review

Both petitioners complain that there was no opportunity for

consideration by the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee

(TPSSC) of the requirement to modify replacement line sections to

accommodate smart pigs because line section was not mentioned in the

notice or in the summary of comments that was prepared by RSPA for the

August 3, 1993 TPSSC meeting. Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 60115, RSPA

presented the published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the TPSSC. In

addition, RSPA passed out a draft summary of the comments. The TPSSC

accepted the proposed rule as reasonable, feasible and practicable

provided several changes were incorporated. Since the TPSSC reviews and

advises on the proposed rule, it is understandable that the final rule

may differ from the proposal considered or accepted by that committee.

In this case, the final rule was drafted and published some eight

months later. Although RSPA is required to consider the TPSSC's advice

(but is not obligated to adopt any of the TPSSC's recommendations),

several issues raised by the TPSSC were incorporated in the final rule.

Accordingly, RSPA considered the TPSSC recommendations in an

appropriate manner.

D. Economic Impact

Both INGAA and AGA claim that RSPA failed to consider adequately

the economic impact of the replacement aspect of the final rule.

However, many of the changes RSPA incorporated into the final rule were

done at least in part because of economic arguments advanced by

commenters. For example, based on INGAA's and AGA's comments to the

NPRM, RSPA incorporated the procedure to address unforeseen

contingencies in replacements (Sec. 192.150(c)); a clear exception for

gas gathering lines (Sec. 192.9); an exception for pipelines located in

storage fields because of the small diameter piping configured in a

grid-like pattern (Sec. 192.150(b)(3)); and an exception for

transmission pipelines within a distribution system

(Sec. 192.150(b)(6)). In addition, the definition of ``line section''

was developed in part to address AGA concerns that ``pigging'' a short

segment is not economically feasible and that the proposed rule could

be read to require modification of the entire transmission line. Each

of these incorporated changes reduced the economic impact of the final

rule.

INGAA points to the costs of obtaining needed approvals for

replacement projects from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC), Federal and state environmental and archaeological agencies,

and property owners. INGAA claims that some of these may take a year or

more to obtain. To the extent that approvals are needed before work on

the line can be done, the final rule provides for delays. In response

to INGAA and AGA comments, Sec. 192.150(c) sets out a procedure to

allow an operator to delay required modifications to the line section

for up to one year should situations such as delays in needed approvals

occur. However, many replacements will not require approvals. For

example, FERC regulation 18 CFR Sec. 2.55 does not require prior

approval whenever the replacement is less than $6.6 million (1994

limit) and does not reduce service or change the capacity of the line.

Certainly the replacement of certain obstructions such as reduced port

valves and short radius bends will fall into this category and not

require any approval from FERC.

Both INGAA and AGA argue that the requirement to modify other

obstructions in the line section whenever a replacement is made will

potentially increase the cost of compliance with the final rule to over

$100 million per year. However, very little cost data was provided to

support the argument. Moreover, based on information now available

about numbers of gas transmission lines that will not accommodate smart

pigs and the estimated frequency with which operators must install

replacements in lines, RSPA believes the costs to be substantially

less. The economic evaluation prepared for the final rule was based on

available data relating to costs and frequency of replacements made in

gas transmission lines. That evaluation estimated costs at $1.05

million per year. Now under the heading--Requests for Information from

Commenters--this notice requests the operators to provide up-to-date

information on the gas transmission lines that are the subject of this

notice. Thus, gas operators and petitioners will have an opportunity to

provide specific information on the length of affected lines that are

currently unable to accommodate smart pigs (for reasons other than lack

of launchers and receivers) and the extent of replacements made in

recent years for reasons other than to accommodate smart pigs.

Accordingly, RSPA finds that the cost of compliance with the final

rule would not exceed $100 million annually. In addition, the relief

proposed in this notice will further reduce the cost of compliance.

