[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24080]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 30, 1994]


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

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