Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 48 / Thursday, March 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

than twenty percent of an entity withmedia interests would enable parties toviolate existing local and regionalconcentration rules in some cases, 5 ' andto go undetected as media participantsin others." Those who have the capacityto use the airwaves and the power toinfluence public opinion should beknown to the public and this Comission.Accordingly, if the Commission decidesto raise existing benchmarks, it shouldrequire parties to report interests thatfall short of the new level and shoulddevise a means to detect violation ofremaining ownership limitations.

One might be tempted to take somecomfort in the fact that the Noticeoutlines a fairly broad range of options.A cursory reading of the Notice quicklymakes plain, however, that most of thelisted options are decorative only. Forinstance, it is difficult to credit thepossibility that the Commission willadopt the ad hoc factor analysisdescribed in paragraphs 23-24. Thatapproach would produce nothing shortof an administrative and businessplanning nightmare. 56 The Commissionlong ago recognized that ineluctableeffect, and abandoned the practice ofmaking individualized determinations ofmultiple ownership issues in favor ofhard-and-fast rules on cognizableinterests.5 7 Furthermore, the suggestionthat the FCC or the general public bearthe burden of proving "actual control"under an ad hoc approach is particularlydisingenuous from the standpoint of acontinuing Commission commitment tofurthering diversity of ownership, giventhe limited resources and incentives for"outsiders!' to make such showings.

Maintenance of the status quo,another option identified, is

"4For instance, under the approach outlined in theNotice, an entity seeking to control a newspaperand television station serving the same commuity inviolation of the newspaper broadcast cross-ownership ban could easily do so without detectionsimply by holding either media outlet through sixwholly-owned subsidiaries, five owning 19.9 percenteach and the sixth owning the remaining .5 percent.The Notice's contention that such circumvention ispossible even now completely overlooks the factthat such evasion would be extremely cumbersome,and therefore unlikely with a one percentbenchmark. That would not be true if the attributionceiling were lifted to fifteen or twenty percent.

"It is unclear, for example, how the Commissionwould be able to promote one of its primarybroadcast licensing objectives--maximum diffusionof control-in the comparative hearing process ifinterests that are significant are not required to bereported.5 An ad hoc approach to attribution would sapour limited agency resources, inevitably produceinconsistent and arbitrary results, and make itvirtually impossible for businesses to plan theirendeavors with any reasonable degree of advanceassurance.

7 See Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and

Television Broadcast Stations, 45 FCC 1476, 1749(1964); Multiple Ownership of Standard, M andTelevision Broadcast Stations, 53 RR 2d 85, 89(1975).

theoretically possible but unlikely as apractical matter given the sanguine butlargely rhetorical references of theNotice to the "dynamic," "rapid,""significant," and "competitive" changes-that have occurred intelecommunications since the prevailingbenchmarks were adopted.58 However,in view of the paucity of data andanalysis proffered to support the"tentative recommendations" of thisNPRM. preserving the status quo may bethe most rational of the positedalternatives.February 7,1983.

Concurring Statement of CommissionerAnne P. JonesIn Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

on Attribution of OwnershipInterests in Broadcast, CableTelevision, and Newspaper Entities

There are a number of things aboutthis Notice which trouble me, perhapsmost especially the "tentativerecommendtions" in it, which I am notprepared to endorse. However, I agreethat reexamination of these rules andpolicies may be worthwhile, so I concurin issuance of the Notice.(FR Dec. 83-6216 Filed 3-9-.3; 8:45 am)

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONNational Highway Traffic SafetyAdministrationResearch and Special ProgramsAdministration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PS-76; Notice 1]

Transportation of Natural and OtherGas by Pipeline; Monitoring of ExtemalCorrosion ControlAGENCY: Materials TransportationBureau (MTB), DOT.ACTION: Advance notice of proposedrulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice invites commentson the problem of conducting electricaltests of cathodic protection systems andelectrical surveys to determine areas ofactive corrosion. Compliance withcurrent requirements is controversial for

5it is "little more than wishful thinking topredicate a finding of 'workable competition' onnew technology and services (e.g., DBS, Low PowerTV, and fledgling STV and MDS) which are more onthe horizon than with us here and now. In the finalanalysis, this Commission must have more thanmerely the assumption of a 'workably competitive'marketplace as the basis for policy making." StaffReport, FCC, FCC Policy on Cable Ownership 1,1-2(Nov. 1981) (Concurring Statement of CommissionerJoseph R. Fogarty).

pipelines located in areas that aresubject to stray electrical currents orbeneath continuous paving. Commentsreceived will be considered'with a viewto proposing specific changes to theexfsting requirements for monitoring ofexternal corrosion control.

DATE: Interested.persons are invited tosubmit written comments on this noticebefore June 8, 1983. Late filed commentswill be considered so far as practicable.All interested persons mist submit aspart of their written comments all thesupporting material that they considerrelevant to any statement of fact madeby them.

ADDRESS: Communications should besent to the Dockets Branch, MaterialsTransportation Bureau, U.S. Departmentof Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

All comments and docket materialsmay be reviewed in the Dockets Branch,Room 8426, between the hours of 8:30a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each working day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Paul J. Cory, 202-426-2082, regarding thecontent of this notice, or the DocketsBranch, 202-426-3148, regarding copiesof this notice or other information in thedocket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of the Problem

MTB has reviewed the requirementsof § 192.465(a) that each pipeline that isunder cathodic protection must betested at least once each calendar year,but with intervals not exceeding 15months, to determine whether thecathodic protection meets therequirements of § 192.463. A copy of theRegulatory Review Report is in thedocket. At issue is the technicalfeasibility of making the necessary testson pipelines under cathodic protection,as required by § 192.465(a), in areaswhere the pipeline is located beneathcontinuous paving or in areas whereelectrical stray currents interfere withcathodic prbtection measurements. Thereview was conducted in accordancewith Executive Order 12291 as a part ofMTB's program to review existingregulations and r6voke or revise thosethat are not achieving their intendedpurpose. Consideration of the difficultiesin meeting the requirements of§ 192.465(a) also disclosed similarproblems in meeting § § 192.457(b)(3)and 192.465(e). Therefore, thisrulemaking action to change § 192.465(a)also considers and seeks answers torelated compliance problems associatedwith these other two sections.

10092

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 48 / Thursday, March 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

BadkgroundThe American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Gas Piping StandardsCommittee on February 27, 1976,petitioned the Office of Pipeline SafetyOperations (OPSO), predecessor to theOffice of Pipeline Safety Regulation(OPSR), (Docket No. Pet. 7E-5) to add anew paragraph to § 192.465, Externalcorrosion control; Monitoring, to permitthe use of annual leakage surveys,corrosion and leak history studies toverify and monitor the effectiveness ofcathodic protection and other corrosionprocedures.

The ASME contended that wherepipelines are beneath paving, thereference electrode often cannot beplaced in intimate electrical contactwith the soil and readings taken withcontact on the paving surface were oftenfound to be invalid. Similarly, the ASMEcontended that electrical testsconducted on pipelines located in areasof stray current could not be relied uponas an indicator of the. level of cathodicprotection.

By a letter of September :15, 1976,OPSO denied that petition because theobjective of the monitoring required by§ 192.465 is to find and correct faultycathodic protection in time to preventcorrosion leaks. The denied pointed outthat use of the proposed alternatives ofleak surveys and leak history studiesare weak forms of preventivemaintenance since they would befruitful only after cathodic protectionhas become so ineffective that leaks areocciurring. Particularly in paved areas,such leaks are more likely to bepotentially hazardous to the safety ofthe public. In addition, OPSO was notconvinced that electrical te sting wasimpractical or ineffective for the reasonsset forth in the petition. In its denialOPSO stated, "According to contractstudies performed for this Office, thebest indicator of effective corrosioncontrol appears to be frequentmonitoring and interpreting of pipepotentials." (Study report, FerrousPipeline Corrosion Processes, Detection,and Mitigation, October i971, DOT-OS-A9-108).

In a meeting of the Technical PipelineSafely Standards Committee (TPSSC)held in Washington, D.C., on January 17and L8,1978, the Committeerecommended that OSPO instituterulemaking procedures to amend§ 192.465. This proposal would permitthe use of annual leakage surveys, andcorrosion and leak history studies toverify and monitor the effectiveness ofcathodic protection and other corrosioncontrol procedures where i: was foundthat electrical methods for evaluating

and monitoring pipeline cathodicprotection systems are impractical orare ineffectual. This would provide analternative method for determiningwhether cathodic protection meetsrequirements of § 192.463 where thepipeline is located in areas such as (1)those congested with numerous buriedmetallic structures, (2) business andcommercial areas- where roadway andsidewalk paving exists betweenbuildings on each side of the street, (3)where stray current effects arepredominant, and (4) in lakes, rivers,and marsh lands.

The Committee gave as a reason for.this recommendation that electrical testswill not always be effective indetermining whether cathodic protectionis effective and other means should beprovided.

By a letter of August 28, 1978, OPSRdined this specific recommendation,citing the similarity to the February 27.1976, petition of the ASME that ispreviously discussed and giving thesame reasons. In reconsidering thisrecommendation, MTB believes thatareas congested with numerous buriedmetallic structures would normally beincluded as part of the paved area beingreviewed, In addition, MTB has noinformation to show that lakes, rivers,and marsh lands should be exceptedfrom the requirements of § 192.465(a).

The continuing controversy involvedover the requirements of testing theeffectiveness of cathodic protection onpipelines under paving and in straycurrent areas prompted the Departmentto study the feasibility of applyingtesting techniques necessary to complywith § 192.465(a) in such areas.

This study, done by the HarcoCorporation under Contract DTRS-5680-C-00004, completed in January 1982, wasbased on making electricalmeasurements on cathodically protectedsteel pipelines located in business orcommercial areas where roadway andsidewalk paving exist between buildingson each side of the street and otherunderground metallic structures areburied and in areas where stray currenteffects are predominant.

In paved areas, four pipelines wereselected that had other undergroundstructures present as is consideredtypical of those found in distributionsystems. These included pipelines thatwere:

1. Effectively coated with galvanicanode cathodic protection, locatedentirely under concrete paving;

2. Bare With galvanic anode cathodicprotection, part-under asphalticmacadam and part under asphalt on topof concrete paving;

3. Effectively coated with impressedcurrent cathodic protection, mostlyunder an asphalt surface over brick andlimestone but with a few areas having aconcrete paving; and

4. Bare with impressed currentcathodic protection, located underasphalt paving.

In all four paved locations, it wasfound that both asphalt and concretepaving influence the resultant pipe-to-soil measurements and that eachmaterial has a different effect. Onasphalt, the resistance in the contactbetween the reference electrode and thepaving was found to be the majorconsideration in obtaining pipe-to-soilvoltage readings. On concrete, the effectof contact resistance was negligible, butother conditions introduced errors in thevoltage potentials measured asexplained below.

Conclusions to the Harco studypointed out that:

1. On all locations having asphaltpavement:

a. Potential measurements were oftenobtainable at cracks in the paving.

b. Potential measurement with thereference electrode placed on dry, well-sealed asphalt pavement were notpossible.

c. With water poured on well-sealed,asphalt pavement, potentialmeasurements were obtainable, butthese potentials were obtained onlywhere the water "bridged" the asphaltsurface between the location where thereference electrode was placed to a.crack in the asphalt oi to an unpavedarea. Where the water remained "local"on well-seal asphalt, a valid readingwas not obtained.

d. When the entire asphalt pavementwas wet (such as during or immediatelyafter rain), readings were obtainedwithout difficulty; but the exact meaningof the readings with respect to locationof the reference electrode is in doubt.

2. Conclusions to the Harco studypointed out that on concrete pavement:

a. Apparently valid potentialmeasurements taken with the referenceelectrode placed on concrete pavementwere easily obtainable with instrumentsof high input resistance.

b. However,. potentials taken with thereference electrode on concrete differedfrom those taken with contact to the soil4t the same location through a drilledhole or an adjacent unpaved area. Inmost instances, the potential indicatedon the concrete was more negative thanthe potential in the adjacent soilalthough the reverse condition was alsoseen.

c. Despite the error in potentialreadings introduced by concrete

10093

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 48 / Thursday, March 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

pavement on piplines with impressedcurrent systems, the changes in potential(delta E) obtained when the rectifier unitwas turned "off" and "on," wereapproximately the same on concrete andin soil at the same locations.

In areas of stray current, twopipelines were selected for study. Bothpipelines, one in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania,- and the other in Berkeley,California, were being subjected to straycurrent resulting from the operation ofpublic transit systems. Both pipelineswere well coated. The Pittsburghpipelinewas protected by galvanicanode cathodic protection, and theBerkeley pipeline had an impressedcurrent cathodic protection system. Itwas found that valid pipe-to-soilpotentials-could be obtained on bothpipelines during nonrush hour periodseither by use of a direct reading highresistance voltmeter or by use of arecording voltmeter.

Conclusions to the Harco studypointed out that in areas where straycurrents are predominant:

1. Every situation is unique and mustbe dealt with in a manner which fits theparticular condition encountered.

2. It is first necessary to overcome anypossible adverse effects generated bythat stray current (see 49 CFR192.473(a)).

3. The fluctuations in pipe-to-soilpotential will be proportional to themagnitudes of the stray currents.

4. Because the fluctuations in pipe-to-soil potentials are unpredictable in straycurrent areas, the only appropriatecriterion listed in Appendix D of Part192 that would be useable for thoseareas would be a negative voltage of atleast 0.85 volts with reference to asaturated copper-copper sulfate half cellrather than using those criteria relatedto a change of voltage potential.However, these measurements can onlybe made during time periods when straycurrents are minimal.

Review Determination

(a) Paved Locations

Harco's testing of cathodic protectionon pipelines under paving verified theASME contention that pipe-to-soilvoltage readings were often notobtainable using surface contact, andwhen readings were obtained, they wereoften of little or no value in determlingthe level of cathodic protection beingprovided. The only reliable readings thatcould be taken were obtained at cracksin the pavement or by boring holesthrough the pavement to permit contactwith the soil.

Contrary to the ASME petition, Harcofound that readings which were

obtained using surface contact forpipelines under concrete paving wereinconsistent and could not have acorrection factor applied to obtainmeaningful data.

As a result of the above, it is clearthat tests required under § 192.465(a) onpipelines that are located wherereadings are only taken on the pavingsurface covering the pipeline cannot berelied upon to show. compliance with§ 192.463.

(b) Stray Current AreasTesting of cathodic protection on

pipelines in stray current areas done byHarco verified the ASME Committeecontention that reliable pipe-to-soilvoltage readings were often difficult toobtain. However, on the two pipelinestested, it was found that meaningful testdata could be obtained if taken duringnonrush hour periods when the d.c.transit systems were operating at aminimum level.

To determine the extent of the d.c.transit systems'that were likely to effectstray currents, -MTB contacted theUrban Mass TransportationAdministration who advised that therewere only 10 such systems in the majorcities of the United States. MTB thendetermined by telephone calls to the 10transit systems that six such systemshave periods when no trains areoperating. The four other systems(Chicago, Newark, New York, andPhiladelphia) have late night scheduleswith sufficient time between trains thatin most locations the stray currents dueto electric transit systems would beperiodically reduced to a level thatwould permit meaningful electrical teststo be conducted on pipeline cathodicprotection systems.

'It must be recognized that all straycurrent areas do not result fromsubways and electric trains as was thecase with the two pipelines tested.There are many different sources ofstray currents, including the cathodicprotection systems of other pipelinesand underground cables, that do notnecessarily drop to such low levels asexperienced in the Pittsburgh andBerkely tests. Particularly in thecrowded subsurface of streets in majorcities, there are areas that experiencefluctuating stray currents from multiplesources of varying characteristics. TheASME petition states that in these areasit is impossible to obtain meaningfuldata from the test required by§ 192.465(a). This may be true of somepipelines where no action has beentaken to comply with § 192.473(a),External corrosion control: Interferencecurrents. However, where stray currentshave been appropriately controlled by

such steps as isolation or in some casesbonding, effective and meaningfulelectrical tests usually can be obtainedto determine the level of corrosioncontrol.

As a result of the above, MTBbelieves that § 192.465(a) can be met onmost pipelines in areas of stray currentwhere steps have been taken to controlthe detrimental effects of stray currentsas required by § 192.473(a). In order tomonitor the effectiveness of steps takento minimize the adverse effects of straycurrents under the program required by§ 192.473(a), MTB would propose the useof other measures, such as Beta curvesand Beta profiles under § 192.465(a) forthis purpose.

In the regulatory review processOPSR concluded that one possiblealternative to the present requirementsof § 192.465(a) was to permit the use ofmore frequent leak surveys or corrosionand leak history records to be used todetermine the effectiveness of corrosioncontrol systems in lieu of electrical tests.This would only be permitted where anoperator demonstrates that electricaltests are not technically or economicallypracticable for (a) pipelines underpaving, or (b) after the steps required tominimize the effects of stray currentunder § 192.473(a) have been taken,tests are still impracticable.

As pointed out in the Harco study,there are paving inserts available thatare now used by some operators at afew selected locations to permit tests tobe conducted to evaluate cathodicprotection systems. To install suchinserts in streets and sidewalks inquantity may be costly from both theoriginal costs and maintenancestandpoints. OPSR believes that thiswould be one of the more appropriatemethods of complying with the.requirements of § § 192.465(a) and192.469 in many areas.

Cathodic protection is widelyaccepted by the operators ofunderground metallic systems (includingoil, gas, and water pipelines and electricand telephone cables) as the bestmethod available to prevent corrosionand resulting leaks or other damage. Theelectrical tests required for gas pipelinesunder § 192.465(a) are similarly acceptedfor determining that cathodic protectionsystems are operating satisfactorily onother underground metallic structures.This is a preventive measure designed tokeep leaks from occurring. There aremany locations where electrical testscannot be conducted effectively bymethods normally used. Due to theextraordinary effort required to obtainproper electrical data from tests onpipelines located under paving and in

10094

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 48 / Thursday, March 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

some stray current areas, as, contendedby the ASME and confirmed generallyby the Harco study, It is obvious thatsome alternative method of checkingsuch areas may be needed because ofthe high cost of compliance.

OPSR Comment

The requirements for testing acathodic protection system and forconducting an electrical sutey to detectareas of active corrosion are generallyvalid; however, MTB recognizes thattheir accomplishment may not alwaysbe practicable. Impracticability ofelectrical tests or surveys must bedemonstrated with writtendocumentation of test studies, ordocumented past experience of theoperator with electrical surveys forpipelines in the system that have asimilar environment.

It seems inappropriate to amend therequirement for monitoring cathodicprotection by suggesting ways that donot monitor the effectiveness of cathodicprotection except after failure. However,a leak survey and corrosion and leakrecords often appear to be the onlyeconomically practical alternativeavailable. Although a leak survey doesnot detect the failure of the cathodicprotection system, it does detect theleakage which results from corrosion ofthe unprotected pipeline.

To assist in the selection of anappropriate alternative course of actionwhere testing of cathodic protection andconducting electrical surveys to detectareas of active corrosion have beendemonstrated to be invalid, M'I'B invitesinterested persons to participate in thisrulemaking by responding to thequestions which follow and submittingany substantiating information. Thesequestions are intended to apply to bothgas transmission and distributionpipelines. If comments are made for onlytransmission or distribution pipelines,comments should identify whdch, or ifcombined so state. Where there aresignificant differences, data should besubmitted separately for transmission ordistribution pipelines. In fiuring thecosts requested, consider all -wages,instruments, tools, other equipment andvehicles, and overhead. Do not considermaintenance to the cathodic protectionsystem, except on questions where thisis requested. In basing costs on miles ofmain, also include any related costsresulting from connected service lines.Do not consider the length of services inthe miles figure.

1. Describe what you consider must bedone to prepare for and conduct an.electrical survey to determine areas ofactive corrosion for the first time on an

existing, unprotected gas pipeline.(§ § 192.457(b)(3) and 192.465(e))

2. What is the average annual-cost ofconducting electrical surveys todetermine areas of active corrosionunder § 194.465(e):

a. On a gas pipeline with minor or nopaving or stray currents:

(i) The first time, when electricalisolation is done, test leads installed,etc.? ($/mile of pipeline)

(ii) Subsequent surveys? (S/mile ofpipeline)

b. In paved areas where drilling ofpavement Is used:

(I) The first time, when electricalisolation is done, test leads installed,etc.? (S/mile of pipeline)

(ii) Subsequent surveys? ($/mile ofpipeline) -

,c. In stray current areas requiringspecial measures, such as nighttime orweekend field testing and/or use ofrecording voltmeters? ($/mile ofpipeline)

3. Should § 192.465(a) include areference to the use of Beta curves andBeta profiles as a means of determiningthe effectiveness of measures taken tomitigate the adverse effects of straycurrents during peak periods?

4. Describe how you interpret datafrom electrical surveys or by othermeans to determine areas of activecorrosion. (§ § 192.457(b) and 192.465(e))

5. When you dig up pipe in areaswhere active corrosion is indicated byelectrical survey and other data, whatpercent of the instances do you actuallyfind active corrosion? (§ § 192.457(b) and192.465(e))

6. Under § 192.465(e), in areas wherean electrical survey is impractical, whatare the methods used to determine areasof active corrosion from study ofcorrosion and leak history records, leakdetection survey, or other means?

a. If there are significant ways suchmeans are applied or interpreted, pleaseexplain for each method.

b. Provide pertinent cost data foreach. (S/mile of pipeline)

c. What are frequencies for eachstudy, survey, or other method?

7. Describe how you conduct testsunder § 192.465(a) to determine whethercathodic protection meets therequirements of § 192.463.

8. What is the annual cost ofconducting electrical tests under§ 192.465(a) to determine whether thecathodic protection meets therequirements of § 192.463:

a. On a gas pipeline with minor or nopaving or stray currents? ($/mile ofpipeline) _

b. In paved areas where, in theabsence of inserts, drilling of pavementis used? ($/mile of pipeline)

c. In stray current areas requiringspecial measures, such as night time orweekend field testing and/or use ofrecording voltmeters? ($/mile ofpipeline

d. An anode installations made atcorrosion repairs under § 192.483(c)(average S/location); and under thesampling category of § 192.465(a)? ($/mile of pipeline)

9. Under what conditions shouldmonitoring be considered as causingextreme hardship and expense for testsrequired by § 192.465(a)? Specifically,for installations made under§ 192.483(c)?

10. What would be the cost burden ofhaving to keep a written recorddemonstrating that electrical surveysare impractical on a given pipeline? ($/mile of pipeline) (§ § 192.457(b)(3) and192.465(e))

11. If recording voltmeters are used,what is their capital cost? ($/unit)

12. What is the cost of installingaccess to the soil beneath paved areas(pavement inserts, etc.) as needed inareas of continuous paving:

a. For one insert? (S/insert)b. For the conducting of electrical

tests under § 192.465(a)? ($/mile ofpipeline)

c. For the conducting of electricalsurveys under § 192.465(e)? (S/mile ofpipeline)

d. If pavement inserts are notinstalled, how is access to the soilobtained? ($/location)

13. Where access to the soil beneathpaved areas (pavement inserts, etc.) andtest stations required by § 192.469 havebeen installed, what would be the costof conducting:

a. Electrical tests under § 192.465(a)?($/mile of pipeline)

b. Electrical surveys under§ § 192.457(b) or 192.465(3)? ($/mile ofpipeline)

14. Are there any feasible alternativemethods to the use of electrical tests fordetermining the level of cathodicprotection on a pipeline that is locatedbeneath paving other than using leaksurveys, corrosion and leak historystudies? What are their associatedcosts? ($/mile of pipeline) (§ 192.465(a))

15. Describe locations, other thanpaved areas or some stray current areas,where electrical surveys might be,considered impractical. (§ § 192.457(b)and 192.465(e))

16. Considering the design life ofanodes installed on unisolated segmentsof pipeline, is I year a reasonable timeinterval between electrical tests at such

.10095

Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 48 / Thursday, March 10, 1983 / Proposed Rules

anodes from a maintenance and safetycost/benefit basis? If not, what intervalshould apply? Explain. Pleasedifferentiate between urban and rurallocations.

17. Should there be a requirementother than § 192.469 for installation of apermanent test station on cathodicallyprotected pipelines at locations where aminimal response to cathodic protectionis detected or otherwise believed toexist on cathodically protected pipelinesin paved areas and stray current areas?Explain.

18. What is the life expectancy of atest station, and what is the estimatedcapital costs for test stations? (S/mile ofpipeline)

19. What is the average cost ofrepairing ineffectively operatingcathodic protection systems? ($/mile ofpipeline)

20. What is the average cost of leaksurveys in paved areas? (S/mile ofpipeline)

21. How frequently should leaksurveys be run to serve as an alternativeto annual electrical tests under§ 192.465(a)?

22. What is the average cost ofrepairing leaks in paved areas? ($/repair)

23. If a cathodic protection system isnot operating effectively (i.e., activecorrosion is present), on average, howlong do you think it will be before acorrosion leak occurs? (- years?)

24. Are there areas where thepotential for developing faults incathodic protection systems are lessthan normal that would justify a longerinterval between tests of the cathodicprotection systems than the currentrequirements? If yes, describe any such -

areas and state intervals consideredappropriate.

25. What percent of the cathodicprotection systems tested under§ 192.465(a) are found to be operatingeffectively?

26. At the Technical Pipeline SafetyStandards Committee meeting inWashington, D.C., on November 17,1982, one pipeline operator suggestedthat an operator be permitted toincrease the time interval between testsof a cathodic protection system under§ 192.465(a) to 2 years if that system hasbeen tested and found to be operatingsatisfactorily for two consecutive years.Systems found to have failed wouldhave to be repaired and then ifsubsequently found to be operatingeffectively for two consecutive yearscould be placed on a 2-year test interval.What would be the effect of such aprogram on your system? How wouldthis change your costs per mile of

monitoring cathodically protectedpipelines? ($/mile of pipeline)

List of Subjects In 49 CFR Part 192Pipelines.

(49 U.S.C. 1672, Section 203, Pub. L. 96-129, 93Stat. 1004 (49 U.S.C. 2002); 49 CFR 1.53,Appendix A of Part I and Appendix A of Part106)

Issued in Washington. D.C., on March 2,1983.

Richard L Beam,Associate Director for Pipeline SafetyRegulation, Materials Transportation Bureau.

[FR Doc. 83-5844 Filed 304& 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-9

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 83-01; Notice 11

Evaluation Report on Federal MotorVehicle Safety Standard No. 105;Hydraulic Brake Systems

AGENCY. National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA): DOT.ACTION: Requests for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces thepublication by NHTSA of a preliminaryEvaluation Report concerning SafetyStandard No. 105, Hydraulic BrakeSystems. This staff report evaluates thesafety effectiveness and costs of twomajor improvements in the design ofpassenger car brakes: dual mastercylinders and front disc brakes. Thereport was developed in response toExecutive Order 12291, which providesfor government-wide review of existingmajor Federal regulations. The Agencyseeks public review and comment onthis evaluation. Comments received willbe used to complete the review requiredby Executive Order 12291.DATE: Comments must be received nolater than: May 9, 1983.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons mayobtain a copy of the report free ofcharge by contacting Mr. RobertHornickle, Office of ManagementServices, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, Room 4423, 400Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.,20590 (202-428-0874). All commentsshould refer to the docket and noticenumber of this notice and be submittedto: Docket Section. Room 5109, NassifBuilding, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,Washington, D.C. 20590. (Docket hours,8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.Mr. Frank G. Ephraim, Director, Officeof Program Evaluation, Plans andPrograms, National Highway TrafficSafety Administration, Room 5212,400Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.20590, (202-426-1574).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SafetyStandard No. 105 (49 CFR 571.105)requires that passenger cars have a dualbraking system and containsspecifications for stopping performanceunder a variety of normal and adverseconditions. The purpose of a dualbraking system is to provide a back-upbraking capability in the event of ahydraulic failure. The two mostsignificant changes in brake design ofthe 1960's and 70's were the introductionof dual master cylinders and front discbrakes. Dual master cylinders are theprincipal hardware element of a dualbraking system. Disc brakes are notrequired by Standard 105, but they domake it easier for a car to meet thestandard's stopping tests simulatingbrake fade and water immersion; inaddition, they improve a car's handlingduring brake applications.

Pursuant to Executive Order 12291,NHTSA recently conducted anevaluation of dual master cylinders andfront disc brakes to determine theeffectiveness of the technology selectedby the manufacturers in preventingaccidents, deaths and injuries and todetermine the costs of the technology toconsumers. Under the Executive Order,agencies are to review existingregulations to determine whether theregulations are achieving the Order'spolicy goals, i.e., achieving legislativegoals effectively and efficiently andwithout imposing any unnecessaryburdens on those affected. Thispreliminary evaluation. however, islimited to dual master cylinders and discbrakes and does not deal with otheraspects of Standard 105.

The principal findings andconclusions of the report are thefollowing:

* Dual master cylinders are effectivein reducing the number of accidents dueto defective brakes. They eliminate40,000 accidents per year, resulting in anestimated reduction of 260 fatalities,-24,000 injuries and $132 million inproperty damage (in 1982 dollars).

* Dual master cylinders add $17 tothe cost of purchasing and operating acar over its lifetime (in 1982 dollars).

0 Front disc brakes are effective inreducing the number of accidents due todefective brakes. They eliminate 9,800accidents per year, resulting in anestimated reduction of 84 fatalities, 5,700

10096