{"operation":"document","citation":"61 FR 28770","title":"Regulatory Review; Gas Pipeline Safety Standards","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Research and Special Programs Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"1996-06-06","effective_on":"1996-07-08","summary":"This final rule changes miscellaneous gas pipeline safety regulations to provide clarity, eliminate unnecessary or burdensome requirements, and foster economic growth. The changes result from a comprehensive review of the regulations RSPA has completed under President Clinton's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce the burden of government regulations. The changes are intended to reduce the costs of compliance without compromising safety.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-13787.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-13787.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-96-13787","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1996/06/06/96-13787/regulatory-review-gas-pipeline-safety-standards","body":"Federal Register, Volume 61 Issue 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996) [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 28770-28786] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 96-13787] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Research and Special Programs Administration 49 CFR Part 192 [Docket PS-124; Amdt. 192-76] RIN 2137-AC25 Regulatory Review; Gas Pipeline Safety Standards AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule changes miscellaneous gas pipeline safety regulations to provide clarity, eliminate unnecessary or burdensome requirements, and foster economic growth. The changes result from a comprehensive review of the regulations RSPA has completed under President Clinton's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce the burden of government regulations. The changes are intended to reduce the costs of compliance without compromising safety. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective July 8, 1996. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 8, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. C. Garnett, (202) 366-2036, or L. M. Furrow, (202) 366-4559, regarding the subject matter of this amendment, or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046 regarding copies of this amendment or other material in the docket. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Early in 1992, RSPA began an extensive review of the federal gas pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR part 192) and invited the public to participate (57 FR 4745, Feb. 7, 1992). The review was to see what changes were necessary to provide clarity, eliminate unnecessary or overly burdensome requirements, and foster economic growth. As a result of the review, RSPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), proposing changes to 38 regulations in part 192 (Notice 1; 57 FR 39572, Aug. 31, 1992). Then the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) reported on a separate but related review of part 192. RSPA had asked NAPSR to identify regulations in part 192 that may not assure safety or [[Page 28771]] that may be hard to enforce. Because the NAPSR report concerned a few of the regulations covered by the NPRM and had similar goals, we published the report and requested public comment on its various recommended rule changes (Notice 2; 58 FR 59431, Nov. 9, 1993). At the same time, we announced that in developing final rules under the NPRM, we would consider comments on any NAPSR recommendations that addressed the same issues as the NPRM. The period for public comment on the NAPSR recommendations was extended 90 days until April 11, 1994 (Notice 3; 58 FR 68382, Dec. 27, 1993). Later on, President Clinton launched the Regulatory Reinvention Initiative (memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies; March 4, 1995), which, among other things, directed DOT and other Federal agencies to review and revise existing regulations to remove unnecessary or burdensome requirements. Today's publication of this Final Rule is a major step in carrying out that directive with respect to DOT's pipeline safety regulations. Advisory Committee The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), consisting of 15 members, was established by statute to consider the feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of proposed pipeline safety regulations. In developing the final regulations, RSPA considered all final TPSSC votes and comments on the NPRM, including minority positions. A more detailed consideration of the TPSSC action is contained in the following section-by-section discussion of comments. A record of the TPSSC deliberation is available in the docket. Discussion of Comments RSPA received comments on the NPRM from 36 pipeline operators, 9 pipeline-related associations, 1 state agency, and 8 other commenters. More commenters submitted views on the NAPSR recommendations: 58 pipeline operators, 10 pipeline-related associations, 4 state agencies, and 5 other commenters. The following discussion on development of the final rules explains how we treated TPSSC positions, comments on the NPRM, and comments on NAPSR recommendations related to NPRM proposals (Secs. 192.3, 192.475, 192.485, and 192.607). We appreciate the comments on NAPSR recommendations that were not related to NPRM proposals. They will help us decide appropriate responses to those recommendations in an action separate from this rulemaking. Small Gas Systems. The NPRM invited comments on the idea of whether RSPA should develop separate, more appropriate safety standards for small gas distribution systems. Such systems include master meter systems and petroleum gas systems serving mobile home or apartment complexes. Although TPSSC did not address this matter, RSPA received comments from two pipeline operators, one state agency, and one mobile home association. The state agency said that it is not clear that separate regulations are required. This commenter suggested that a less complicated remedy might be to excerpt those portions of the regulations specifically applicable to small operators (deleting, for example, sections applicable to transmission lines) and publish the result as a guide or as instructional material. Three commenters supported the need for more appropriate standards for small gas distribution systems. A mobile home association endorsed the idea of developing standards for small gas distribution systems, such as master-meter systems serving mobile home parks, and publishing the standards as a new part of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The mobile home association commented that if it were not for the Guidance Manual for Operators of Small Gas Systems published by RSPA, the average mobile home park operator would have difficulty determining which regulations in part 192 apply to master-meter systems. RSPA believes that each of the suggestions has merit and will be useful in developing future pipeline safety agendas. Section 192.1, Scope of Part Section 192.1(b)(1) excepts from the scope of part 192 certain gathering lines on the outer continental shelf (OCS), but does not except similar gathering lines located in State offshore waters. Section 192.1(b)(1) reads as follows: ``This part does not apply to * * * (o)ffshore gathering of gas upstream from the outlet flange of each facility on the outer continental shelf where hydrocarbons are produced or where produced hydrocarbons are first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed, whichever facility is farther downstream.'' Because RSPA treats OCS and State offshore gathering alike under part 192, we proposed to delete the phrase ``on the outer continental shelf'' so the exception would cover offshore gathering no matter where located. We also proposed to replace ``offshore gathering of gas'' with ``offshore pipelines,'' recognizing that the excepted pipelines may be either production or gathering lines. Twelve TPSSC members voted for the proposal, two supported it but recommended a change, one member opposed it, and one abstained. The recommended change was that ``gathering of gas'' should be retained in Sec. 192.1(b)(1), since proposed Sec. 192.9 refers to gathering under Sec. 192.1. We did not adopt the TPSSC minority's recommended change because the excepted pipelines located upstream from the referenced offshore facilities may be either production lines or gathering lines. Also, the term ``offshore pipelines'' was used in a similar revision of 49 CFR 195.1(b)(5) that we made to clarify the jurisdiction of the hazardous liquid pipeline regulations over offshore pipelines (Docket PS-127; 59 FR 33388; June 28, 1994). As discussed below under the Sec. 192.9 heading, Sec. 192.9 has already been revised to cross-reference Sec. 192.1. Since the cross- reference does not refer specifically to gathering lines, deleting the words ``gathering of gas'' from Sec. 192.1(b)(1) should not hinder the understanding of Sec. 192.9. RSPA received 14 comments on the proposed rule change, nine from operators, four from pipeline-related associations, and one from a state agency. None of these comments opposed the proposal to change Sec. 192.1(b)(1). Section 192.3, Definitions 1. Petroleum Gas. A revised definition of ``petroleum gas'' is discussed below under the Sec. 192.11 heading. 2. Secretary. The proposed revision of the definition of ``Secretary'' is no longer needed. Because the term ``Secretary'' is not used in part 192, the definition of ``Secretary'' was removed from Sec. 192.3 in an earlier rulemaking (59 FR 17281; April 12, 1994). 3. Transmission Line. A longstanding RSPA interpretation holds that the definition of ``transmission line'' in Sec. 192.3 encompasses lines that link gathering lines or transmission lines to large volume customers, such as factories or power plants. This interpretation was founded on the definition of ``transmission line'' in the 1968 edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers [ASME] B31.8 Code. This code, which was the cornerstone of part 192, defined transmission to end at large volume customers. RSPA proposed to codify the interpretation by restating the definition of ``transmission line'' under part 192 to [[Page 28772]] include a ``large volume customer'' as an end point of transmission. Eleven TPSSC members voted for the proposal, three supported it with a recommended change, and one abstained. The members who recommended a change thought that RSPA should define ``large volume customer.'' As discussed further below, the final definition includes an explanation of this term. Twenty-six entities commented on the NPRM proposal, including 19 pipeline operators, five pipeline-related associations, one state agency, and one industrial consumer. Of these commenters, only eight expressed unqualified support. Three commenters completely opposed the proposal, saying it was not needed or would create confusion. RSPA continues to believe that the proposed change is needed. The present definition does not reflect RSPA's interpretation that the term ``transmission line'' includes pipelines that connect large volume customers to gathering or transmission lines. Nine commenters thought the proposed definition would reclassify as transmission those pipelines that connect large volume customers to high pressure distribution lines. RSPA did not intend for the proposed change to alter the classification of distribution lines that supply large volume customers. To avoid this unintended outcome, the definition explicitly does not include lines serving large volume customers downstream from a distribution center. Four commenters said that the volume of gas transported is not an appropriate indicator of transmission. This group suggested that engineering characteristics, such as high pressure, stress level, or connection to a pressure limiting station are more indicative of transmission than the volume of gas transported. However, the purpose of the transmission proposal was not to open discussion on whether volume is an appropriate indicator of transmission. The purpose was to recognize that, by interpretation of the present definition, volume already is an established indicator of transmission, and that the interpretation should be codified. None of the commenters challenged the correctness of the interpretation. Moreover, before publishing the proposed definition, we referred to the 1992 edition of the ASME B31.8 Code, a widely recognized code of voluntary standards for gas piping. Section 803.21 of the ASME B31.8 Code (1992 edition) defined ``transmission line'' as ``pipe installed for the purpose of transmitting gas from a source or sources of supply to one or more distribution centers or to one or more large volume customers * * *'' (emphasis added). And this definition is the same in the current 1995 edition of the code. Given our longstanding interpretation and the ASME B31.8 Code definition, we find it reasonable to add ``large volume customer'' to the definition of transmission line as proposed. Three commenters wanted RSPA to define ``large volume customer.'' We agree that an explanation of ``large volume customer'' would make the final definition more precise. Thus, we added a statement to the final definition to explain that ``large volume customer'' includes factories, power plants, and institutional users of gas. We did not specify a minimum volume of gas a pipeline must transport to a customer to qualify as transmission. Volumes vary, and setting an arbitrary threshold might unfairly reclassify some existing lines. However, since ``large volume customer'' and ``distribution center'' each mark the end of transmission under the definition, operators may use the volume of gas supplied to distribution centers as a guide to identifying large volume customers. The NAPSR report recommended changing the part 192 definition of ``transmission line'' so that pipelines beginning at gathering or transmission lines and ending at ``distribution systems and other load centers'' would be classified as transmission lines. Under this alternative wording, load centers conceivably would include large volume customers. Most of the persons who commented directly on this NAPSR recommendation opposed it. A primary objection was that the recommended definition would needlessly reclassify as transmission low stress pipelines between communities or between distribution systems and high pressure transmission lines. In this regard, many commenters felt transmission should be limited to pipelines that operate at 20 percent or more of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of pipe, one of the characteristics under the present definition. The lack of definition of the term ``load center'' was another frequently stated reason for opposing the NAPSR recommendation. Commenters argued that introducing this term into the definition would lead to more, not less, confusion. Also several commenters thought the definition of transmission line should remain unchanged until RSPA completes its project to redefine the term ``gathering line,'' which appears in the transmission line definition. After considering these concerns, we agree