E. Executive Order 12866

AGA argues additionally that RSPA violated Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, titled ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' since ``the costs of

compliance with this rule could potentially reach over $100 million

annually'' and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not review

the final rule. RSPA disagrees. In the first place, as already noted,

RSPA believes the costs of the final rule to be well below $100 million

annually. Second, E.O. 12866 provides for OMB review of only

``significant regulatory actions'' unless OMB declines to review such a

significant action. The procedure for determining that a regulatory

action is not ``significant'' and for obtaining the concurrence of OMB

with that determination is laid out in Section 6(a)(3)(A) of E.O. 12866

and ``Guidance for Implementing E.O. 12866.'' The latter is a

memorandum from Sally Katzen, Administrator for the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, to the heads of executive

departments and agencies dated October 12, 1993. RSPA routinely follows

this procedure by submitting lists of planned regulatory actions to OMB

and obtaining its concurrence in designations of ``significant'' and

``nonsignificant.'' OMB concurred in the designation of this final rule

as ``nonsignificant'' on February 23, 1994. Finally, RSPA notes that

E.O. 12866 is an internal management tool of Executive branch of the

Federal Government and does not create any right to OMB review

enforceable by any person against RSPA.

Accordingly, the final rule complies with the requirements of E.O.

12866 and OMB, as explained above.

F. Reasonableness

Petitioners argue that the final rule is unreasonable in requiring

modification of line sections when single components are replaced.

Petitioners assert that such modifications result in minimal benefits

and excessive costs. RSPA believes that significant benefits can accrue

from inspections with smart pigs. Both the Colonial Pipeline Company's

and the Texas Eastern Pipeline Company's experiences with pipeline

failures caused by outside force damage demonstrate the benefits of

internally inspecting pipelines using smart pigs. The Colonial failure

on March 28, 1993 resulted in the release of an estimated 408,000

gallons of petroleum into Sugarland Run Creek, a tributary of the

Potomac River. The Texas Eastern failure occurred on March 23, 1994

when a 36-inch gas transmission line exploded. The resulting fire

leveled 128 condominium units in Edison, New Jersey and caused death,

injury, and substantial property damage.

The failure in each case resulted from mechanical damage to the

pipeline caused by external damage that occurred at an indeterminate

time before the failure. Recent technological developments in smart

pigs allow for internal inspections that identify dents, gouges, and

other anomalies that could lead to failure on buried pipelines. Smart

pig inspections done on each pipeline following these failures have

resulted in the detection and removal of anomalies that could, over

time, have led to additional failures.

In addition, smart pig inspections have long been used by pipeline

operators concerned about corrosion.

In each of these cases, serious pipeline failures occurred in high

density populated areas placing a significant portion of the population

at risk. In each case, the ``piggability'' of the pipelines provided a

more certain means to assure that similar incidents would not recur on

those pipelines. Such ``piggability'' is the goal of the final rule.

Requiring a pipeline operator to make necessary modifications in a line

section whenever a replacement is made is not only reasonable, but also

necessary for safety in high-density populated areas.

Accordingly, RSPA finds no reason to reconsider the final rule as

it applies to replacements in line sections in Class 3 and 4 locations.

With respect to gas transmission pipelines in less populated areas,

AGA argues that a requirement to modify the complete line section to

accommodate smart pigs ``will result in a risk to public safety by

diverting limited funds for capital improvement projects--many of them

safety related--to making pipelines accommodate smart pigs in rural

areas where there would be little, if any, benefit to the public.''

After citing two examples of replacement projects that would have had

large enormous increases under the line section modification

requirement, AGA goes on to state that ``this enormous increase in

costs will result in the final rule having an economic impact of well

over $100 million annually for the industry.'' While RSPA does not

accept these costs as typical for modifying the obstructions to smart

pigs in most line sections, we see the need to reconsider the resulting

benefits in less populated areas.

Accordingly, as discussed below, we are proposing to modify the

final rule as it applies to replacements in Class 1 and 2 locations.

