[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21715-21720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09078]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195
[Docket No. PHMSA-2025-0019]
RIN 2137-AF44
Pipeline Safety: Repair Criteria for Hazardous Liquid and Gas
Transmission Pipelines
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
to solicit stakeholder feedback on potential opportunities to improve
the cost-effectiveness of its repair requirements for gas transmission
and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines. PHMSA also seeks
stakeholder feedback on authorizing a risk-based approach for
determining the inspection interval for in-service breakout tanks.
DATES: Comments on this ANPRM must be submitted by July 21, 2025. PHMSA
will consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable, consistent
with 49 CFR 190.323.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
using any of the following ways:
E-Gov Web: https://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the public
to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System: West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Instructions: Please include the docket number PHMSA-2025-0019 at
the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail,
submit two copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA
received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard.
Internet users may submit comments at https://www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 21716]]
Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. There
is a privacy statement published on https://www.regulations.gov.
Privacy Act Statement: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT
solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. It is important that you clearly designate the
comments submitted as CBI if: your comments responsive to this document
contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated
as private; you actually treat such information as private; and your
comment is relevant or responsive to this notice. Pursuant to 49 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 190.343, you may ask PHMSA to provide
confidential treatment to the information you give to the agency by
taking the following steps: (1) mark each page of the original document
submission containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2) send PHMSA, along
with the original document, a second copy of the original document with
the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information that you are
submitting is CBI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Sayler
Palabrica, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30), Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 2nd Floor, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, or by email at
[email protected]. Any materials PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket. Alternatively, you may review
the documents in person at the street address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sayler Palabrica, Transportation
Specialist, by telephone (202) 744-0825, or by email at
[email protected].
I. Executive Summary
PHMSA is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) to solicit stakeholder feedback on potential opportunities to
improve the cost-effectiveness of its repair requirements for gas
transmission (49 CFR part 192) and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide
(49 CFR part 195) pipelines. Many of those requirements--particularly
for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines--have not been
updated in over two decades, and others do not fully account for recent
advancements in pipeline safety technology and best practices or the
maturation of PHMSA's regulatory regime. PHMSA is also seeking
stakeholder feedback on authorizing risk-based inspection procedures
for determining the inspection interval for in-service breakout tanks
under part 195. Materials obtained from this ANPRM will inform a
forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding.
II. Background
PHMSA's safety standards for gas transmission lines (49 CFR part
192) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (49 CFR part
195) address the remediation of anomalies in two ways: (1) through a
set of traditional, prescriptive remediation requirements in the
operation and maintenance provisions that generally apply to all
pipelines; and (2) through risk-based, integrity management (IM)
requirements that apply to pipeline segments posing risks to ``high
consequence areas.'' \1\ This two-tiered regulatory approach--coupled
with PHMSA's efforts to enhance its requirements for the design,
construction, testing, operation, and maintenance of gas transmission
and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines--has contributed to a
positive safety trend since 2005: fewer incidents and accidents
entailing significantly lower public safety consequences and property
damage.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Sec. Sec. 192.903 (definition of high consequence
areas, or HCAs, for gas transmission lines) and 195.450 (definition
of HCAs for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines)
\2\ See PHMSA, ``Pipeline Incident 20 Year Trends,'' https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/pipeline-incident-20-year-trends (last visited Mar. 26, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite this strong safety record, PHMSA recognizes that some of
its repair requirements have not been updated for decades, and that
others may not account for the latest advances in pipeline safety
technology and industry best practices. PHMSA also recognizes that its
repair requirements may need to be updated to align with the
significant changes made to part 192 and part 195 in recent rulemaking
proceedings.\3\ Existing repair requirements, therefore, may introduce
barriers to development and deployment of innovative, safety-enhancing
technology and industry practices by increasing costs and potential
liability risks for first-movers. Similarly, the accretion of complex
and potentially overlapping regulatory requirements over time could
similarly stifle innovation and entail compliance costs without a
corresponding safety benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Listing in this ANPRM the large number of those rulemakings
would be difficult; however, PHMSA maintains a comprehensive list of
its rulemakings on its website. See PHMSA, ``Notices and Rulemaking
Documents,'' https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/federal-register-documents (last visited Mar. 27, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example:
The repair criteria and remediation timelines in part 195
for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines have been relatively
static for decades. PHMSA's generally applicable repair requirements at
Sec. 195.401 have not been changed substantially since 1981,\4\ and
the IM requirements for hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines
at Sec. 195.452 have not been updated substantially since their
introduction in 2000.\5\ In the years since the adoption of each of
those regulatory frameworks, PHMSA has completed over a dozen
rulemakings imposing a variety of design, testing, operational,
maintenance, and emergency response requirements intended to reduce the
frequency and severity of accidents on hazardous liquid and carbon
dioxide pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),
``Transportation of Liquids by Pipeline,'' 46 FR 38357 (July 27,
1981).