that the NAPSR recommendation would not strengthen the present definition and could cause reclassification of many lines. Therefore, we did not adopt the recommendation in the final definition. Section 192.5, Class Locations RSPA proposed to clarify Sec. 192.5 to minimize the possibility that a pipeline is classified higher than required. Inasmuch as part 192 regulations become more stringent as pipeline classification increases, any over- classification results in needless expenditures. Fourteen TPSSC members voted for the proposal and one abstained. Eight operators and one pipeline-related association commented on the proposed change. While these commenters generally supported the need to clarify Sec. 192.5, two operators suggested alternative wording. Based on one suggestion, RSPA has combined proposed Secs. 192.5 (c)(2) and (c)(3) into final Sec. 192.5(c)(2). One focus of the NPRM was the cluster exception in existing Secs. 192.5(f)(2) and (f)(3). This exception provides that if a cluster of buildings intended for human occupancy requires a Class 2 or 3 location, the classification ends 220 yards from the nearest building in the cluster, rather than at the end of the 1-mile class location unit that would otherwise be the basis for classification. In the NPRM (at 39573), we stated that adding buildings outside a cluster to those inside the cluster would result in over-classification of the class location unit. However, this statement was incorrect. The history of Sec. 192.5 (35 FR 13251, August 19, 1970) shows that the cluster exception applies only when all buildings in a 1-mile class location unit are in a single cluster. If a class location unit contains buildings outside a cluster or more than one cluster of buildings, all buildings in the unit must be counted to determine the classification of the unit. The final rule clarifies this point. The association that commented thought we should define the term ``cluster.'' However, the term is used in its ordinary dictionary sense, and, in RSPA's experience, has not been a significant source of misunderstanding. Section 192.7, Incorporation by Reference Section 192.7 describes the incorporation by reference in part 192 of documents or portions of documents relevant to gas pipeline safety. RSPA proposed to revise Sec. 192.7(a) to clarify that when a regulation in part 192 [[Page 28773]] references a document, the entire document is not necessarily incorporated by reference. Rather, only those portions of the document that are specifically referenced in the regulation or are essential for compliance with the regulation are incorporated by reference. Such portions may or may not comprise the whole document, depending on the scope of the reference. Fourteen TPSSC members voted for the proposal and one abstained. Commenters on the proposed change, seven operators and one pipeline- related association, all favored the proposal. However, two of these commenters wanted RSPA to change the rule in a manner not proposed. They advised changing Sec. 192.7 to require operators to follow the latest published editions of documents, instead of particular editions, which can become obsolete before RSPA updates the references. RSPA believes this recommended action is inappropriate because it would hand over an established governmental function, rulemaking, to the private organizations who produce the referenced documents. Each newly published edition would automatically change a pipeline safety rule and bypass the Federal rulemaking process, which ensures fair treatment of all affected parties. Section 192.9, Gathering Lines When the NPRM was published, Sec. 192.9 required gathering lines to comply with part 192 standards applicable to transmission lines without indicating that certain gathering lines are excepted from part 192 by Sec. 192.1. To highlight this exception and provide a clear understanding of which gathering lines must meet transmission line standards, we proposed to cross-reference Sec. 192.1 in Sec. 192.9. Thirteen TPSSC members voted for the proposal and two abstained. RSPA received seven comments on the proposed change, six from operators and one from a pipeline-related association. Only one commenter opposed the proposal, saying it did not see how the change would clarify the present rule. Then in 1994, in a separate, unrelated action concerning the passage of pigs, RSPA revised Sec. 192.9 to include a cross-reference to Sec. 192.1 (59 FR 17281, April 12, 1994). Thus, Sec. 192.9 has already been changed consistent with the proposal in this proceeding, and no further action is necessary. Section 192.11, Petroleum Gas Systems (Including Changes to Secs. 192.1 and 192.3) RSPA proposed several changes to the special rules in Sec. 192.11 for petroleum gas systems: First, we proposed to require that peak shaving plants supplying petroleum gas by pipeline to a natural gas distribution system as well as pipeline systems transporting only petroleum gas or petroleum gas/air mixtures comply with part 192 standards and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards 58 and 59. Downstream from the point where a peak shaving plant injects petroleum gas into a natural gas distribution system, only part 192 would apply. Next, we proposed that the NFPA Standards prevail in the event of a conflict between part 192 and NFPA Standards 58 or 59. At the same time, we said that a conflict does not exist when NFPA Standards 58 and 59 are silent or nonspecific on a subject (such as for corrosion protection or leak detection). In this case, the operator would have to comply with any applicable part 192 rule. Finally, we proposed to add a definition of ``petroleum gas'' to Sec. 192.3, and to clarify under Sec. 192.1(b)(4) which petroleum gas systems are excepted from part 192. Ten TPSSC members voted for the proposal, one member supported it with a recommended change, three members opposed it, and one abstained. Two TPSSC members disagreed with the proposal that NFPA standards should prevail in the event of a conflict with part 192. One TPSSC member voted yes, but recommended that in the event of conflict the most stringent requirement should prevail. We explained in the NPRM why we believe the NFPA standards should have priority in direct conflict situations. The main reason is that in contrast to part 192, the NFPA Standards specifically cover petroleum gas transportation. Also, NFPA Standards 58 and 59 reflect current petroleum gas technology and safety practices. Given this special attention to petroleum gas, we do not think there is sufficient reason to require operators to follow part 192 instead of the NFPA Standards in the event of conflict, even if part 192 is more stringent. RSPA received eight comments in favor and three comments in opposition to the proposed changes to Sec. 192.11. Those commenters who opposed the proposal were concerned that compliance with NFPA Standards 58 and 59 would involve significant capital expenditures. However, Sec. 192.11 already requires petroleum gas systems to meet NFPA Standards 58 and 59. And, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Sec. 60104(b), none of the design, installation, construction, initial testing, or initial inspection requirements of NFPA Standards 58 and 59 would apply under part 192 to peak shaving plants now in existence. So, retrofitting existing plants would not be required. Although all plants would have to comply with the operation and maintenance requirements of NFPA Standards 58 and 59, overall compliance costs should be small because, as NFPA stated in its petition, most, if not all, existing plants already comply with NFPA Standards 58 and 59 to qualify for insurance coverage. Thus, Sec. 192.11 is revised as proposed in the NPRM. Proposed Sec. 192.1(b)(4)(i) would exclude from part 192 pipeline systems that transport only petroleum gas or petroleum gas/air mixtures to fewer than 10 customers, if no portion of the system is located in a public place. This exclusion is in the present Sec. 192.11(a), but in proposing to relocate it to Sec. 192.1(b)(4)(i), we omitted the parenthetical phrase ``(such as a highway).'' One commenter objected to the omission, saying it would leave the meaning of ``public place'' open to interpretation. However, our experience has been that the parenthetical phrase has hindered more than helped the understanding of public place. We have consistently interpreted ``public place'' to mean a place which is generally open to all persons in a community as opposed to being restricted to specific persons. We consider churches, schools, and commercial property as well as any publicly owned right- of-way or property which is frequented by persons to be public places. Although Sec. 192.11(a) refers to a highway as an example of a public place, many operators have incorrectly considered the example to restrict, rather than define, the coverage of petroleum gas systems with fewer than 10 customers. Proposed Sec. 192.1(b)(4)(ii) would clarify that part 192 does not apply to single-tank, single-customer petroleum gas systems located entirely on the customer's premises, but partially in a public place. These systems exist, for example, at churches or restaurants, where the gas is used for heating or cooking. The proposal was based on the jurisdiction of part 192 over the distribution of gas. As indicated by the definition of ``service line'' (Sec. 192.3), part 192 does not apply to gas distribution beyond the point where metered gas enters customer piping. For single-tank, single-customer systems on the customer's premises, this point normally occurs at the tank. Three commenters protested that part 192 would still apply to single-customer, multi-tank systems on the customer's premises, regardless of tank size. For example, the proposed rule [[Page 28774]] would not exclude a two-tank system partly in a public place, even if the total quantity of stored gas is less than in a large single-tank system. Because the proposed exclusion did not rest on the quantity of gas delivered to the customer, we agree that the number of tanks should not be a factor in the exclusion of single-customer systems on the customer's premises. Therefore, final Sec. 192.1(b)(4)(ii) omits the term ``single-tank.'' The proposed definition of ``petroleum gas'' drew no objections from either the TPSSC or commenters. So the definition is adopted as proposed. Sections 192.14 and 192.553, Conversion and Uprating If a steel pipeline to be converted to gas service under part 192 has not been designed and constructed to meet part 192 standards, it must be converted according to Sec. 192.14 (Sec. 192.13(a)(2)). Section 192.14(a)(4) requires that each pipeline must be pressure tested under subpart J of part 192 to substantiate the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) permitted by subpart L of part 192. Under subpart L, to compute the MAOP of a pipeline being converted, an operator must determine the design pressure of the weakest element of the pipeline (Sec. 192.619(a)(1)). Design pressure is also a factor under Sec. 192.553, which establishes general requirements for increasing any pipeline's MAOP (uprating). Under Sec. 192.553(d), an increased maximum allowable operating pressure may not exceed the MAOP part 192 allows for a new pipeline constructed of the same materials in the same location. Thus, to uprate a pipeline within this MAOP limit, an operator must determine the design pressure of the weakest element of the pipeline (Sec. 192.619(a)(1)). Because of the role of design pressure, a steel pipeline may not be converted or uprated when any of the pipe characteristics needed to calculate design pressure under Sec. 192.105 is unknown. Therefore, RSPA proposed to amend Secs. 192.14(a)(1) and 192.553(d) to permit the conversion or uprating of steel pipelines based on an approach found in paragraph 845.214 and Appendix N of the ASME B31.8 Code. Under the proposal, when design pressure is unknown, operators would have to pressure test the pipeline under Appendix N until pipe yield occurs. The first pressure that produces pipe yield, reduced by 20 percent and the appropriate factor under Sec. 192.619(a)(2)(ii), would be used instead of design pressure to calculate MAOP. Twelve TPSSC members voted for the proposed revision of Sec. 192.14, one member supported it with a recommended change, one member opposed it but suggested changes, and one member abstained. Eleven members voted for the proposal regarding Sec. 192.553, two supported it with a recommended change, one opposed it, and one abstained. The recommended changes were to make yield testing mandatory instead of permissive, and to allow yield testing that is based on other than the ``first pressure'' that produces yield, since Appendix N does not use that term. The reasons against the proposal were that yield testing appeared to be mandatory, and use of the Appendix N method should be discretionary. RSPA has adopted the recommended change regarding mandatory yield testing. Although, in the proposed rules, yield testing may have appeared permissive, RSPA clearly intended such testing to be the only alternative when design pressure is unknown. Therefore, in the final rule, if factors in the design formula are unknown, a pipeline to be converted or uprated would have to be pressure tested under Appendix N to determine pipe yield, except as discussed below for low-stress pipe. The TPSSC member's recommendation to delete ``first pressure'' from the proposed rule was not adopted. Although Appendix N does not refer to the first pressure that produces yield, paragraph 845.214(a)(2) of the ASME B31.8 Code, which applies to the establishment of MAOP when design pressure is unknown, provides that only the first test to yield can be used to determine MAOP. The proposed rules were consistent with this B31.8 standard, which precludes the use of higher yield pressures that can result from successive testing. RSPA did not adopt the TPSSC member's comment that use of the Appendix N method should be discretionary. When MAOP is determined without knowing the pipeline's design pressure, conformity to a standardized practice (Section N5.0 of Appendix N) assures additional safety to offset the lack of knowledge about design pressure. RSPA received comments on the proposed rules from 11 operators and three pipeline-related associations. Four operators and one pipeline- related association recommended removal of the proposed requirement to use the ``first pressure'' that produces yield. Our position on this subject is given above in response to a similar comment by a TPSSC member. One operator and one pipeline-related association suggested locating the proposed amendments in Sec. 192.105 instead of Secs. 192.14 and 192.553. RSPA did not adopt this suggestion because Sec. 192.105 affects the design of new pipelines, a subject the proposed rules did not address. One operator and two pipeline-related associations argued that pressure testing to yield is unnecessary to qualify low-stress distribution lines (generally lines 12\\3/4\\ inches or less in nominal outside diameter operating at pressures less than 200 psig) for conversion or uprating. Part 192 recognizes that low- stress pipelines present a much lower risk to public safety than high-stress lines, all other factors being equal. For example, certain welding standards in subpart E are less stringent for pipelines to be operated below 20 percent of SMYS. Because of the lower risk, the final rule provides that pipelines 12\\3/4\\ inches or less in nominal outside diameter to be operated at a pressure less than 200 psig may be converted or uprated without testing to yield. The MAOP of such pipelines may be determined under Sec. 192.619(a)(1) by using 200 psig as design pressure. An operator argued that pressure testing to yield should be discretionary, because sufficient safety would be provided by the proposed pressure reduction factors regardless of the level of test pressure. The commenter was also concerned that pressure testing to yield for an extended time could cause the growth of defects that later cause failure during operation. Two hours was suggested as the optimum hold time for yield testing, based on ongoing studies. RSPA did not adopt these comments. Pressure testing to yield exposes more material and construction defects than does testing to a lower pressure. With fewer defects remaining after testing to yield, greater long-term protection against failures due to the growth of unexposed defects results. RSPA intended this extra protection, combined with the proposed pressure reduction factors, to offset the absence of design pressure as a limit on MAOP. Pressure testing to yield appears to be reasonable since many operators already strength test their pipelines at or above yield for safety and efficiency reasons. Also, none of the other commenters or TPSSC members objected to pressure testing to yield, except as discussed above for low-stress lines. As to the optimum hold period for yield testing, because the matter is still being studied by industry and is not addressed by the procedure for yield testing under Appendix N, it is too soon to consider [[Page 28775]] establishing a special hold period for yield testing under part 192. The final rules have been drafted to improve clarity, to show their relation to design pressure and MAOP under Sec. 192.619, and to include the changes discussed above. The proposed amendments to Secs. 192.14(a)(1) and 192.553(d) are revised and published as an amendment to Sec. 192.619(a)(1), because this section deals specifically with design pressure and MAOP. Final Sec. 192.619(a)(1), set forth below, provides that when design pressure is unknown for steel pipelines being converted or uprated, a reduced value of first yield hydrostatic test pressure, instead of design pressure, is used to compute MAOP. As discussed below, final Sec. 192.619(a)(1) does not include the reduction factors proposed for butt and lap welded pipe under Sec. 192.14(a)(1)(ii). If the pipeline to be converted is 12\\3/4\\ inches or less in nominal outside diameter, 200 psig, instead of design pressure, may be used if the line is not yield tested. Section 192.553(d) is also revised to refer to amended Sec. 192.619(a)(1). Also, because the 1992 edition of the ASME B31.8 Code is now out-of- print, the 1995 edition is referenced in Sec. 192.619(a)(1) as shown by the revisions to Appendix A of part 192 (see below). Section 192.107, Yield Strength (S) for Steel Pipe For pipe made according to a specification not listed in part 192 or whose specification or tensile properties are unknown, Sec. 192.107(b)(1) provides that yield strength may be established by tensile testing in accordance with section II-D of appendix B to part 192. When yield strength is determined by such tensile testing, paragraph (b)(1) requires that the yield strength used in the design formula of Sec. 192.105 be the lower of either 80 percent of the average yield strength determined by tensile testing or the lowest yield strength determined by tensile testing, but not over 52,000 psi. RSPA proposed to remove this 52,000 psi upper limit on yield strength, because higher strength pipe has become available since this limitation was adopted, and tensile testing is a generally accepted method of determining material properties. Twelve TPSSC members voted for the proposal, one member supported it with a recommended change and two abstained. The member recommending the change felt that the proposal would be better justified if we knew the proportion of higher strength pipe that lacks tensile documentation and why this information is unknown. RSPA believes this information is not essential in deciding whether to adopt the proposal because the proposed amendment has limited application. We expect operators would use the proposed amendment to qualify stock pipe they have stored for maintenance and emergencies and to qualify used pipe being reclaimed. In either case, the amount of pipe that would be qualified under proposed Sec. 192.107(b)(1)(ii) should be very small compared with all pipe being qualified for use in gas pipeline systems. RSPA received six comments on the proposed amendment. The comments came from five operators and one pipeline-related association, and all supported the proposal. In addition, one operator recommended that RSPA further amend Sec. 192.107 to permit the use of recognized statistical methods to determine yield strength from tensile tests. RSPA did not adopt this comment because this concept was not addressed in the NPRM and would require further public comment and study. Accordingly, Sec. 192.107 is amended as proposed in the NPRM. Section 192.121, Design of Plastic Pipe RSPA proposed to add the following formula to Sec. 192.121, which would allow use of the Standard Dimension Ratio (SDR) in determining design pressure for plastic pipe: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JN96.012 SDR is a commonly used plastic pipe characteristic in the gas pipeline industry. Thirteen TPSSC members voted for the proposal and two abstained. RSPA received eight responses from the public, all in favor of the proposed rule. Therefore, the final rule is issued as proposed in the NPRM, except that the proposed definition is reworded to conform to standard usage. The final definition agrees with the SDR definition given in the voluntary standard referenced in part 192 for the manufacture of thermoplastic pipe: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation D 2513, ``Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Gas Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings'' (1990c edition). Section 192.123, Design Limitations for Plastic Pipe Under Sec. 192.123, plastic pipe may not be used where pipe operating temperatures are below -20 deg.F. RSPA proposed to lower this limit to -40 deg.F in light of improvements in pipe technology. Additionally, RSPA proposed to clarify Sec. 192.123(b)(2), which sets the maximum operating temperature for thermoplastic pipe and reinforced thermosetting plastic pipe. Thirteen TPSSC members voted for the proposal and two abstained. RSPA received nine comments on the proposed rule changes: six from operators, one from a pipeline-related association, and two from manufacturers. The operators and the association supported the proposal or did not object to it. However, the manufacturers opposed the proposal stating that many components other than pipe that are made for use in gas pipeline systems do not have a low temperature rating of -40 deg.F, although they perform satisfactorily at -20 deg.F. One of these commenters argued that unsafe operation could occur if pipeline designers assumed that all components, such as repair and connection devices, fittings, valves, meters, and regulators, may be used at -40 deg.F. RSPA shares the manufacturers' concern. Therefore, the final rule allows the use of plastic pipe at temperatures between -20 deg.F and -40 deg.F only if all pipe and pipeline components whose operating temperature will be below -20 deg.F have a manufacturer's temperature rating consistent with that operating temperature. Section 192.179, Transmission Line Valves Gas transmission lines must have sectionalizing block valves spaced according to population density under Sec. 192.179(a). RSPA proposed to revise this rule to allow the RSPA Administrator to approve alternative spacing where the operator demonstrates an equivalent level of pipeline safety. Thirteen TPSSC members voted for the proposal, one against, and one abstained. RSPA received comments from 12 operators, two pipeline-related associations, and a state agency. Thirteen commenters gave their full or qualified approval, but one association and the state agency argued against the proposal. Those commenters expressing qualified support generally felt that the proposal offered some benefit to pipeline operators. However, they urged that operators be permitted to determine spacing based on criteria similar to those for hazardous liquid pipelines in 49 CFR 195.260(c). RSPA did not adopt the comment that transmission line valve spacing should be governed by criteria similar to those in 49 CFR 195.260(c). While those criteria may be appropriate for hazardous liquid pipelines, we have no indication they are suitable for gas [[Page 28776]] transmission lines. In fact, the widely accepted voluntary standard for valve spacing, paragraph 846.11 of the ASME B31.8 Code, differs little from existing Sec. 192.179. As for the comments opposing the proposal, RSPA has considered the state agency's concern that the proposed rule would infringe on the authority of state agencies to grant waivers from Sec. 192.179 for intrastate transmission lines. (See 49 U.S.C 60118(d)). However, this concern has been addressed by a procedural rule (49 CFR 190.9) that RSPA adopted to handle petitions for finding or approval under the federal pipeline safety regulations. Under this rule, which would apply to petitions for alternative spacing under Sec. 192.179, operators of intrastate pipelines subject to the safety regulatory jurisdiction of a certified state agency must submit their petitions to that agency for review and recommendation before final action by the Administrator. RSPA does not agree with the pipeline-related association's suggestion that since the underlying rule is not justifi","truncated":true,"body_characters":112453}