[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42458-42460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-18121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration


Pipeline Safety: Identified Sites as Part of High Consequence 
Areas for Gas Integrity Management Programs

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Research and Special Programs 
Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: On August 6, 2002, RSPA/OPS published a final rule on how to 
identify the populated areas near a pipeline for which additional 
protections would be required (67 FR 50824). These ``high consequence 
areas'' (HCAs) include not only population areas already identified by 
pipeline operators through the longstanding Class location definitions, 
but also ``identified sites,'' 49 CFR 192.761(f). Inclusion of 
identified sites is intended to pick up isolated population areas which 
are not picked up through the Class location process. These could 
include isolated nursing homes, schools, and campgrounds that may be 
close enough to the pipeline to be at risk should there be a pipeline 
failure. Commenters expressed concerns that what was intended to be a 
relatively simple task, identifying certain sites as high consequence 
areas, could become a never-ending search. RSPA/OPS is providing 
guidance in this advisory bulletin to provide the necessary 
clarification. With this guidance, operators can identify sites in 
preparation for required assessments and integrity management programs. 
The public will receive the assurance that the search for ``identified 
sites'' for inclusion in integrity management programs is clearly 
understood and thorough. The advisory bulletin provides guidance on a 
good faith effort in conducting this search.
    Further, at a meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 
Committee scheduled for July 31, 2003, RSPA/OPS has added to the agenda 
further discussion about the advisability of modifying the final rule 
language to include this advice.

ADDRESSES: You may contact the Dockets Facility by phone at (202) 366-
9329, for copies of the proposed rule or other material in the docket. 
All materials in this docket may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov/search. Once you access this address, type in the last four 
digits of the docket number shown at the beginning of this notice (in 
this case 7666), and click on search. You will then be connected to all 
relevant information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Israni by phone at (202) 366-
4571, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by e-mail at 
[email protected], regarding the subject matter of this advisory 
bulletin. General information about the RSPA/OPS programs may be 
obtained by accessing RSPA's Home page at http://www.rspa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-03-03)

    To: Operators of gas transmission pipelines.
    Subject: Identified sites for possible inclusion as high 
consequence areas (HCAs) in gas integrity management programs.
    Purpose: To provide guidance to operators on what RSPA/OPS 
considers to be a good faith effort to discover ``identified sites'' as 
defined by 49 CFR 192.761(f).
    Advisory: High consequence areas for gas transmission pipelines are 
defined to include certain buildings and outside areas, not located 
within Class 3 or 4 locations, but which nonetheless contain people who 
could be at risk in the event of a pipeline failure. These areas, known 
as ``identified sites,'' are specified in 49 CFR 192.761(f). Paragraphs 
(5) and (6) of the section provide the substantive features of the 
sites; paragraphs (1) through (4) list the sources an operator is to 
explore to discover these sites. This guidance addresses the sources in 
paragraphs (1) through (4) rather than the substantive features found 
in paragraphs (5) and (6).
    As written, the rule requires an operator to include as an 
``identified site'' a building or outside area meeting the substantive 
features of paragraphs (5) or (6) if the site:
    (1) Is visibly marked;
    (2) is licensed or registered by a Federal, State or local agency;
    (3) is known by public officials; or
    (4) is on a list or map maintained by or available from a Federal, 
State, or local agency or a publicly or commercially available 
database.
    Although it is possible to read this language as requiring an 
operator to perform an exhaustive search of every possible source for 
such sites, RSPA/OPS does not intend that an operator perform an 
exhaustive search, only a good faith one.
    Obviously, an operator will already know of many sites that meet 
the criteria of paragraphs (5) and (6) through the operation and 
maintenance activities on the pipeline right-of-way, including 
patrolling, the operator

[[Page 42459]]

conducts on a routine basis. An operator would, of course, include 
these sites as ``identified sites.'' However, there will be sites which 
are not likely to be known through routine operation and maintenance 
activities. RSPA/OPS believes that the best way for operators to locate 
sites they are unlikely to discover through routine activities is to 
consult the entities responsible for safety and emergency response in 
the vicinity of the pipeline.
    Accordingly, RSPA/OPS will accept, as a good faith search in 
satisfaction of Sec. 192.761(f)(1)-(4), a search by an operator that 
discovers ``identified sites'' based on knowledge gained by routine 
operation and maintenance activities as well as sites identified 
through consultation with appropriate public officials. The appropriate 
public officials are those with safety or emergency response or 
planning responsibilities who indicate to the operator that they know 
the location of sites that meet the substantive description of Sec.  
192.761(f)(5) or Sec.  192.761(f)(6). This could include officials on a 
local emergency planning commission or relevant Native American tribal 
officials.
    Consultation with public officials having safety or emergency 
response or planning responsibilities may result in an end of the 
search for ``identified sites''. If, however, an operator consults 
public officials with safety or emergency response or planning 
responsibilities and these officials inform the operator that they do 
not have the needed information, then an operator must do more. 
However, the task of locating these sites is not endless. RSPA/OPS will 
accept as adequate the operator's use of one of the other means spelled 
out in paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of Sec. 192.761(f) so long as the 
operator documents a rationale for the choice that demonstrates that 
the operator is truly trying to locate the ``identified sites.'' For 
example, if public officials with safety or emergency response or 
planning responsibilities indicate that they believe that they know 
about all of the areas except for assisted-living facilities, an 
operator might decide that the most fruitful alternative source of 
information would be a county or State licensing authority. As another 
example, if public officials with safety or emergency response or 
planning responsibilities indicate little knowledge about the location 
of outside recreation facilities, the operator might decide that county 
and State websites that listed recreational activities in the county 
would be the best source. RSPA/OPS will not expect an operator to 
conduct an endless iterative search of all possible sources.
    A similar rule of reasonableness applies with regard to an 
operator's use of the means spelled out in 192.761(f)(4); namely, ``Is 
on a list or map maintained by or available from a Federal, State, or 
local agency or a publicly or commercially available database.'' 
Although it is possible to read this language as requiring an operator 
to perform an exhaustive search of every on-line map or database, this 
is not what RSPA/OPS intends. RSPA/OPS expects an operator to consult 
those lists or maps that are readily known to the operator and readily 
available to the public at large. Good examples for information 
available about assisted-living, nursing, and elder care facilities and 
schools would be the Federal Government's official Web portal (http://www.Firstgov.gov) and telephone directories. Official State Web sites 
would also be appropriate. An operator might find sources such as 
Geographic Data Technology or MapQuest helpful in locating particular 
sites.
    In the process of locating ``identified sites'' as HCAs, RSPA/OPS 
will require that an operator conduct a good faith search, not an 
exhaustive one.

II. Background

    On August 6, 2002, RSPA/OPS published a final rule on how to 
identify the populated areas near a pipeline for which additional 
protections would be required (67 FR 50824). These HCAs include not 
only population areas already identified by pipeline operators through 
the longstanding Class location definitions, but also ``identified 
sites'', 49 CFR 192.761(f). Inclusion of ``identified sites'' is 
intended to pick up isolated population areas which are not picked up 
through the Class location process. These could include isolated 
nursing homes, schools, and campgrounds that may be close enough to the 
pipeline to be at risk should there be a pipeline failure.
    Identification of HCAs is a necessary precondition to the 
establishment of integrity management plans. The Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act of 2002 (PSIA) requires operators to begin conducting 
assessments by June 17, 2004, and to have integrity management programs 
in place by December 17, 2004. Trade associations representing pipeline 
companies transporting the majority of natural gas delivered to 
customers in the United States, state and public representatives, as 
well as the Federal advisory committee for pipeline safety regulations, 
have raised questions about how to implement the identified sites 
aspect of the HCA definition.
    RSPA/OPS initiated a related rulemaking with a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) published January 28, 2003, (68 FR 4278), responsive 
to a mandate of the PSIA. The NPRM proposed substantive requirements to 
establish integrity management programs that would provide additional 
protections for HCAs. In addition, the NPRM proposed to modify the HCA 
definition to better identify population potentially impacted by a 
pipeline failure.
    RSPA/OPS conducted four public meetings to discuss aspects of the 
NPRM, two of which focused on the need to clarify how to locate outdoor 
areas where people congregate and facilities which housed populations 
that were mobility impaired. Discussions mentioned the burdens of 
identifying these sites. The proposed definition of HCAs did not 
contain the term ``identified site'' (67 FR 1108, January 9, 2002). 
Instead, the proposed definition simply stated that operators would 
have to identify facilities containing persons of impaired mobility and 
buildings and areas occupied by at least 20 persons 50 days per year. 
Industry commenters frequently noted that an inflexible rule that 
required operators to identify these sites would be burdensome, and the 
term ``identified site'' became generally understood through these 
discussions. Operators could not get the information from public 
officials during the liaison already required by 49 CFR part 192 
because public officials did not have the necessary information. 
Operators would have no choice but to change both the manner and the 
frequency of their patrols of the right-of-way, a very costly 
proposition.
    At the four public meetings following publication of the NPRM, 
various other persons raised concerns about the clarity of the 
definition. A representative of Safe Bellingham, which represents 
citizens concerned about pipeline safety, stressed the need to cover 
areas where people congregate outdoors.
    On May 26-28, the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
considered the NPRM in this related rulemaking. The Committee urged 
that RSPA/OPS look for clarity over complexity, seek public 
understandability of the rule, and focus the greatest effort on the 
potential for greatest harm. Members of the Committee strongly urged 
the Committee to examine the clarity of the ``identified site'' 
definition. Industry representatives pointed to their petition for 
reconsideration of the HCA final rule for their concerns. (The petition 
is

