[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69660-69665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. RSPA-98-4733; Amdt. 192-88; 195-68]
RIN 2137-AD25


Pipeline Safety: Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Repair

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a safety performance standard for the repair 
of corroded or damaged steel pipe in gas or hazardous liquid pipelines. 
Because present safety standards specify particular methods of repair, 
operators must get approval from government regulators to use 
innovative repair technologies. The performance standard is likely to 
encourage technological innovations and reduce repair costs without 
reducing safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule takes effect January 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. M. Furrow at (202) 366-4559 or 
[email protected]. You can read comments and other material in the 
docket at this internet web address: http://dms.dot.gov. General 
information about our pipeline safety program can be obtained at http:/
/ops.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Listed below are safety standards in 49 CFR part 192 for gas 
transmission and distribution lines and 49 CFR part 195 for hazardous 
liquid pipelines that specify methods of repairing corrosion and other 
defects in metallic pipe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Section               Pipe            Defect       Repair Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  192.309(b).....  Certain steel    Dent of          Remove by
                        transmission     particular       cutting out
                        lines or mains.  characteristic.  length of pipe
Sec.  192.485(a).....  Metallic         Large area of    Remove by
                        transmission     general          cutting out
                        lines.           corrosion does   length of
                                         not support      pipe, unless
                                         maximum          operating
                                         allowable        pressure is
                                         operating        reduced
                                         pressure
                                         (MAOP).
Sec.  192.487(a).....  Metallic         Large area of    Remove by
                        distribution     general          cutting out
                        lines (except    corrosion does   length of pipe
                        cast or          not support
                        ductile iron).   MAOP or has
                                         more than 70%
                                         wall loss.
Sec.  192.713........  High-stress      Imperfection or  Remove by
                        steel            damage impairs   cutting out
                        transmission     serviceability.  length of
                        lines..                           pipe, or
                                                          install full-
                                                          encirclement
                                                          split sleeve
Sec.  192.717........  Steel            Leaking defect.  Remove by
                        transmission                      cutting out
                        lines.                            length of
                                                          pipe, install
                                                          full-
                                                          encirclement
                                                          welded split
                                                          sleeve, or
                                                          apply other
                                                          specified
                                                          repair methods
Sec.  195.416(f).....  Steel pipeline.  Large area of    Replace with
                                         general          coated pipe,
                                         corrosion        unless
                                         reduces wall     operating
                                         thickness        pressure is
                                         below minimum    reduced
                                         in pipe
                                         specification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these standards prescribe methods of repair rather than 
what the repair should accomplish, the standards lack flexibility. They 
do not allow operators to use new or more innovative repair 
technologies. They also discourage operators from developing new repair 
methods that may be more economical. In contrast, under less

[[Page 69661]]

restrictive standards in Parts 192 and 195, operators may and do use 
methods besides pipe replacement and split sleeves, such as composite 
pipe wraps, grinding, hot tapping, and weld deposition, to repair 
corroded or damaged pipe. For example, a gouge that impairs the 
serviceability of a steel gas transmission line not covered by 
Sec. 192.713 may be repaired under Sec. 192.703(b) by any method that 
returns the pipe to a safe condition.
    In recent years, we and a few state pipeline safety agencies waived 
the requirements of Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.713 so operators could use 
a new repair system called Clock Spring wrap to simplify 
and reduce the average cost of repairs (60 FR 10630; February 27, 
1995). This system, which consists of a fiberglass/polyester composite 
material coiled with adhesive in layers over a filler, reinforces steel 
pipe that has certain non-leaking defects. According to tests and 
analyses done by the Gas Research Institute, when properly installed, 
the system permanently restores the pressure containing capability of 
the pipe (D.R. Stephens, Summary of Validation of Clock Spring for 
Permanent Repair of Pipeline Corrosion Defects, GRI-98/0227, Gas 
Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, October 1998).

