Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 55593 

NEW SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Application No. Applicant Reason for 

delay 

Estimated date 

of completion 

14643–N ........... World Airways, Inc. Peachtree City, GA .................................................................................. 3 11–30–2008 

14661–N ........... FIBA Technologies, Inc., Millbury, MA ..................................................................................... 4 09–30–2008 

14663–N ........... Department of Energy, Washington, DC .................................................................................. 1 10–31–2008 

14664–N ........... Century Arms, Inc., Fairfax. VT ................................................................................................ 4 09–30–2008 

14668–N ........... Lincoln Composites, Lincoln, NE .............................................................................................. 1 02–28–2009 

[FR Doc. E8–22306 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket ID PHMSA–2008–0255] 

Pipeline Safety: Workshop on Anomaly 

Assessment and Repair 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Workshop. 

SUMMARY: Recent observations by 

PHMSA indicate possible 

inconsistencies in how natural gas 

transmission pipeline operators assess 

and repair anomalies, such as corrosion 

defects, and apply the results of 

calculations to their decision making for 

further action. Special permits granted 

by PHMSA over the past two years 

prescribe specific assessment and repair 

procedures for pipelines operating 

under a class location change and 

maximum allowable operating pressure 

special permit. Moreover, recent 

research indicating that existing 

methods of predicting the remaining 

strength of corroded pipe could provide 

non-conservative results (i.e., the pipe 

will fail at a pressure lower than that 

predicted) in some circumstances. Nonconservative results could be obtained 

even when the dimensions of pipeline 

anomalies are known with precision. 

PHMSA is sponsoring a Workshop on 

Assessment and Repair of Anomalies in 

Pipelines to allow stakeholders of the 

pipeline safety community to learn 

about and discuss these research results, 

current evaluation practices, and 

methods to assure pipeline safety. The 

discussion of current evaluation 

practices and methods to assure 

pipeline safety should include: A 

review of safety factors used to evaluate 

anomalies when assessing in-line tool 

and excavation results, review of how 

outside forces and overpressure may 

effect anomaly stresses, how ILI tool 

accuracy is applied to anomaly 

evaluation, and how anomaly growth 

rates in assessments are considered. 

DATES: The workshop will be held on 

October 22, 2008. Name badge pick-up 

and on-site registration will be available 

starting at 7:30 a.m. with the agenda 

taking place from 8 a.m. until 

approximately 5 p.m. Refer to the 

meeting Web site for updated agenda 

and times: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ 

meetings/Mtg55.mtg. Please note that 

the workshop will not be Webcast. 

However, presentations will be available 

on the meeting Web site within 30 days 

following the workshop. 

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held 

at the Gaylord National Resort and 

Convention Center, 201 Waterfront 

Street, National Harbor, MD 20745. 

Hotel reservations under the ‘‘United 

States Department of Transportation #2’’ 

room block for the night of October 21, 

2008, can be made at 1–301–965–2000. 

A daily rate of $233 is available. The 

meeting room will be posted at the hotel 

on the days of the workshop. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max 

Kieba at 202–493–0595, or by e-mail at 

max.kieba@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Registration: Members of the public 

may attend this free workshop. To help 

assure that adequate space is provided, 

all attendees are encouraged to register 

for the workshop at http:// 

primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/ 

Mtg55.mtg. Hotel reservations must be 

made by contacting the hotel directly. 

Comments: Members of the public 

may also submit written comments, 

either before or after the workshop. 

Comments should reference Docket ID 

PHMSA–2008–0255. Comments may be 

submitted in the following ways: 

• E-Gov Web Site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Dot Docket 

Management System, Room W12–140, 

on the ground floor of the West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Identify the Docket ID at 

the beginning of your comments. If you 

submit your comments by mail, submit 

two copies. If you wish to receive 

confirmation that PHMSA has received 

your comments, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet 

users may submit comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Note: Comments will be posted without 

changes or edits to http:// 

www.regulations.gov including any personal 

information provided. Please see the Privacy 

Act heading in the Regulatory Analyses and 

Notices section of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for additional information. 

Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received for any of our 

dockets. You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477). 

Information on Services for 

Individuals with Disabilities: For 

information on facilities or services for 

individuals with disabilities, or to 

request special assistance at the 

meeting, please contact Max Kieba by 

October 15, 2008. 

Issue Description: The current 

regulations contained in 49 CFR 192.485 

and 192.713, allows latitude in methods 

used for assessing and remediating pipe 

with corrosion anomalies to restore the 

serviceability of pipe. PHMSA has 

found a wide variation in operators’ 

interpretation of how to meet the 

requirements of pipeline safety 

regulations in assessing, evaluating, and 

remediating corrosion anomalies. 

PHMSA emphasizes that, while the 

workshop will involve issues related to 

Part 192, the technical discussions on 

research and methods are of relevance 

to hazardous liquid pipeline operators. 

For this reason, PHMSA also encourages 

hazardous liquid pipeline operators to 

attend the meeting. 

Transmission pipelines often operate 

at high pressures. Pipeline design 

requirements assure that pipe has 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

55594 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 187 / Thursday, September 25, 2008 / Notices 

1 IANW’s notice was filed on September 5, 2008. 

On September 18, 2008, IANW supplemented its 

filing by clarifying its certification requirement 

under 49 CFR 1152.50(b). 

sufficient strength to contain these high 

pressures and to provide an additional 

safety margin. Pipeline in-service can 

become degraded due to time 

independent and time dependent 

threats. Time dependent threats include 

corrosion and other defects which can 

grow over time and, if allowed to 

continue unchecked, may reduce the 

pipe wall thickness to the point of 

failure. Time independent threats 

include excavation damage, which are 

one-time events that may damage the 

pipeline’s protective coating, or the pipe 

itself (e.g., dent, gouge, crack, or 

puncture). The defects caused by time 

dependent or independent threats can 

reduce the safety margin for retaining 

the pipeline operating pressure. 