Offshore Pipelines

INGAA requests that RSPA reconsider the final rule and except all

new and replaced offshore transmission lines from compliance. INGAA

argues that requiring offshore transmission lines to accommodate smart

pigs is technically infeasible and impracticable and does not meet the

special statutory criteria for pipeline safety standards. Those

criteria, found in 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), require consideration of

relevant available pipeline safety data, appropriateness of the

standards for the particular type of pipeline transportation or

facility, the reasonableness of the proposed standards, and the extent

to which the standards will contribute to public safety and the

protection of the environment.

To support its position, INGAA states generally that RSPA ignored

technical material presented to show that offshore pipelines cannot be

``smart pigged'', including an assertion that most offshore gas

pipelines are not constructed to accommodate smart pigs. RSPA disagrees

strongly with this argument. The issue is not whether existing offshore

lines can be ``smart pigged'' but whether new offshore transmission

lines can be constructed or existing offshore gas transmission lines

can be modified to accommodate smart pigs. RSPA considered technical

material relating to problems such as tight bends, restrictive subsea

connections, and limited space on platforms in deciding that they can

be. No technical information has been submitted to RSPA that concludes

that offshore gas transmission lines would be incapable of

accommodating smart pigs if they are so designed and constructed. Their

construction is not dissimilar from that of offshore hazardous liquid

pipelines, many of which are already constructed in a manner that would

accommodate smart pigs.

INGAA is incorrect in citing 1992 changes to the statutory

authority as the basis for the final rule. As discussed above, that

statutory change was not used to support the final rule. In addition,

INGAA is incorrect that RSPA ignored recommendations of the TPSSC. As

discussed above, RSPA is not obligated to adopt the recommendations of

the advisory committee, only to consider them. Discussion of RSPA's

consideration of those recommendations is included in the preamble to

the final rule, but is commingled with the discussion of RSPA's

response to commenters to the proposed rule. Furthermore, RSPA's

consideration of the criteria contained in 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), the

technical data, and recommendations of the TPSSC resulted in the

exception provided in the final rule for offshore gas transmission

lines less than 10 inches in nominal diameter that transport gas to

onshore facilities.

INGAA also points to the lack of population around offshore lines

and the periodic cleaning of the gas transmission lines that removes

condensates as justification for exception from the rules for these

pipelines. The rationale is that offshore gas transmission lines do not

pose either serious safety or environmental concerns justifying the

cost of assuring that the lines can accommodate smart pigs. RSPA agrees

that we may not have fully considered these factors in applying the

rules to offshore gas transmission pipelines and accordingly propose a

change to the final rule.

INGAA asserts that most offshore gas pipeline operators use

cleaning pigs to periodically sweep condensate to onshore separation

facilities. This keeps the offshore pipelines free from condensate and

greatly reduces the environmental impact of an offshore leak by

eliminating the risk of a condensate sheen. RSPA agrees that a leak in

an offshore gas transmission line, that is free of significant

accumulations of condensate, poses minimal risk to the natural

environment.

As noted, RSPA agrees that the offshore gas pipelines do not pose

the same safety risk as onshore pipelines. The offshore safety risk is

to workers on platforms and to vessels. The latter risk is extremely

remote absent the possibility of a collision between a vessel and an

underwater pipeline. This possibility has been minimized by the

issuance of Sec. 192.612, which required operators to conduct

underwater inspections in shallow waters in the Gulf of Mexico to

determine whether they pose a risk to navigation and to re-bury those

pipelines. RSPA is working on a proposal addressing the need for

similar periodic underwater inspections.

The accident reports for offshore incidents received by RSPA

indicate that risk to workers on platforms comes from gas leaks in the

risers. The leaks are the result of condensate with corrosive agents

that is likely to collect in the riser's elbows and cause internal

corrosion. Also, external corrosion at the riser's ``splash zone'' is

caused by the degradation of protective coatings from wave action. Both

types of corrosion are detectible by smart pigs. However, as INGAA

points out, modification of riser bends in order to accommodate smart

pigs is costly. RSPA notes that there are alternative techniques of

inspecting these risers for corrosion that are generally more effective

(and less costly) than use of smart pigs that survey the entire

pipeline. These include divers, remotely operated vehicles carrying

ultrasonic thickness devices, or specially equipped tethered smart

pigs.