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Recognizing the need for flexibility in Secs. 192.309(b), 
192.485(a), 192.487(a), 192.713, and 195.416(f), we published a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend these rules to permit operators 
to use repair methods that meet a performance standard (64 FR 16882; 
April 7, 1999). The standard we proposed was that the repair method be 
able to ``permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe,'' a 
result comparable to that expected from replacing damaged pipe or 
installing a full-encirclement split sleeve. We explained that such 
restoration would be permanent if the repair were expected to last as 
long as the pipe under normal operating and maintenance conditions.
    For assurance that a repair method indeed meets the performance 
standard, we further proposed that the method must have undergone 
``reliable engineering tests and analyses.'' Although no guidelines for 
these tests and analyses were proposed, we said ``the tests and 
analyses need only be what a reasonable and prudent professional 
engineer would consider adequate to demonstrate compliance with the 
performance standard.''
    Besides the performance standard, we also proposed to drop the 
priority that Secs. 192.713 and 192.717 give to pipe replacement 
whenever it is feasible to take a damaged pipeline out of service. And 
we proposed to terminate the requirement in these sections that 
replacement pipe have ``similar or greater design strength'' than the 
pipe being replaced. We think this requirement is overly conservative, 
and the safety of replacement pipe is otherwise governed by the 
material, design, construction, and testing requirements of Part 192.

Discussion of Comments

    We received comments from the following sources in response to the 
NPRM:

Trade association: American Gas Association
Interstate gas pipeline operators: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, CMS 
Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Corporation, Enron Gas Pipeline Group, 
Paiute Pipeline Company, and Southern Natural Gas Company
Gas distribution operators: Southwest Gas Corporation and Consumers 
Energy Company
Manufacturer: Clock Spring Company, L.P.
Engineering firm: Stress Engineering Services, Inc.
Engineering consultant: Foy Milton, PE

    Of the 12 commenters, four (Consumers Energy Company, Paiute 
Pipeline Company, Southern Natural Gas Company, and Southwest Gas 
Corporation) supported the proposed rules without change; one (Foy 
Milton) opposed use of a performance standard for pipe repairs; one 
(American Gas Association) supported the proposals but suggested a 
minor editorial change, which is included in final Sec. 192.717; and 
the remaining six commenters favored the proposals in general but 
suggested substantive changes. Our disposition of the lone opposing 
comment and those comments suggesting substantive changes is discussed 
under the following headings.

Specification vs. Performance

    Asserting advantages of the existing specification-type standards 
(uniformity of application, ease of understanding, voluntary standards 
committee backing, and disallowance of unacceptable repair methods), 
Foy Milton urged us not to go forward with the proposed rule changes. 
While we agree that specification-type standards may be appropriate in 
some instances, they are not the standards of choice for mechanisms 
undergoing advancements in technology. Specification-type standards 
deny operators the flexibility to choose the most cost-effective 
technology to do a particular job, in this case repairing corroded or 
other damaged pipe. They also create a disincentive for operators to 
invest in the development of new technology. Moreover, properly crafted 
performance standards can bar the use of unacceptable technology. 
Therefore, we did not adopt this commenter's suggestion.

Clarity of Proposal

    As discussed above, we proposed to widen operators' choices of 
repair methods by allowing pipe to be ``repaired by a method that can 
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe, as shown by 
reliable engineering tests and analyses.'' The Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company thought this wording could be misinterpreted to require tests 
and analyses of completed repairs. This commenter suggested we use the 
following alternative wording to emphasize that the repair method is to 
be tested and analyzed: ``* * * using a method qualified by reliable 
engineering tests and analyses, each repair must permanently restore 
the serviceability of the pipe.''
    After considering the matter, we think the syntax of the proposed 
requirement for tests and analyses could possibly cause the requirement 
to be misconstrued to apply to completed repairs rather than repair 
methods. Therefore, in the final rules, we revised the wording of the 
proposal as follows to better indicate the purpose of the tests and 
analyses: ``repaired by a method that reliable engineering tests and 
analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.'' 
We did not adopt the commenter's suggested rewrite because we believe 
it would, perhaps inadvertently, regulate completed repairs in addition 
to repair methods, a result not intended by the proposal.

Test Criteria

    The Clock Spring Company was concerned that operators' freedom of 
interpretation under the proposed rules might threaten the integrity of 
repairs made by non-traditional methods. This commenter suggested we 
augment the proposal by including minimum test criteria, such as long 
term strength, environmental compatibility, and dynamic forces, and 
require that testing be consistent with ASTM D2992-96, Standard 
Practice for Obtaining Hydrostatic or Pressure Design Basis for 
``Fiberglass'' (Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting-Resin) Pipe and 
Fittings. Alternatively, the company

[[Page 69662]]

recommended that we devise testing criteria based on the years of 
engineering experience in developing Clock Spring wrap. Similarly, 
Stress Engineering Services, Inc., a participant in proving the 
integrity of two composite repair methods, Clock Spring wrap and Armor 
Plate Pipe Wrap, thought guidelines for testing new composite repair 
methods were needed to properly assess critical technical issues. 
Enclosed with this comment was a set of 15 guidelines for testing 
composite materials.
    In sharp contrast, the Enron Gas Pipeline Group said the proposed 
testing and analyses requirement is unnecessary. As support for this 
position, Enron cited performance standards, such as Sec. 195.422, as 
having satisfactorily controlled safety problems without requiring 
tests and analyses to demonstrate compliance. Enron also contended that 
performance standards implicitly require operators to prove that 
methods used to achieve compliance will indeed do so, and that 
requiring tests and analyses would hinder operators' freedom to use 
innovative technologies.
    Our position, like the proposal, lies between these two different 
views. We are not persuaded that the proposed testing requirement needs 
strengthening. By and large, the pipeline industry's repair practices 
have been very conservative and slow to incorporate non-traditional 
methods. For example, the industry did not use Clock Spring or Armor 
Plate until after ample hard evidence was produced to prove the lasting 
integrity of pipe repaired by these methods. And the quality of these 
repairs, a great many of which have been done without the need for a 
waiver of Part 192 or 195 standards, is shown by the lack of reports of 
incidents or near-incidents attributable to faulty repairs. We think 
the industry is unlikely to take any less conservative approach to new 
repair technologies that may become available for use in the future.
    At the same time, we still believe that a requirement for tests and 
analyses is needed. Given that pipe replacement and full-encirclement 
split sleeves are time-tested methods of pipe repair, a requirement for 
reliable engineering tests and analyses will provide public confidence 
in the safety of innovative methods intended as alternatives to these 
time-tested methods. The lack of similar requirements elsewhere in the 
regulations is not sufficient reason to drop a proposed requirement 
intended to assure the integrity of innovative repair alternatives. 
Enron did not explain why the proposed requirement, which is consistent 
with current industry practices, would hinder future innovation. 
Although we agree with Enron that without such a requirement operators 
would still have to demonstrate the validity of their compliance 
efforts, the nature of such demonstrations would be discretionary and 
could have less probative value than reliable engineering tests and 
analyses.
    Furthermore, a majority of commenters apparently support our 
position. Except for Foy Milton, who advised us not to change the 
existing rules, seven of the remaining eleven commenters supported the 
proposed rules in general and expressed no specific opinion on the 
proposed requirement for reliable engineering tests and analyses. Also, 
as discussed below, our two pipeline safety advisory committees 
approved the proposed rules without recommending any change to this 
requirement.
    In the NPRM, we described the ``reliable engineering tests and 
analyses'' that would be necessary to show that a particular repair 
method will perform as required. We said the tests and analyses need 
only be what a reasonable and prudent professional engineer would 
consider adequate to demonstrate compliance with the performance 
standard. We recognize that licensed professional engineers may differ 
on what information is necessary to demonstrate the performance of 
particular technologies in particular circumstances. But the experience 
of Clock Spring and Armor Plate wraps can serve as a model in 
determining the technical issues to resolve and the relevant 
substantiating tests and analyses. We will look to this experience to 
guide our inspections for compliance with the final rule. In this 
regard, we would welcome opportunities to preview new pipeline repair 
technologies in the development stage to avert possible compliance 
issues later on when the technologies are marketed.
    With the growth of repair technology, we expect that voluntary 
efforts will respond to any possible demand for uniform testing 
criteria. As mentioned above, Stress Engineering has already moved in 
this direction for certain composite wraps. And other firms and 
organizations may develop additional criteria for different repair 
techniques. Such criteria could be incorporated in voluntary standards, 
such as ASME B31.4 or B31.8, or in publications such as GPTC/ANSI 
Z380.1, Guide for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems. We 
now use these documents as a guide to acceptable practices in judging 
compliance with many performance standards in Parts 192 and 195.

Repair by Replacement

    Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron suggested that because pipe 
replacement is one of several methods that could be used under proposed 
Secs. 192.485(a), 192.487(a), and 192.713(a) to repair corroded or 
damaged pipe, these rules would be clearer if they referred only to 
repair rather than to both replacement and repair. Although the premise 
of this comment is correct, the proposed rules distinguished 
replacement from other methods of repair because throughout Parts 192 
and 195 replacement is distinguished from other methods of repair. This 
distinction is significant because pipe replacement triggers safety 
requirements, such as those involving pipe design, construction, and 
pressure testing, that do not apply to other methods of pipe repair. 
Giving special emphasis to replacement in repair rules highlights the 
need for replacement pipe to meet these additional safety requirements. 
So we do not think the commenters' suggestion would necessarily 
contribute to overall clarity.

Corrosion Repairs

    Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron suggested that including the 
proposed performance standard under Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a) was 
redundant, because corrosion repairs would be subject to the same 
standard under proposed Sec. 192.713(a). But this observation is only 
partially correct, because Sec. 192.713(a) applies only to certain 
high-stress steel transmission lines, while Secs. 192.485(a) and 
192.487(a) apply to all metallic transmission or distribution lines. If 
the proposed performance standard were not included under 
Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a), corrosion repairs on pipelines not 
covered by Sec. 192.713(a) would not be subject to the proposed 
standard. So we have left the proposed performance standard in final 
Secs. 192.485(a) and 192.487(a).

Leak Repairs

    Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron further suggested that the 
proposed performance standard under Sec. 192.713(a) for non-leaking 
defects should apply to leaking defects as well. This change, they 
said, would be consistent with the purpose of the rulemaking and allow 
the removal of Sec. 192.717, which requires specific repair methods for 
transmission line leaks.
    We did not propose to apply the proposed performance standard to 
methods of repairing pipe leaks because

[[Page 69663]]

the impetus for this rulemaking, Clock Spring wrap, is not designed to 
repair leaks. Still, as explained in the NPRM, the purpose of this 
rulemaking is to make the pipe repair regulations more flexible so that 
operators have incentives to innovate and greater freedom in selecting 
repair methods. And, as the commenters indicated, achieving this goal 
does not depend on whether the defect to be repaired is leaking nor on 
the availability of a non-traditional leak repair method that qualifies 
under the proposed performance standard. In fact, adopting the proposed 
performance standard to authorize alternative leak repair methods is 
likely to foster the development of new methods of leak repair. 
Therefore, since the proposed performance standard is suitable for both 
non-leaking and leaking defects and applying the standard to the repair 
of leaking defects furthers the purpose of the NPRM, we have added the 
proposed performance standard to Sec. 192.717 to cover the permanent 
repair of leaks on transmission lines. As discussed below, our gas 
pipeline safety advisory committee supported this action.
    Contrary to the commenters' suggestion, however, merely extending 
Sec. 192.713 to cover leaking defects would not enable removal of 
Sec. 192.717. Section 192.717 is broader in scope; it applies to all 
steel transmission lines, not just those that come under Sec. 192.713.

