[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 26, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29903-29904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11789]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. RSPA-00-7666; Amendment 192-95]
RIN 2137-AD54


Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in High 
Consequence Areas (Gas Transmission Pipelines)

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

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on December 15, 2003, (68 FR 69778) and a correction document 
to that rule published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 
18228). The final rule of December 15, 2003, requires operators to 
develop integrity management programs for gas transmission pipelines 
located where a leak or rupture could do the most harm, i.e., where a 
gas transmission pipeline could impact a high consequence area (HCA). 
This document makes minor corrections to the rule.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date is May 26, 2004.

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 the final 
rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 15, 2003, RSPA/OPS published a final rule (68 FR 69778) 
that requires operators of gas transmission pipelines to develop and 
implement a comprehensive integrity management program for pipeline 
segments located in areas where a failure would have the greatest 
impact to the public or property. On April 6, 2004, RSPA/OPS published 
a correction rule that made editorial and typographical corrections to 
the final rule and addressed a petition for reconsideration filed by 
the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.

Purpose for This Document

    The April 6, 2004, correction rule contained errors. This 
correction document corrects those errors and corrects additional 
errors identified in the December 15, 2003, final rule.

Corrections and Clarifications

    In the April 6, 2004, correction rule, RSPA/OPS amended the 
definition of ``high consequence areas'' by clarifying that an operator 
using Method (1) to identify these areas would have to calculate and 
evaluate potential impact circles on any transmission line in a Class 1 
or Class 2 location. RSPA/OPS removed the phrase ``outside a Class 3 or 
Class 4 location'' to clarify that an operator does not have to 
evaluate segments that have already been classified as ``high 
consequence areas.'' However, RSPA/OPS erroneously used the term 
``potential impact radius'' in paragraph (1)(iv) instead of the term 
``potential impact circle.'' In this correction rule, RSPA/OPS is 
replacing the word ``radius'' with ``circle.''
    Section 192.925 sets forth the requirements for external corrosion 
direct assessment. This was change number 9 in the April 6, 2004 
correction rule. In that document, RSPA/OPS revised the introductory 
text in paragraph (b) to clarify what an operator is required to do if 
the External Corrosion Direct Assessment detects pipeline coating 
damage. RSPA/OPS has since become aware that the Federal Register read 
this instruction as revising paragraph (b) and as deleting the further 
requirements in subparagraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4). RSPA/OPS did not 
intend for the revision to delete these requirements. This correction 
rule adds back to the final rule the missing requirements of paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (b)(4). This correction rule presents Sec.  192.925(b) 
in its entirety, with the revised language in the introductory 
paragraph.
    In the April 6, 2004, correction rule, we revised paragraph (d) of 
Sec.  192.935 to include requirements for additional preventive and 
mitigative measures for a pipeline operating below 30% SMYS located in 
a Class 3 or Class 4 area. In the requirements, we referenced the 
reassessment requirements of Sec. Sec.  192.941(b) and 192.941(c). 
RSPA/OPS did not mean to add these references as they only add 
confusion to the final rule. In this correction rule, RSPA/OPS is 
removing the references to the reassessment requirements of Sec. Sec.  
192.941(b) and 192.941(c) to avoid further confusion.
    Section I of Appendix E provides additional guidance on determining 
a high consequence area. The second sentence in this section 
erroneously states that an operator must use method (a) or (b) from the 
definition in Sec.  192.903 to identify a ``high consequence area.'' 
The sentence is now corrected to state that an operator must

[[Page 29904]]

use method (1) or (2) from the definition in Sec.  192.903 to identify 
a ``high consequence area.''

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    High consequence areas, Incorporation by reference, Integrity 
management, Pipeline safety, Potential impact areas, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, 49 CFR Part 192 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendments:

PART 192--[AMENDED]

0
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.


Sec.  192.903  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  192.903 the definition of ``high consequence area'' is 
amended by removing the word ``radius'' from paragraph (1)(iv) and 
adding the word ``circle'' in its place.

0
3. Section 192.925 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  192.925  What are the requirements for using External Corrosion 
Direct Assessment (ECDA)?