\5\ RSPA, ``Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Integrity Management in
High Consequence Areas (Hazardous Liquid Operators with 500 or More
Miles of Pipe),'' 65 FR 75406 (Dec 1, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA most recently addressed part 192 anomaly remediation
requirements for gas transmission lines in its August 24, 2022 final
rule (a rulemaking initiated following the 2010 incident near San
Bruno, CA).\6\ That final rule updated repair criteria and remediation
timelines for certain high-risk anomalies in HCAs in IM requirements in
subpart O and adopted similar repair criteria (but longer remediation
timelines) for anomalies discovered outside of HCAs in its
[[Page 21717]]
traditional, prescriptive requirements in subpart M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ PHMSA, ``Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission
Pipelines: Repair Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements,
Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related
Amendments,'' 87 FR 52224 (Aug 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, some of these amendments have been remanded to
PHMSA for further consideration as a result of subsequent
litigation.\7\ PHMSA has, in the ten years since the San Bruno
incident, also adopted a variety of new requirements in other recent
rulemaking proceedings to reduce the frequency and severity of
incidents on gas transmission lines.\8\ PHMSA has not conducted a
wholistic review of its repair criteria for gas transmission lines
since making these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See INGAA v. PHMSA, 114 F.4th 744, 756 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
\8\ Those recent rulemakings adopted new requirements on the
following topics: design features and operational practices to
improve rupture response practices; detailed procedures for
confirmation of maximum allowable operating pressures; operator
qualifications and incident response; state damage prevention
programs; pipeline control room management; and multiple updates to
its part 192 regulations to reference new or more recent editions of
consensus industry standards governing design, testing, operation,
maintenance, and emergency response for gas transmission pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, PHMSA regulations at Sec. 195.432 have for nearly
four decades imposed a default annual inspection requirement for in-
service breakout tanks associated with hazardous liquid pipelines.\9\
Though PHMSA has amended that provision to provide operators limited
flexibility to employ alternative inspection intervals derived from
consensus standards incorporated by reference in Sec. 195.432, it has
declined to abandon the default annual inspection requirement \10\ or
authorize the use of risk based inspection procedures for establishing
the inspection interval for in-service atmospheric and low-pressure
steel above-ground breakout tanks in Sec. 195.432(b).\11\ An industry
trade group has also criticized PHMSA's reluctance to embrace a risk-
based approach to determining inspection intervals on in-service
breakout tanks as a missed opportunity to reduce compliance burdens
without diminishing safety.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ RSPA, ``Transportation of Natural and Other Gas and
Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Inspection and Test Intervals,'' 47
FR 46852 (Oct 21, 1982).
\10\ RSPA, ``Pipeline Safety: Adoption of Consensus Standard for
Breakout Tanks,'' 64 FR 15926, 15932 (Apr 2, 1999) (declining to
adopt wholesale the risk-based approach to inspection interval
determination set forth in several standards issued by the American
Petroleum Institute).
\11\ PHMSA, ``Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory
References to Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments,'' 80
FR 168, 171 (Jan 5, 2015).
\12\ API ``Supplemental Comments on Docket ID PHMSA-2011-0337;
Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of Regulatory References to
Technical Standards and Miscellaneous Amendments'' (Apr. 30, 2014),
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/PHMSA-2011-0337-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of PHMSA's repair criteria, timelines, and IM requirements
(as well as inspection intervals for breakout tanks on hazardous liquid
pipelines) is also consistent with stakeholder recommendations and
Presidential mandates. Industry trade organizations have suggested in
comments on recent NPRMs that PHMSA may not adequately account for the
relationship of related requirements across different rulemaking
proceedings.\13\ The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has
over the years similarly provided recommendations following incidents
and accidents urging PHMSA to update its regulations to keep up with
industry advancements and technological innovation.\14\ A review of
PHMSA's repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements is
also consistent with direction from President Trump, including
Executive Order (E.O.) 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' calling on agencies to identify opportunities to
alleviate unnecessary regulatory compliance burdens imposed on industry
and the general public; E.O. 14154, ``Unleashing American Energy,''
requiring agencies to reduce undue burdens on the identification,
development, or use of domestic energy resources; and E.O. 14156,
``Declaring a National Energy Emergency,'' promoting the integrity and
expansion of U.S. energy infrastructure.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See INGAA, Initial Comments on Gas Pipeline Leak Detection
and Repair NPRM'' at 2 (Aug. 16, 2023) (referencing PHMSA, ``Final
Rule--Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair
Criteria, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection,
Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments,'' 87 FR 52224
(Aug 24, 2022) (RIN2 Final Rule).