Reducing Operating Pressure

    Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and Enron asked that we amend Sec. 192.713 
to state that operators may reduce the maximum allowable operating 
pressure of defective pipe to a safe level instead of permanently 
repairing the pipe. Section 192.485 allows this alternative on corroded 
transmission line pipe where a safe operating pressure can be 
calculated under accepted engineering guidelines based on the remaining 
strength of the corroded pipe (e.g., ASME B31.G-1991). After the MAOP 
is reduced to a safe level, the corrosion no longer impairs the 
serviceability of the pipe, making the repair requirement of 
Sec. 192.713 inapplicable. But we are not aware of comparable 
engineering guidelines for determining the safe operating pressure of 
steel pipe that has defects other than corrosion, such as scratches, 
gouges, or dents. Although operators may reduce operating pressure as a 
temporary protective measure under Sec. 192.711, in the absence of such 
guidelines, there is no accepted way to judge what amount of pressure 
reduction will restore the serviceability of the defective pipe and 
make removal or repair unnecessary. Therefore, we have not included the 
suggested amendment in final Sec. 192.713.
    Both the existing and proposed Sec. 192.713 call for a reduction in 
operating pressure to a safe level during repairs. But Duke Energy, CMS 
Energy, and Enron pointed out that such a reduction is unnecessary if 
the operating pressure is already at a level safe for repairs. These 
commenters suggested that the rule merely provide that the operating 
pressure be at a safe level during repairs. We believe this 
interpretation is a reasonable application of the current rule, so we 
have included the suggested change in the final rule.

Dents Found During Construction

    Existing Sec. 192.309(b) requires removal of unsafe dents found 
during the construction of certain transmission lines and mains. We 
proposed to allow operators to repair these dents with methods that 
qualify under the performance standard discussed above. But Enron said 
the existing, more restrictive requirement is appropriate for pipeline 
construction and saw no need for change. Alone among the commenters, it 
said the existing removal requirement is reasonable because, during 
construction, the dented pipe is accessible and not yet in service, and 
machinery and labor are on site or readily available. We are not swayed 
by this reasoning, however. Although we agree the burden of removal may 
be lessened somewhat by the circumstances of construction, we find it 
more reasonable to adopt a regulation that permits remedial options 
that can provide equivalent safety at possibly less cost. Final 
Sec. 192.309(b) is, therefore, adopted as proposed.