Pipeline operators predominantly use 

one of three accepted methods to 

calculate the remaining strength of 

pipelines containing metal loss 

anomalies: (1) B31G, (2) Modified B31G, 

and (3) RSTRENG. These methods 

consider the length and depth of 

anomalies (i.e., areas of metal loss) and 

produce estimates of the pressure at 

which the pipe will fail. Pipeline 

operators are required to use these 

estimates to (1) determine whether 

pipeline pressure must be reduced to 

provide an additional safety margin, and 

(2) determine the urgency with which 

anomalies must be investigated, 

evaluated, and repaired. 

In practice, many anomalies are often 

identified by inspection of the pipeline 

using in-line inspection (ILI) tools. 

These tools provide estimates of the 

length and depth of anomalies that are 

used in calculating remaining pipeline 

strength. The dimensions estimated 

using ILI tools are subject to uncertainty 

because of variables that affect the 

accuracy in determining wall thickness 

and length. 

Recent research sponsored by PHMSA 

and industry, evaluated the accuracy of 

the methods currently used to calculate 

the remaining strength of corroded 

pipelines. The evaluation used data 

from historical and recent bench tests in 

which pipe with known defects (some 

with real corrosion defects and some 

with intentionally machined defects) 

were pressurized to failure. The defect 

size and pipe characteristics were used 

to calculate a predicted failure pressure 

using each of the analytical methods 

being evaluated. The failure pressure 

predicted by each method was 

compared to the empirical failure 

pressure determined during the test to 

identify if the predicted failure pressure 

was conservative or non-conservative. 

This work involved using the analytical 

methods to calculate the remaining 

strength of pipe containing defects 

whose dimensions could be measured 

with a high degree of precision. In some 

cases, the pipe failed at pressures lower 

than those predicted (i.e., the predicted 

failure pressure was non-conservative). 

This occurred most often for deep 

anomalies (e.g., >60% wall loss) in highstrength pipe (e.g., grade API 5L X–52 

and above). All of the accepted methods 

for calculating remaining pipe strength 

were found to produce non-conservative 

estimates of failure pressure in some 

instances. 

The workshop will allow the review 

and discussion of appropriate repair 

criteria for evaluating anomalies to meet 

regulatory code requirements for the 

permanent field repair of imperfections 

and damages. The workshop is also 

intended to allow representatives of the 

pipeline industry, regulatory agencies, 

the public, and other stakeholders to 

discuss the implications of research 

results and the potential need for 

regulatory changes or modification of 

industry standards. 

Preliminary Workshop Agenda 

The workshop will include: 

(1) Overview of recent research 

results, 

(2) Perspective of industry and 

regulators on the implications of the 

research results, and 

(3) Discussion of issues related to 

reliable application of methods for 

predicting failure pressure of pipe with 

metal loss defects, including: 

a. Treatment of ILI tool accuracy, 

b. Consideration of anomaly growth 

rates. 

c. Appropriate repair criteria. 

Refer to the meeting Web site for a 

more detailed agenda: http:// 

primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/ 

Mtg55.mtg. 

PHMSA publishes requirements for 

the assessment and repair of anomalies 

discovered by ILI tools or direct 

measurement in 49 CFR Part 192 for gas 

pipelines and Part 195 for hazardous 

liquids pipelines. PHMSA also 

publishes other anomaly assessment 

and repair requirements for pipelines 

under special permit for class location 

and alternative MAOP which vary from 

and are more stringent than the 

requirements contained in regulations. 

PHMSA plans to discuss assessment 

and repair requirements including the 

application of factors of safety, ILI tool 

tolerance, and corrosion growth rates. 

PHMSA will consider the discussion at 

the workshop and comments submitted 

to the docket in determining whether 

changes to regulatory requirements for 

anomaly assessment and repair are 

needed in light of the new research 

results and, if so, what those changes 

should be. 

Issued in Washington, DC on September 

19, 2008. 

William H. Gute, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline 

Safety. 

[FR Doc. E8–22602 Filed 9–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Docket No. AB–1067 (Sub-No. 2X)] 

General Railway Corporation d/b/a 

Iowa Northwestern Railroad— 

Abandonment Exemption—in Osceola 

and Dickinson Counties, IA 

General Railway Corporation d/b/a 

Iowa Northwestern Railroad (IANW) has 

filed a notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments to abandon an 

approximately 36.9-mile line of railroad 

extending between milepost 215.4, west 

of Mackenzie Junction, and milepost 

252.3, west of Braaksma, in Dickinson 

and Osceola Counties, IA.1 The line 

traverses United States Postal Service 

Zip Codes 51249, 51345, 51347, 51354, 

51360 and 51363. 

IANW has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead 

traffic on the line; (3) no formal 

complaint filed by a user of rail service 

on the line (or by a state or local 

government entity acting on behalf of 

such user) regarding cessation of service 

over the line either is pending with the 

Board or with any U.S. District Court or 

has been decided in favor of 

complainant within the 2-year period; 

and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 

1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 

1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 

(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 

(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 

1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental 

agencies) have been met. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employee adversely affected by the 

abandonment shall be protected under 

Oregon Short Line R. Co.— 

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). To address whether this 

condition adequately protects affected 

employees, a petition for partial 

revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

must be filed. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES