{"operation":"document","citation":"0900006480e87008","title":"U.S. DOT/RSPA - Draft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"current","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"The document describes RSPA/OPS’s proposal to adopt 19 recommendations from the National Association of State Pipeline Representatives (NAPSR) to modify gas pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR Part 192. It summarizes alternatives considered (status quo vs. adopting recommendations), identifies specific regulatory sections to be changed and the intended effects (clarifications, codification of industry practice, opportunities for cost savings), assesses anticipated costs (generally minimal or none), and concludes the changes are unlikely to adversely affect operator costs or public safety. The Regulatory Flexibility Certification states the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The scope is limited to the described proposed amendments and RSPA/OPS’s analysis; the document presents the agency’s reasoning and expected outcomes but does","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e87008.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e87008.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/regulations-gov-attachment-0900006480e87008","source_url":"https://downloads.regulations.gov/PHMSA-RSPA-2002-13208-0023/attachment_1.pdf","body":"<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nRESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION\n49 CFR Part 192\n[Docket No. RSPA-02-13208] 23\nRIN 2137-ADO1\nDraft Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility Assessment\nPipeline Safety: Further Regulatory Review Pipeline Safety: Gas Pipeline Safety Standards\nBackmound -\nThe Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) is proposing to modify some of its\nregulations concerning gas pipeline safety standards. These changes are based on\nrecommendations fiom the National Association of State Pipeline Representatives (NAPSR).\nNAPSR is a non-profit association of officials from state agencies that participate with RSPA in\nthe Federal pipeline safety regulatory program.\nNeed for the remlation\nAnnually NAPSR meets and discusses safety and administrative concerns of state pipeline\nofficials. Following NAPSR’s comprehensive review of the gas pipeline safety standards in 49\nCFR Part 192, five of the thirty-five recommendations, were adopted as final in earlier\nrulemaking actions, and three others were proposed to be adopted in the rulemaking called\n“Periodic Updates to Pipeline Safety Regulations (1999)” (Docket RSPA-99-6106; 56 FR 15290;\nMar. 22,2000). Now RSPA is proposing to adopt nineteen additional recommendations either\nin whole or with adjustments.\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nAlternatives\nRSPA considered two alternative scenarios. First, the status quo alternative or do not adopt any\nadditional NAPSR recommendations. Second, adopt several additional NAPSR\nrecommendations which will clarify Part 192 making the regulations clearer and more easily\nenforceable.\nRSPA chose the second alternative as it felt that adopting 19 of the NAPSR\nrecommendations in Part 192 would clarify the intent of these sections, make them more\nenforceable, and in some instances potentially reduce the burden to gas pipeline operators by\noffering operators the opportunity to choose more cost-effective alternatives that are not now\navailable.\nBenefits\nThis section describes the benefits of the proposed rules that are based on recommendations or\naltematives to recommendations.\n1) 192.3 Definitions of Main and Transmission Line\nThis section clarifies and creates consistency with current policies used for waivers and\ninterpretations. It specifically describes the definitions of customer meter, service line and service\nregulator. These should reduce the number of waivers needed and therefore reduce costs to the\nindustry.\n2) 192.123 Design Limitations for Plastic Pipe.\nThis section removes the grandfather provision that allows plastic pipe manufactured before May\n18, 1978 to be operated at a temperature higher than its design temperature. There is probably\nlittle benefit to this section as there is probably little pipe of this age which exists in the inventory\nof pipeline operators that could be used as replacement pipe.\n3) 192.197(a) Control of the Pressure of Gas Delivered from Hidmressure Distribution\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nSystems.\nThis proposal clears up a discrepancy between two different sections of the regulation which\ndescribe whether a pipe can operated up to 60 pounds per square inch gauge (p.s.i.g.) Or less than\n60 psig.\n4) 192.285(d) Plastic Pipe: Oualifving Persons to Make Joints.\nThis sections replaces “his” with a word that is not gender specific.\n5) 192.3 1 1 Rmair of Plastic PiDe.\nThis section drops the term “patching saddle” which is unclear. Further it allows for the use of\nother technologies for repairing plastic pipe. This should reduce the costs of plastic pipe repair by\nencouraging operators to use the repair technology they find most effective.\n6 ) 192.32Ue) Installation of Plastic PiDe; 192.361k) Service Lines: Installation\nTo prevent underground plastic pipe from being damaged by intense electrical charges, these\nsections prohbit tracer wire from being wrapped around buried plastic pipe. We believe this\nmerely codifies standard industry practice.\n7) 192.353(a) Customer Meters and Regulators: Location\nThis proposal emphasizes that vehicular damage is a type of damage from which meters and\nservice regulators must be protected. Although the existing rule implicitly requires protection\nfrom vehicular damage, this emphasizes the need to prevent this type of damage.\n8) 192.457(b)and (c) External Corrosion Control: Buried or Submerged Pipelines Installed Before\nAugust 1, 197 1 : 192.46Ne) External Corrosion Control Monitoring\nThese sections remove an expired provision related to inspection. It also allows operators of\ndistribution lines to use other means than electrical survey to find active corrosion without first\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nhaving to determine that electrical surveys are impractical. Further it clarifies the “other means”.\nBy allowing means other than electrical survey for distribution operators this recommendation\nshould save money by encouraging operators to use the inspection means that are the most cost-\neffective.\n9) 192.479 Atmospheric Corrosion Control: General\nThis section makes the gas regulation on controlling atmospheric corrosion the same for old and\nnew pipelines and consistent with a comparable hazardous liquid pipeline regulation. This change\nshould improve safety by eliminating possible confusion over differences between old and new\npipelines and gas and hazardous liquid pipeline regulations.\n10) 192.48 1 Atmospheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\nThis section would change the atmospheric corrosion monitoring regulation by specifying\nparticular pipeline features to inspect and the remedial action to take if harmful corrosion is found.\nAlthough the present monitoring regulation requires reevaluation rather than inspection and does\nnot establish a definite standard for correction, operators’ inspections generally conform to the\nproposal. So there would be little or no benefit.\n11) 192.517 Records\nThis provision requires operators to keep leak testing records for 5 years. This will help\ncompliance officers determine if pipelines were tested for leaks. We believe that it is industry\npractice to keep these records.\n12) 192.553 Uprating; General Requirements\nThis section merely clarifies an existing reference to an uprating limitation.\n13) 192.605 Procedural manual for oDerations. maintenance, and emergencies.\nThis section requires that operators have written procedures in their Operations and Maintenance\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nPlans to respond promptly to a report of gas odor. By having written procedures the operator\npersonnel will know what is the appropriate and timely response to an odor.\n14) 192.625(f) Odorization of Gas We are proposing to amend fj 192.625(f) to state specifically\nthat an instrument must be used to determine odorant concentration. Presently the sampling\nrequirement to test for odorant in natural gas lines cannot be satisfied without using an appropriate\ntest instrument. Some operators may be using a sniff test without the use of instruments.\nHowever, we believe use of an instrument is common industry practice, because a sniff test cannot\naccurately determine the concentration of odorant.\n15) 192.739(c) Pressure Limitin? and Regulating Stations: Inspection and Testing 192.743(c)\nPressure Limiting and Remlating Stations: Testing of Relief Devices\nThis section clarifies the meaning of “correct pressure” and “insufficient capacity” in a way that is\nconsistent with usual practices.\n16) 192.743(a) and (b) Pressure Limiting and Regulating Stations: Testing of Relief Devices\nThis section should reduce operators’ costs by allowing them to use calculations to determine if\nrelief devices are of sufficient capacity without first having to determine that testing the devices in\nplace is not feasible.\n17)192.745 Valve maintenance: Transmission lines.\nThis section requires operators of transmission lines to take prompt remedial action to correct any\nvalve that might be needed in an emergency if the valve is found inoperable.\n18) 192.747 Valve maintenance: Distribution systems.\nThis section requires operators of distribution systems to take prompt remedial action to correct\nany valve that may be needed for safe operation of the system if the valve is found inoperable.\n19) 192.753 Caulked bell and stirrot joints\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nThis provision clarifies a conflict found in two different sections concerning bell and spigot joints\non cast iron pipe.\ncosts\nThis section examines the costs of adopting the regulation changes described above.\n1) 192.3 Definitions of Main and Transmission Line\nThis section makes present OPS policy consistent with that used in granting waivers for this\ndefinition. This should reduce the number of waivers and therefore potentially reduce costs.\n2) 192.123 Design Limitations for Plastic Pipe\nThis should have no costs as it only would impact plastic pipe made before 1979 that is now being\ninstalled. It is unlikely that any pipeline operator has any significant amount of pipe this old in its\ninventory.\n3) 192.197(a) control of Pressure of Gas Delivered from High-pressure distribution systems.\nThis will have no cost as it clears up a conflict in two provisions.\n4) 192.285(d) Plastic Pipe: Oualifving Process\nNo cost as it changes the word “his” to a gender neutral term.\n5) 192.3 1 1 Repair of Plastic Pipe\nThis may reduce costs as it removes the term “patching saddle” as the only method of repairing\nplastic pipe and allows operators to choose the appropriate method for repair that is most cost-\neffective.\n6) 192.321(e) Installation of Platic Pipe; 192.361(d Service Lines: Installation\nThis prohibits wrapping tracer wire around plastic pipe as it might cause the pipe to be electrically\ndamaged. OPS believes this merely codifies industry practice. Nevertheless, even if some\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\noperators presently wrap their plastic pipe merely laying the pipe in the ground and adding fill dirt\nbefore the tracer wire is put in the ground should add no costs to the operator.\n7) 192.353(a) Customer Meters and Regulators: Location\nThis proposal has no cost as it merely emphasizes something that was implicitly understood the\nneed to prevent damages from vehicles.\n8) 192.457cb) and (c) External Corrosion Control: Buried or Submerged Pipeline Installed Before\nAugust - 1. 197 1 : 192.46He) External Corrosion Control Monitoring\nNo costs as it removes an expired provision related to inspection. It also may reduce costs as it\nallows distribution operators to detect corrosion by means other than electrical survey without first\nhaving to determine that an electrical survey is impractical, and it clarifies the term “other means”.\n9) 192.479 AtmosDheric Corrosion Control: General\nThis makes the gas corrosion control regulations consistent with those for hazardous liquid with\nno cost to operators.\n10) 192.48 1 AtmosDheric corrosion control: Monitoring.\nThe changes this section would make to the atmospheric corrosion monitoring regulation -\nspecifjrlng particular pipeline features to inspect and the remedial action to take if harmful\ncorrosion is found - are consistent with usual practices. So there would be little or no additional\ncosts .\n11) 192.517 Records\nThis provision requires operators to keep leak testing records for 5 years. We believe that it is\nindustry practice to keep these records. Therefore, there should be no cost to this provision\n12) 192.553 Uprating,; General Reauirements\nThis section clarifies the references to this section and therefore adds no costs.\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\n13) 192.605 Procedural manual for oDerations. maintenance, and emergencies\nThis section requires operators to have written procedures for responding to reports of gas odors\npromptly. We believe operators already are doing this so there should be no added costs.\n14) 192.625(f) Odorization of Gas Although some operators may be perfonning sniff tests without\nthe use of instruments we believe that the use of instruments to perform odorant smapling is now\nthe overwhelming industry practice. Therefore, we believe that their should be little additional\ncost to this proposal.\n15) 192.739(c) Pressure Limiting and Regulating Stations: InsDection and Testing 192.743(c);\nPressure Limiting and Regulating Stations: Testing of Relief Valves\nThis section has no cost as it clarifies the meanings of “correct pressure’’ and “insufficient\ncapacity”.\n16) 192.743Ca) and (b) Pressure Limiting and Regulating Stations Testing of Relief Devices\nThis should reduce costs as it allows operators to substitute calculations in lieu of testing relief\nstations.\n17) 192.745 Valve Maintenance: Transmission Lines\nWe believe that this codifies the industry practice that transmission operators after inspecting\nvalves needed in an emergency and finding them inoperable repair them promptly. Therefore,\nthere should be no cost to this provision.\n18) 192.747 Valve Maintenance Distribution Systems\nWe believe that this codifies the industry practice that distribution operators after inspecting\nvalves needed for safe system operation and finding them inoperable repair them promptly.\nTherefore, there should be no cost to this provision.\n19) 192.753 caulked bell and sDigot ioints\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nThere is no cost to this provision as it resolves a conflict in two sections regarding cast iron bell\nand spigot joints.\nAfter performed its review, OPS believes that it is more likely that these changes will save\noperators money. Many provision merely clarify and eliminate conflicting regulations. Other\nprovisions codify good industry practice. And finally some provisions allow operators to choose\nthe most cost-effective means of complying with the regulations.\nConclusion\nOPS has analyzed this proposal and found that none of the changes proposed will have an adverse\nconsequence on costs to operators or safety to the general public. Rather, the updating of and the\nclarification of pipeline safety regulations has the potential for enhanced public safety. Further\nsome of the proposed revisions have the potential for reducing the costs to operators by offering\noptions that could lower operator expenses.\nRepulatorv Flexibilitv Certification\nBased upon the above information showing that the economic impact of this rule will be minimal,\nas they merely clarify the regulations and adopt general industry practices and offer additional\noptions to pipeline operators, I certify under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that\nthis regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.","truncated":false,"body_characters":14403}