Advisory Committee Consideration

    We presented the NPRM for consideration by the Technical Pipeline 
Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid 
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC) at a meeting in 
Washington, DC on May 4, 1999. The TPSSC is RSPA's statutory advisory 
committee for gas pipeline safety and the THLPSSC is RSPA's statutory 
advisory committee for hazardous liquid pipeline safety. Each committee 
has 15 members, representing industry, government, and the public, who 
are qualified to consider the technical feasibility, reasonableness, 
cost-effectiveness, and practicability of proposed pipeline safety 
standards. Both committees voted unanimously to approve the proposed 
rules and to approve the associated risk assessment information 
contained in the Regulatory Evaluation, which is discussed below. A 
transcript and report of each committee's consideration of the NPRM is 
available in the docket.
    During the May 4th meeting, one advisory committee member 
questioned the appropriateness of the term ``generally corroded'' in 
the first sentence of Sec. 195.416(f). This sentence reads: ``Any pipe 
that is found to be generally corroded so that the remaining wall 
thickness is less than the minimum thickness required by the pipe 
specification tolerances must be replaced with coated pipe that meets 
the requirements of this part.'' The member suggested that revising 
this requirement to refer to pipe that has ``general corrosion'' would 
clarify the meaning. In considering this suggestion, we found that the 
terms ``generally corroded'' and ``general corrosion'' are used in 
Secs. 192.485(a), 192.487(a), 195.416(f), and 195.418(d) to refer to 
areas of corrosion other than corrosion pitting. Indeed, the two terms 
are used interchangeably in Sec. 192.487(a). Given the common intended 
meaning of both terms, which our experience indicates is universally 
understood and applied in the pipeline industry, and the lack of any 
compliance difficulty caused by the term ``generally corroded,'' we 
decided not to adopt the member's suggested change to Sec. 195.416(f).
    As discussed above under Leak Repairs, Duke Energy, CMS Energy, and 
Enron suggested that the proposed performance standard is suitable for 
leaking as well as non-leaking defects. To help us assess this comment, 
at the November 4, 1999, TPSSC meeting in Washington, DC, we asked the 
TPSSC for advice on whether we should add the performance standard to 
Sec. 192.717, which prescribes repair methods for leaks on gas 
transmission lines. The TPSSC voted, with one abstention, to support 
including the performance standard in Sec. 192.717. A transcript and 
report of the TPSSC's consideration of this matter is available in the 
docket.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    DOT does not consider this rulemaking to be a significant 
regulatory action under Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 
51735; October 4, 1993), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
has not reviewed this rulemaking document. Also, DOT does not consider 
this rulemaking significant under its regulatory policies and 
procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

[[Page 69664]]

    The final rules provide operators flexibility to choose the most 
cost-effective method of repairing pipe, while maintaining public 
safety. Thus, the rules will not add costs to industry, government, or 
the public. In fact, the rules should reduce operators' costs of 
transporting oil and gas, and perhaps the price consumers pay for these 
products. In comments on a proposed waiver to the Panhandle Eastern 
Corporation (58 FR 13823; March 15, 1993), the American Gas Association 
estimated that industry could save $6.5 million a year by using 
composite wrap to repair corroded or damaged pipe. Although part of the 
gas pipeline industry is already realizing these savings because of the 
Panhandle and other waivers, the final rules will create a similar 
opportunity for savings by the entire oil and gas pipeline industry. 
And still more savings could possibly result from the use of innovative 
technologies not covered by the waivers. In fact, this rulemaking 
fosters the use and development of new repair technologies without 
additional cost to the regulated industry. A Final Regulatory 
Evaluation document is available for review in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rulemaking will not impose additional requirements on pipeline 
operators, including small entities that operate regulated pipelines. 
Rather, the rules offer operators the opportunity to use more 
economical methods of repairing corroded or damaged pipe. Thus, this 
rulemaking may reduce costs to operators, including small entities. 
Based on the facts available about the expected impact of this 
rulemaking, I certify, under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that this rulemaking will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Executive Order 12612

    This rulemaking will 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 
final rules do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

D. Executive Order 13084

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

E. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking will not impose unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It will 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 is the least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objective of the rulemaking.

G. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed the final rules for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We prepared an 
Environmental Assessment (64 FR 16884; April 7, 1999) in which we 
concluded that the proposed action would not significantly affect the 
human environment because alternative repair methods would have to be 
as reliable as those the pipeline safety regulations currently allow. 
Thus any alternative method would provide the same level of pipe 
protection that the current repair methods provide. Based on this 
Environmental Assessment and no receipt of information showing 
otherwise, we have prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 
This FONSI has been made part of the docket.

H. 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 rulemaking does not require business process changes or 
require modifications to computer systems. Because this rulemaking does 
not affect the ability of organizations to respond to the Year 2000 
problem, we have not delayed the effectiveness of the final rules.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 192

    Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

49 CFR Part 195

    Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 are 
amended as follows:

PART 192--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

    2. In Sec. 192.309, paragraph (b) introductory text is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec. 192.309  Repair of steel pipe.