\14\ See ``PHMSA NTSB Recommendations,'' available at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/phmsa-ntsb-recommendations/phmsa-ntsb-recommendations (last visited Mar. 27, 2025).
\15\ E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,''
90 FR 9065 (Feb 6, 2025); E.O. 14152, ``Unleashing American
Energy,'' 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29 2025); E.O. 14156, ``Declaring a
National Energy Emergency,'' 90 FR 8433 (Jan 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To develop proposals responding to the above considerations,
recommendations, and directives, PHMSA is soliciting stakeholder
feedback on, among other things: (1) the topics listed in section III
below; (2) potential amendments to its parts 192 and 195 repair
criteria, remediation timelines, and IM requirements; (3) the
appropriateness of those amendments for different types of gas
transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide
pipelines; (4) the incremental compliance costs and benefits (including
benefits pertaining to avoided compliance costs, safety harms, and
environmental harms) anticipated from those amendments; and (5) the
technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and
practicability of those potential amendments. PHMSA plans to hold a
public meeting in the near future to supplement or to clarify the
materials received in response to this ANPRM.
With respect to incremental cost and benefit information, PHMSA is
seeking per-unit, aggregate, and programmatic (both one-time
implementing and recurring) data. Explanation of the bases or
methodologies employed in generating cost and benefit data, including
data sources and calculations, is valuable so that PHMSA can explain
the support for any estimates it is able to provide that accompany a
proposed rule, and other commenters may weigh in on the validity and
accuracy of the data. Please also identify the baseline (e.g., a
particular edition of a consensus industry standard; widespread
voluntary operator practice; or documentation of sample surveys and
other operator level data or information) from which those incremental
costs and benefits arise. When estimates are approximate or uncertain,
consider using a range or specifying the distribution in other ways.
When responding to a specific question below please note the topic
letter and question number in your comment. PHMSA will review and
evaluate all comments received, as well as late-filed comments to the
extent practicable.
III. Topics Under Consideration
A. General
1. Do the anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM
regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subparts M and O)
and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (Sec. Sec. 195.401
and 195.452(h)(4)) strike an appropriate balance between safety
benefits and compliance costs? If not, should PHMSA consider amending
any of those provisions? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments that merit reconsideration, as well as the technical,
safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
2. Do anomaly repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM
regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subparts M and O)
and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (Sec. Sec. 195.401
and 195.452(h)(4)) accommodate innovative technologies and methods for
the discovery, evaluation, and remediation of anomalies? Are there
specific, innovative technologies and methods
[[Page 21718]]
with significant safety or cost-saving potential that are inhibited by
regulations? Please identify any of those innovative technologies and
methods, the categories of pipeline facilities (e.g., hazardous liquid
transmission pipelines; gas transmission pipelines) that could employ
them, the particular regulatory provisions inhibiting their use, and
any anticipated compliance cost savings or safety benefits from use of
those technologies and methods.
3. PHMSA's risk-based IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines
(part 192, subpart O) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines
(Sec. 195.452(h)(4)) include specific thresholds for particular
anomaly types and mandated remediation timelines in a manner consistent
with traditional, prescriptive regulatory frameworks. Does that
incorporation of traditional, prescriptive elements within PHMSA's
risk-based IM regulations yield safety benefits commensurate with the
associated reduction in regulatory flexibility and increase in
compliance costs to operators? Are there risks associated with
prescribed repair conditions and remediation timelines, such as
personnel safety and site environmental damage due to repair activity
or lost product associated with maintenance-related blowdowns and
evacuation? Should PHMSA consider amending any particular provisions in
its IM regulations for gas transmission pipelines (part 192, subpart O)
and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (Sec. 195.452) to
strike a more appropriate balance between safety benefits and
compliance costs? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments
that merit consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and
economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
4. Is it appropriate for repair timelines to begin on the date of
``discovery'' of anomalies on gas transmission (Sec. Sec. 192.714(d)
and 192.933(b)) and hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines
(Sec. Sec. 195.401(b)(1) and 195.452(h)(2))? How do operators of those
pipelines determine the moment of discovery? Should PHMSA consider
amending any particular regulatory provisions to improve the clarity or
practical implementation of its regulations regarding when a
remediation obligation attaches? Please provide the technical, safety,
and economic justifications for any suggested revisions.