* * * * *
    (b) General requirements. An operator that uses direct assessment 
to assess the threat of external corrosion must follow the requirements 
in this section, in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (ibr, see Sec.  192.7), section 
6.4, and in NACE RP 0502-2002 (ibr, see Sec.  192.7). An operator must 
develop and implement a direct assessment plan that has procedures 
addressing preassessment, indirect examination, direct examination, and 
post-assessment. If the ECDA detects pipeline coating damage, the 
operator must also integrate the data from the ECDA with other 
information from the data integration (Sec.  192.917(b)) to evaluate 
the covered segment for the threat of third party damage, and to 
address the threat as required by Sec.  192.917(e)(1).
    (1) Preassessment. In addition to the requirements in ASME/ANSI 
B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002, section 3, the plan's 
procedures for preassessment must include--
    (i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when 
conducting ECDA for the first time on a covered segment; and
    (ii) The basis on which an operator selects at least two different, 
but complementary indirect assessment tools to assess each ECDA Region. 
If an operator utilizes an indirect inspection method that is not 
discussed in Appendix A of NACE RP0502-2002, the operator must 
demonstrate the applicability, validation basis, equipment used, 
application procedure, and utilization of data for the inspection 
method.
    (2) Indirect examination. In addition to the requirements in ASME/
ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002, section 4, the plan's 
procedures for indirect examination of the ECDA regions must include--
    (i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when 
conducting ECDA for the first time on a covered segment;
    (ii) Criteria for identifying and documenting those indications 
that must be considered for excavation and direct examination. Minimum 
identification criteria include the known sensitivities of assessment 
tools, the procedures for using each tool, and the approach to be used 
for decreasing the physical spacing of indirect assessment tool 
readings when the presence of a defect is suspected;
    (iii) Criteria for defining the urgency of excavation and direct 
examination of each indication identified during the indirect 
examination. These criteria must specify how an operator will define 
the urgency of excavating the indication as immediate, scheduled or 
monitored; and
    (iv) Criteria for scheduling excavation of indications for each 
urgency level.
    (3) Direct examination. In addition to the requirements in ASME/
ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002, section 5, the plan's 
procedures for direct examination of indications from the indirect 
examination must include--
    (i) Provisions for applying more restrictive criteria when 
conducting ECDA for the first time on a covered segment;
    (ii) Criteria for deciding what action should be taken if either:
    (A) Corrosion defects are discovered that exceed allowable limits 
(Section 5.5.2.2 of NACE RP0502-2002), or
    (B) Root cause analysis reveals conditions for which ECDA is not 
suitable (Section 5.6.2 of NACE RP0502-2002);
    (iii) Criteria and notification procedures for any changes in the 
ECDA Plan, including changes that affect the severity classification, 
the priority of direct examination, and the time frame for direct 
examination of indications; and
    (iv) Criteria that describe how and on what basis an operator will 
reclassify and reprioritize any of the provisions that are specified in 
section 5.9 of NACE RP0502-2002.
    (4) Post assessment and continuing evaluation. In addition to the 
requirements in ASME/ANSI B31.8S section 6.4 and NACE RP 0502-2002, 
section 6, the plan's procedures for post assessment of the 
effectiveness of the ECDA process must include--
    (i) Measures for evaluating the long-term effectiveness of ECDA in 
addressing external corrosion in covered segments; and
    (ii) Criteria for evaluating whether conditions discovered by 
direct examination of indications in each ECDA region indicate a need 
for reassessment of the covered segment at an interval less than that 
specified in Sec.  192.939. (See Appendix D of NACE RP0502-2002.)
* * * * *

0
4. Section 192.935 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  192.935  What additional preventive and mitigative measures must 
an operator take?

* * * * *
    (d) Pipelines operating below 30% SMYS. An operator of a 
transmission pipeline operating below 30% SMYS located in a high 
consequence area must follow the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(d)(2) of this section. An operator of a transmission pipeline 
operating below 30% SMYS located in a Class 3 or Class 4 area but not 
in a high consequence area must follow the requirements in paragraphs 
(d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

Appendix E to Part 192--[Amended]

0
5. In Appendix E to Part 192, the introductory text of Section I is 
amended by removing the words ``method (a) or (b)'' from the second 
sentence and adding the words ``method (1) or (2)'' in its place.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2004.
Samuel G. Bonasso,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-11789 Filed 5-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P