[[Page 42460]]

addressed in a separate response published today in the Federal 
Register.) Industry representatives described in detail the 
difficulties of applying the current definition of ``identified site''.
    The Committee also heard from Mr. Steve Halford, the Fire Chief for 
the City of Nashville, who was representing the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs, in discussing a study on excess flow valves 
not related to the integrity management rulemakings. Although Chief 
Halford made a presentation to the advisory committee on another topic, 
he graciously agreed to answer impromptu questions about the knowledge 
of public officials with respect to locations that RSPA/OPS intends to 
be ``identified sites.'' Chief Halford readily asserted that fire 
departments and other public safety and emergency response officials 
would normally have information about these sites. Chief Halford also 
suggested that local planning bodies and the local emergency planning 
committees would be good sources for the information. Based on the 
discussion, the Committee advised RSPA/OPS to clarify the meaning of 
the rule.
    RSPA/OPS did not intend that identification of locations outside of 
Class 3 and 4 be burdensome and decided to provide relief. Industry 
commenters, including petitioners NYGAS and INGAA, had suggested that 
use of available sources such as licensing and publicly available lists 
would be a good avenue. Thus the HCA definition includes a definition 
of ``identified sites'' that provides both the types of areas to be 
identified and the means for an operator to locate these sites.
    Although the regulation is stated as a list of steps, RSPA/OPS has 
never intended that an operator perform an exhaustive search of every 
possible source of information that may be available. RSPA/OPS requires 
only a good faith effort to discover ``identified sites.'' As discussed 
in the advisory, pipeline operators who consult public safety or 
emergency response or planning officials who indicate that they have 
knowledge of the identified sites need not do more.
    Further, at a meeting of the Committee scheduled for July 31, RSPA/
OPS has added to the agenda further discussion about the advisability 
of modifying the final rule language to include this advice.
    Subsequent to the publication of the HCA final rule, and in support 
of the need to assure that ``identified sites'' are clearly known, 
RSPA/OPS initiated extensive efforts to involve local and State 
officials in sharing responsibility for pipeline safety. We believe 
that public safety and emergency response officials are likely to have 
the knowledge needed on ``identified sites.'' In addition, RSPA/OPS 
expects that the knowledge of these officials will improve for several 
reasons. First, section 5 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 
2002 requires pipeline operators to review and enhance their public 
education programs by December 17, 2003. Among other things, these 
public education programs will provide better information to officials 
from municipalities and school districts about the possible hazards 
from an unintended release from a pipeline. This enhanced information 
about the risks will improve local emergency response planning efforts.
    Further, under its Community Assistance and Technical Service 
Program, RSPA/OPS has already hired at least one senior inspector in 
each Federal region who is providing local officials briefings and data 
to enhance their efforts to protect pipelines from damage, target 
community awareness programs, and improve the response capabilities in 
the event of a pipeline failure. In addition, RSPA/OPS provides grant 
funding to the National Association of State Fire Marshals and the 
Common Ground Alliance for public education initiatives among other 
things. These initiatives will result in local officials who are better 
informed about where pipelines are located, how to avoid damaging them, 
how to recognize and report emergencies that may arise, and the need to 
determine isolated population areas near pipelines that need additional 
protection.
    In addition, RSPA/OPS realizes that some tribal lands may not have 
traditional, readily identifiable safety or emergency response 
officials. Thus RSPA/OPS intends to consult with the Council of Energy 
Resource Tribes, a coalition of tribes who have energy resources, about 
the best way to locate ``identified sites'' on these tribal lands. 
RSPA/OPS will then share the results of that consultation with the 
affected pipeline operators and provide any additional guidance that 
may be needed before the effective date of a final rule imposing 
substantive requirements for integrity management programs.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2003.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 03-18121 Filed 7-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P