5. Are there any PHMSA interpretations addressing its anomaly
repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM regulations for gas
transmission pipelines (part 192, subparts M and O) and hazardous
liquid or carbon dioxide pipelines (Sec. Sec. 195.401 and
194.452(h)(4)) \16\ impose unjustified compliance costs for different
categories of pipeline facilities? If so, which categories of pipelines
facilities, and what are those associated compliance costs? Are there
any interpretations of PHMSA anomaly repair criteria, remediation
timelines, and IM regulations that merit codification in parts 192 or
195 regulations? Please identify any specific regulatory amendments
that merit consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and
economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ PHMSA, ``Letters of Interpretation,'' available at: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/b/2/1 (last accessed Mar. 11,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide pipelines
are not all identical and may merit distinguishable regulatory
requirements regarding the discovery, evaluation, and remediation of
anomalies. Are there substantive differences in the characteristics
(e.g., pipeline capacity or size; physical processes) of and among the
different categories of gas transmission and hazardous liquid or carbon
pipelines justifying distinguishable anomaly repair and IM
requirements? In light of those differences, what, if any, amendments
to PHMSA parts 192 and 195 regulations governing anomaly repair
criteria, remediation timelines, and IM would be appropriate, and what
would be the avoided practicability challenges, compliance costs, or
safety impacts from such amendments?
7. What types of temporary and permanent repair methods do
operators of gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon dioxide
pipelines use to comply with PHMSA's anomaly repair criteria,
remediation timelines, and IM requirements? What percentage of repairs
are completed using each type of repair method and for which types of
anomalies? Do operators employ consensus industry standards or
recommended practices (e.g., the acceptable remediation methods listed
in tables 451.6.2(b)-1 and 451.6.2(b)-2 of ASME B31.4-2006) \17\ when
determining the appropriate repair method for different types of
anomalies or categories of gas and hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide
pipelines? What is the average cost of each of those repair methods as
applied to different types of anomalies or categories of gas
transmission, hazardous liquid, or carbon dioxide pipelines?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ASME B31.4-2006, ``Pipeline Transportation Systems for
Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids'' is incorporated by reference
in Sec. 195.3 for other purposes. These tables appear as tables
451.6.2.9-1 and 451.6.2.9-2 in ASME B31.4-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. What proportion of small businesses, small organizations, or
small government jurisdictions, as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 6010 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations, operate different categories of gas, hazardous liquid, and
carbon dioxide pipelines subject to PHMSA anomaly repair criteria,
remediation timelines, and IM requirements? Please provide information
about the nature and types of activities of small businesses and other
small entities operating in midstream gas, hazardous liquid, and carbon
dioxide pipeline sectors. How should the agency ensure that any
potential changes to the existing regulations would not
disproportionately impact small businesses or other small entities in
the sector? Are there alternative regulatory approaches the agency
should consider that would achieve its regulatory objectives while
minimizing any significant economic impact on small businesses or other
small entities?
9. Do the annual, incident, and safety-related condition reports
required by parts 191 and 195 regulations require the submission of
remediation-related information with limited or no safety value for
particular categories of gas transmission, hazardous liquid, and carbon
dioxide pipelines? Is there information required in the reports that is
duplicative with the information required to be submitted to other
State or Federal regulatory authorities? What costs would be avoided by
eliminating or revising any such reporting requirements?
10. Should PHMSA amend its regulations governing prioritization of
anomaly remediation on gas transmission (Sec. 192.714) and hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines (Sec. 195.401(b)(3)) to align more
closely with its statutory mandate at 49 U.S.C. 108(b) and 49 U.S.C.
60102(a)(1) to prioritize public safety and protection against risks to
life and property above other important policy objectives within the
scope of its regulatory authority?
B. Repair Criteria and Remediation Timelines for Part 195--Regulated
Hazardous Liquid or Carbon Dioxide Pipelines
Section 195.401 requires repair within a ``reasonable time''
whenever an operator discovers anomalies on any hazardous liquid or
carbon dioxide pipelines that could adversely affect safe operation. If
an anomaly presents an ``immediate hazard to persons or property,'' the
operator may not operate the affected portion until the condition
[[Page 21719]]
has been corrected. Section 195.452(h) establishes remediation
timelines for anomalies on HCA segments of hazardous liquid and carbon
dioxide pipelines that must be repaired immediately, within 60-days, or
within 180-days of discovery (remediation timelines), depending on the
anomaly characteristics (repair criteria).
1. How do operators of different categories of hazardous liquid or
carbon dioxide pipelines approach the discovery, evaluation, and
remediation of anomalies on non-HCA segments in complying with repair
requirements at Sec. 195.401? Which elements, if any, do operators
apply from the IM response criteria and remediation timelines at Sec.
195.452(h) for anomalies discovered on non-HCA segments? Please
describe typical costs associated with discovery, evaluation, and
remediation of anomalies on non-HCA segments, with as much specificity
by anomaly type as possible.
2. Are there alternatives or supplements to the anomaly repair
criteria and remediation timelines that should be incorporated into
PHMSA's IM regulations? Are there particular anomaly types whose risks
justify existing repair criteria and remediation timelines, or even
broader repair criteria and more aggressive timelines than specified in
PHMSA regulations? Conversely, are there anomalies identified in PHMSA
regulations whose lower risks justify different repair criteria or
longer remediation timelines than specified in the regulations? Please
identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit consideration,
as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those
recommended amendments.
3. What methods do operators use to evaluate anomalies when
material properties of a pipeline segment are unknown? What activities,
if any, do operators perform to obtain unknown material property
information for anomaly evaluation, and what incremental, per-unit
costs are associated with those activities? Are there assumed or
conservative values used when material properties are unknown, and what
is the technical basis for those values (e.g., operator-specific
experience, or consensus industry standards and recommended practices)?
How has obtaining material property information affected the
classification of anomalies compared with using assumed or conservative
values?
4. Should PHMSA consider adopting predicted failure pressure-based
criteria for evaluating anomalies on hazardous liquid and carbon
dioxide pipelines under part 195? If so, what is an appropriate method
to predict failure pressure for different types of anomalies on
different categories of hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines?
Do hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipeline operators employ a
predicted failure pressure-based response criterion for any anomalies
on their facilities? Would such an approach be more appropriate for
some types of anomalies (e.g., metal loss anomalies) than others? And
would such a criterion be appropriate for all part 195-regulated
hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines? What amendments to part
192 regulatory language would be necessary when applied to part 195-
regulated hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines? Are the
consensus industry standards referenced in part 192 regulations
appropriate for calculating predicted failure pressure on hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines, and what alternatives may be
appropriate to consider? \18\ Please provide the technical, safety, and
economic reasons for any suggested regulatory amendments, noting in
particular the potential compliance costs and implementation challenges
associated with adopting a predicted failure pressure-based repair
criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See AGA, Pipeline Research Committee Project, PR-3-805, ``A
Modified Criterion for Evaluating the Remaining Strength of Corroded
Pipe'' (Dec. 22, 1989); ASME/ANSI B31G-1991, ``Manual for
Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines'' (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for metal loss
anomalies on a longitudinal seam for HCA and non-HCA segments? How do
operators evaluate metal loss anomalies on a longitudinal seam? Are
there innovative technologies or methods for improved evaluation of
metal loss anomalies on a longitudinal seam that could justify
amendments to the repair criteria for HCA segments at Sec. 195.452?
Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit
reconsideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
supporting those recommended amendments.
6. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for dents and
mechanical damage anomalies on HCA and non-HCA segments? How do
operators evaluate dent and mechanical damage anomalies? Are there
innovative technologies or methods (e.g., engineering critical
assessments, or ECAs) for improved evaluation of dents and mechanical
damage anomalies that could justify adjustment of the repair criteria
for such anomalies? What ECA methodologies (e.g., API RP 1183 \19\) or
elements thereof, such as safety factors, and finite element analysis,
would be appropriate for use? What elements and supportive records are
necessary for an effective ECA of a dent or mechanical damage anomaly
on a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline? Are there
circumstances (e.g., operating environments; physical characteristics
of the commodity transported) where ECAs would be an inappropriate or
challenging tool for evaluating dents and mechanical damage anomalies
on different categories of hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide
pipelines? Please provide the technical, safety, and economic reasons
for any recommended amendments, noting in particular any potential
program implementation costs and unit costs of each ECA conducted,
avoided compliance costs due to deferred repair or for another reason,
and implementation challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ API, Recommended Practice 1183, ``Assessment and Management
of Dents in Pipelines,'' first edition (Nov. 2020) (including Errata
1 (Jan. 2021) and Addendum 1 (May 2024)) (API RP 1183).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Are repair criteria and remediation timelines for hazardous
liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines appropriate for dents with metal
loss or other interacting integrity threats on HCA and non-HCA
segments? What technologies or methods could be used to evaluate dent
anomalies with metal loss and other interacting threats? Are there any
pertinent consensus industry standards or recommended practices that
merit evaluation for incorporation by reference in PHMSA regulations?
Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit
consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
supporting them.
C. Repair Criteria and Remediation Timelines for Part 192--Regulated
Gas Transmission Pipelines
1. Are the regulatory requirements at Sec. 192.712(c) governing
performance of ECAs for dents and mechanical damage anomalies on gas
transmission lines appropriate? \20\ Is an ECA an appropriate means of
evaluating dents and mechanical damage anomalies on pipelines in some
scenarios but not others? Should PHMSA consider amending any elements
of the ECA process prescribed at Sec. 192.712(c) to
[[Page 21720]]
strike a more appropriate balance between safety benefits and costs?
Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit
consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
supporting those recommended amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ PHMSA notes that even as a reviewing court found that PHMSA
had not provided adequate discussion of the compliance costs
associated with a minimum dent safety factor set forth in ECA
procedures at Sec. 192.712(c), the court's decision did not address
the safety benefits of PHMSA's choice of safety factor. See
Interstate Natural Gas Assn. v. PHMSA, 114 F.4th 744, 752-753 (Aug.
16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Should ECA methodologies or elements thereof within consensus
industry standards and recommended practices (e.g., API RP 1183) \21\
inform the ECA requirements in Sec. 192.712? Are the safety factors,
required elements, and supporting records identified in consensus
industry standards and recommended practices appropriate to use in
evaluating dent and mechanical damage anomalies on gas transmission
lines, or are alternative approaches advisable? Please identify any
specific regulatory amendments that merit consideration, as well as the
technical, safety, and economic reasons supporting those recommended
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ API, Recommended Practice 1183, ``Assessment and Management
of Pipeline Dents'' (First edition 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What were the incremental, per-unit costs and benefits
associated with establishing an ECA program and subsequently conducting
each ECA? Were there any cost savings associated with deferred
remediation due to the ECA?
4. Are part 192 repair criteria, remediation timelines, and IM
requirements for gas transmission pipelines appropriate for dents with
metal loss or other interacting integrity threats? What technologies or
methods could be used to evaluate dent anomalies with metal loss and
other interacting threats? Are there any pertinent consensus industry
standards or recommended practices that should be incorporated by
reference in PHMSA regulations? Please identify any specific regulatory
amendments that merit consideration, as well as the technical, safety,
and economic reasons supporting those recommended amendments.
5. Are the re-assessment frequencies for anomalies on gas
transmission pipelines (Sec. 192.712(h)) that have been evaluated
using an ECA appropriate? Should PHMSA consider amending those re-
assessment intervals to strike a more appropriate balance between
safety benefits and costs?
D. In-Service Part 195 Regulated Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Breakout
Tanks
1. How should part 195 regulations address the assessment of and
remediation of anomalies on in-service breakout tanks? Would
incorporating the risk-based inspection interval provided for in
consensus industry standards (e.g., the fifth edition of API Std 653)
within PHMSA regulations be appropriate for some or all breakout tanks?
\22\ Please identify any specific regulatory amendments that merit
consideration, as well as the technical, safety, and economic reasons
supporting those recommended amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ API Standard 653, ``Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration,
and Reconstruction,'' 5th edition, Nov. 2014 (including addendum 1
(Apr. 2018), addendum 2 (May 2020), addendum 3 (Nov. 2023), errata 1
(Mar. 2020), and errata 2 (Feb. 2025)), section 6.4.2.2.2,
Subsequent Internal Inspection Interval.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2025, under the authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Benjamin D. Kochman,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2025-09078 Filed 5-20-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P