Furthermore, it is important to note the recommendation contained

in a 1994 study of marine pipeline safety by the National Research

Council of the National Academy of Sciences titled--Improving The

Safety Of Marine Pipelines. The study, co-sponsored by the Minerals

Management Services and RSPA, had input from persons in industry,

academia, and state and federal government who are experts in their

fields and knowledgeable about the marine pipeline environment,

suggested that:

* * * marine pipelines already constructed be exempted from

federal or state requirements for the use of currently available

smart pigs for external or internal corrosion detection. New medium-

to large-diameter pipelines running from platform to platform or

platform to shore should be designed to accommodate smart pigs

whenever reasonably practical.

Accordingly, RSPA denies INGAA's petition to except new offshore

gas transmission lines. However, as discussed below, RSPA has

reconsidered benefits associated with the offshore gas transmission

lines and proposes to modify the requirement under Sec. 192.150(b)(7)

of the final rule with respect to replacements in these lines.

Proposed Rules

First, as discussed above in the section titled ``Stay of

compliance with line section replacement,'' RSPA proposes to extend to

February 1, 1995, the compliance date with respect to replacements in

gas transmission lines.

Second, RSPA proposes to modify Sec. 192.150(b) to add a new

exception for replacements in the line sections of existing gas

transmission lines in Class 1 and 2 locations. This exception would be

limited to those situations in which an operator, who wishes to avail

itself of the exception, can demonstrate that modifying the line

section to accommodate smart pigs is not feasible, and not needed for

future safety.

The safety prong of this test requires consideration of the

operating and maintenance history of the line section. RSPA expects

that the operator will take into account such factors as the reason for

the replacement, corrosion history, leak history, and the risk of

outside force damage. For example, if the replacement that triggers the

application of Sec. 192.150(a) is required because of corrosion and the

line section has a history of corrosion problems, or if external damage

from earth movement is a concern, future safety considerations may

require the line section to accommodate smart pigs.

A decision that modifying a line section is not feasible might be

based on the nature and costs of the modification. For example, if

(other than the replacement) the only modification on the line section

needed to accommodate smart pigs is to replace a reduced port valve,

and that modification will allow internal inspection of the entire line

section, then the operator might reasonably conclude that the

modification is feasible. However, if modification of the line section

would require the acquisition of costly new right-of-way to straighten

bends, the operator might reasonably conclude that modification is not

feasible.

In reconsidering the benefits and costs of modifying line sections

in these less populated areas, we have considered that we expect to

promulgate, in the near future, a final rule in Docket No. PS-101,

Excavation Damage Prevention Programs for Gas and Hazardous Liquid and

Carbon Dioxide Pipelines. The notice for this rulemaking (53 FR 24747;

June 30, 1988) proposed to require gas pipeline operators to expand

their damage prevention programs to cover rural areas. Any such

requirement that is in the resulting final rule would increase the

safety of gas pipelines in Class 1 and 2 locations from failures caused

by dig-ins.

Finally, with respect to existing offshore gas transmission lines,

RSPA proposes to allow operators who (1) use cleaning pigs to remove

condensate in offshore transmission lines and (2) inspect platform

risers for corrosion to avoid modification of the complete line section

when a replacement is made. The regular removal of condensates reduces

the likelihood of internal corrosion and of the negative environmental

impact of a large sheen in the event of a significant leak. The regular

inspection of risers for corrosion by any of the effective methods

available provides the necessary assurance of safety for personnel

working on the platform.

Requests for Information From Commenters

The purpose of the questions posed below is to gather new or

updated information relating to the issues in this rulemaking. Much of

the data which RSPA has available were gathered in order to meet the

requirement for a congressionally-mandated study on the feasibility of

requiring the use of smart pigs. To obtain information for this study,

RSPA solicited information from interested parties through a Federal

Register notice titled ``Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices'' (54

FR 20948; May 15, 1989). The data were summarized in Table 1 of the

study titled ``Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices (A Study

Mandated By P.L. 100-561),'' published November 1992. Table 1 indicated

that 136,359 miles of gas transmission lines and 16,275 miles of

hazardous liquid pipelines would not accommodate instrumented pigs for

reasons not relating to the absence of launchers or receivers. Since

this rulemaking only responds to petitions for reconsideration received

from the two gas pipeline trade associations, updating of the mileage

figures for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines is not

relevant.

RSPA invites interested persons to forward comments to the docket

as directed under ADDRESSES) that include up-to-date information on the

following:

(1) What is the mileage, current to December 31, 1993, of the gas

transmission lines that would not accommodate smart pigs for reasons

other than lack of launchers and receivers?

(a) Indicate the mileage of onshore gas transmission lines affected

by the final rule.

(b) Indicate the mileage of offshore gas transmission lines

affected by the final rule.

(2) During the five calendar years, 1989 through 1993, what was the

total length of replacements (actual length of replaced pipe, valves,

fittings, or other line components), installed for reasons other than

to accommodate smart pigs?

(a) Indicate the mileage of such replacements in onshore gas

transmission lines affected by the final rule.

(b) Indicate the mileage of such replacements in offshore gas

transmission lines affected by the final rule.

(3) When replacements are made in a gas transmission line affected

by the final rule, are there alternatives to making the line section

accommodate smart pigs that would ensure the entire transmission line

would accommodate smart pigs in a reasonable number of years?

Commenters are requested to support their alternatives with appropriate

data.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This proposed rule is not considered a significant regulatory

action under 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not

subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The notice is

not considered significant under the regulatory policies and procedures

of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);

because it does not impose additional requirements and has the effect

of extending a compliance date. The original regulatory evaluation of

the final rule has been modified because this proposed rule would

reduce costs and is available for review in the docket for this notice.

Federalism Assessment

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects 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 this notice does not

have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

There are very few small entities that operate pipelines affected

by this rulemaking. To the extent that any small entity is affected,

the effect is minimal because it does not impose additional

requirements and has the effect of extending a compliance date. Based

on these facts, I certify that under section 605 of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act that this proposed rule does not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

Pipeline safety, Reporting and recording requirements. In

consideration of the foregoing, RSPA proposes to amend title 49 of the

Code of Federal Regulations part 192 as follows:

PART 192--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 192 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,

60113, 60118; 49 CFR 1.53.

2. In Sec. 192.150, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is

republished without change, paragraph (b)(8) would be redesignated as

paragraph (b)(9) and revised, paragraph (b)(7) would be redesignated as

paragraph (b)(8) and revised, a new paragraphs (b)(7) and (d) would be

added, to read as follows:

Sec. 192.150 Passage of internal inspection devices.

* * * * *

(b) This section does not apply to:

* * * * *

(7) Replacements in transmission lines in Class 1 or 2 locations

(other than replaced line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line

component) if the operator can demonstrate that modifying the line

section to accommodate instrumented internal inspection devices:

(i) is not feasible; and

(ii) is not, based on an assessment of the operating and

maintenance history of the line section, needed for future safety.

(8) Offshore transmission lines, other than new transmission lines

10\3/4\ inches or greater in nominal diameter, if the operator can

demonstrate:

(i) that cleaning pigs are regularly run to sweep condensate from

the lines; and

(ii) that platform risers are regularly inspected for corrosion.

(9) Other piping that, under Sec. 190.9 of this chapter, the

Administrator finds in a particular case would be impracticable to

design and construct to accommodate the passage of instrumented

internal inspection devices.

* * * * *

(d) An operator replacing a line pipe, valve, fitting, or other

line component in a transmission line in a Class 1 or 2 location need

not comply, until February 2, 1995, with the requirement in paragraph

(a) of this section that requires modification of the line section

containing the component.

Issued in Washington, DC on September 23, 1994.

D.K. Sharma,

Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-24080 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P