* * * * *
    (b) Each of the following dents must be removed from steel pipe to 
be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of 20 percent, or 
more, of SMYS, unless the dent is repaired by a method that reliable 
engineering tests and analyses show can permanently restore the 
serviceability of the pipe:
* * * * *
    3. Section 192.485(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.485  Remedial measures: Transmission lines.

    (a) General corrosion. Each segment of transmission line with 
general corrosion and with a remaining wall thickness less than that 
required for the MAOP of the pipeline must be replaced or the operating 
pressure reduced commensurate with the strength of the pipe based on 
actual remaining wall thickness. However, corroded pipe may be repaired 
by a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses show can 
permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe. Corrosion pitting 
so closely grouped as to affect the overall strength of the pipe is 
considered general corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
* * * * *
    4. Section 192.487(a) is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 69665]]

Sec. 192.487  Remedial measures: Distribution lines other than cast 
iron or ductile iron lines.

    (a) General corrosion. Except for cast iron or ductile iron pipe, 
each segment of generally corroded distribution line pipe with a 
remaining wall thickness less than that required for the MAOP of the 
pipeline, or a remaining wall thickness less than 30 percent of the 
nominal wall thickness, must be replaced. However, corroded pipe may be 
repaired by a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses show 
can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe. Corrosion 
pitting so closely grouped as to affect the overall strength of the 
pipe is considered general corrosion for the purpose of this paragraph.
* * * * *


Sec. 192.711  [Amended]

    5. In Sec. 192.711(b), remove ``Sec. 192.717(a)(3)'' and add 
``Sec. 192.717(b)(3)'' in its place.
    6. Section 192.713 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.713  Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of 
imperfections and damages.

    (a) Each imperfection or damage that impairs the serviceability of 
pipe in a steel transmission line operating at or above 40 percent of 
SMYS must be--
    (1) Removed by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical piece of 
pipe; or
    (2) Repaired by a method that reliable engineering tests and 
analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.
    (b) Operating pressure must be at a safe level during repair 
operations.
    7. Section 192.717 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 192.717  Transmission lines: Permanent field repair of leaks.

    Each permanent field repair of a leak on a transmission line must 
be made by--
    (a) Removing the leak by cutting out and replacing a cylindrical 
piece of pipe; or
    (b) Repairing the leak by one of the following methods:
    (1) Install a full encirclement welded split sleeve of appropriate 
design, unless the transmission line is joined by mechanical couplings 
and operates at less than 40 percent of SMYS.
    (2) If the leak is due to a corrosion pit, install a properly 
designed bolt-on-leak clamp.
    (3) If the leak is due to a corrosion pit and on pipe of not more 
than 40,000 psi (267 Mpa) SMYS, fillet weld over the pitted area a 
steel plate patch with rounded corners, of the same or greater 
thickness than the pipe, and not more than one-half of the diameter of 
the pipe in size.
    (4) If the leak is on a submerged offshore pipeline or submerged 
pipeline in inland navigable waters, mechanically apply a full 
encirclement split sleeve of appropriate design.
    (5) Apply a method that reliable engineering tests and analyses 
show can permanently restore the serviceability of the pipe.

PART 195--[AMENDED]

    8. 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.

    9. Section 195.416(f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 195.416  External corrosion control.

* * * * *
    (f) Any pipe that is found to be generally corroded so that the 
remaining wall thickness is less than the minimum thickness required by 
the pipe specification tolerances must be replaced with coated pipe 
that meets the requirements of this part. However, generally corroded 
pipe need not be replaced if--
    (1) The operating pressure is reduced to be commensurate with the 
limits on operating pressure specified in this subpart, based on the 
actual remaining wall thickness; or
    (2) The pipe is repaired by a method that reliable engineering 
tests and analyses show can permanently restore the serviceability of 
the pipe.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC on December 8, 1999.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-32274 Filed 12-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P