Passage of Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 190, 192, 193, and 195

RIN 2137-AB71

[Docket No. PS-126; Amdts. 190-5, 192-72, 193-9, 195-50]

Passage of Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the gas, hazardous liquid and carbon

dioxide pipeline safety regulations to require that certain new and

replacement pipelines be designed and constructed to accommodate the

passage of instrumented internal inspection devices (smart pigs). This

action was taken in response to a mandate in the Pipeline Safety

Reauthorization Act of 1988. The intended effect of these amended

regulations is to improve the safety of gas, hazardous liquid and

carbon dioxide pipelines by permitting their inspection by ``smart

pigs'' using the latest technology for detecting and recording

abnormalities in the pipe wall.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this final rule is May 12, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366-2036

regarding the subject matter of this amendment or the Docket Unit,

(202) 366-5046 regarding copies of this amendment or other material in

the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

RSPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on November

20, 1992 (57 FR 54745) proposing that new and replacement gas

transmission lines and new and replacement hazardous liquid pipelines

and carbon dioxide pipelines be designed and constructed to accommodate

the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices. However, the

rules would not apply to specific installations for which such design

and construction would be impracticable. In addition, the NPRM proposed

a procedure for operators seeking an administrative ruling on any rule

in parts 192, 193 and 195 in which the administrator is authorized to

make a finding or approval.

The NPRM was issued in response to Congressional mandates in

sections 108(b) and 207(b) of the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act

of 1988 (hereinafter ``Reauthorization Act'') (Pub. L. 100-561; Oct.

31, 1988). Section 108(b) of the Reauthorization Act amended section 3

of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (NGPSA) by adding

subsection (g), ``Instrumented Internal Inspection Devices'' (49 app.

U.S.C. 1672). This new subsection requires the Secretary of

Transportation to establish regulations requiring that:

(1) The design and construction of new [gas] transmission

facilities, and (2) when replacement of existing transmission

facilities or equipment is required, the replacement of such

existing facilities, be carried out, to the extent practicable, in a

manner so as to accommodate the passage through such transmission

facilities of instrumented internal inspection devices (commonly

referred to as ``smart pigs'').

Section 207(b) of the Reauthorization Act amended section 203 of the

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (HLPSA) (49 app. U.S.C.

2002) to require that DOT establish similar regulations with respect to

pipeline facilities subject to the HLPSA.

Future Rulemaking Involving Smart Pigs

The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (hereinafter ``PLSA of 1992'')

(Pub. L. 102-508; Oct. 24, 1992) in sections 103 and 203 amended the

NGPSA and the HLPSA, respectively, by requiring the Secretary of

Transportation to issue regulations that require the periodic

inspection of gas transmission facilities and hazardous liquid

pipelines in high-density population areas, and hazardous liquid

pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas or crossing navigable

waterways. In response to these mandates, RSPA will issue an NPRM

proposing to prescribe the circumstances, if any, under which such

inspections would be conducted with smart pigs. In those circumstances

under which an inspection by a smart pig would not be required, RSPA is

mandated to require the use of an inspection method that is at least as

effective as the use of smart pigs in providing for the safety of the

pipeline.

Regulations

In the NPRM, RSPA proposed to require all future new and

replacement gas transmission lines subject to 49 CFR part 192 and

hazardous liquid and carbon dioxide pipelines subject to 49 CFR part

195 to be designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of smart

pigs, except where impracticable. For the purposes of this rulemaking,

RSPA proposed that it would be impracticable to require the

accommodation of smart pigs under the following categories of piping:

Manifolds, station piping (such as compressor stations, pump stations,

metering stations or regulator stations), cross-overs, and fittings

providing branch line junctures (such as tees and other lateral

connections). Additionally, the NPRM proposed to allow pipeline

operators to petition (minimum 90 days in advance) the Administrator,

in a particular case, for a finding that design or construction to

accommodate a smart pig would be impracticable.

Advisory Committees

The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the

Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee

(THLPSSC) have been established by statute to evaluate pipeline safety

regulations. The TPSSC and the THLPSSC met in joint session in

Washington, DC on August 3, 1993, and considered the NPRM. Both

committees accepted the NPRM as feasible, reasonable, and practicable

with the incorporation of several changes. RSPA's disposition of the

advisory committees' recommendations are discussed below.

Discussion of Comments

RSPA received public comments on the proposed rule change from 48

pipeline operators, seven pipeline-related associations, three state/

Federal agencies, and one consulting engineer. The following discussion

explains how RSPA considered the advisory committees' positions and the

public comments on the proposed regulations in developing the final

rule.

Low Stress Pipelines

Twenty-three commenters indicated that the rule should except

pipelines in which the internal operating pressure results in low

stress in the pipe wall. Many commenters argued that since gas

transmission lines are not subject to certain pipeline safety

regulations (Secs. 192.609, 192.711 & 192.713) if they operate at or

below 40 percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), that

this rule should similarly not apply to these same transmission lines.

The TPSSC also recommended that piping operating at a stress level of

40 percent of SMYS or less be excepted.

While RSPA understands this position, it does not agree that it

justifies exception of gas transmission lines based solely on their low

hoop stress at maximum operating pressure. Pipelines operating at lower

stress levels are as susceptible to corrosion and other types of

damage, identifiable by smart pigs, as pipelines operating at higher

stress. In addition, the Reauthorization Act mandate to require certain

new and replacement pipelines to be designed and constructed to

accommodate the passage of smart pigs limits RSPA's discretion only to

situations that make such design and construction impracticable. RSPA

finds that an exception from the requirements adopted in this rule for

pipelines operating at or below 40% SMYS is not appropriate, because

the pipe wall stress does not, within the terms of the Reauthorization

Act, affect the practicability of designing and constructing a line to

accommodate passage of smart pigs.

Short Lengths

Eighteen commenters recommended that the rule except new or

replacement pipelines based on their short lengths. Some commenters

recommended excepting replacement pipelines depending on whether the

adjoining portions of the pipeline are piggable. One of these

commenters reasoned that unless the adjoining portion of pipeline can

accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices,

there can be no added benefit from making a replacement section

piggable because the pipeline overall will still contain restrictions

prohibiting inspection by smart pigs.

Nine commenters recommended exception of minimum lengths that

ranged from 2000 feet to 5 miles. A gas transmission line operator

recommended that the minimum excepted length should be the distance

between compressor stations (40 to 60 miles), to exclude the necessity

to replace non-full opening valves on short replacement sections. Four

commenters suggested that the minimum excepted length should be

determined by RSPA.

The disparity of the commenters' recommendations illustrates that

there is no generally accepted rationale for determining the minimum

length, if any, of pipe that should be excepted. Moreover, RSPA does

not agree that the rule should except replacement pipelines based on

either the length of the replaced section of pipeline or on whether the

adjoining portion of pipeline can accommodate passage of instrumented

internal inspection devices.

The plain objective of the statutory mandate is to make both short

and long pipelines that are not now piggable from end to end, piggable

in time through replacements. Therefore, the final rule does not

include these exceptions. However, operators wishing to except short

length pipelines may want to petition the Administrator under the

procedures set out in the new Sec. 190.9.

Non-Steel Pipelines

Five commenters recommended that the rule apply only to steel

pipelines. One commenter argued that current internal inspection

devices cannot monitor non-ferrous pipelines for stress corrosion. The

commenter contends that no benefit derives from the running of smart

pigs on these lines, and therefore it would be unreasonable to require

operators to make them piggable.

Another commenter contended that, although some polyethylene gas

pipelines are by DOT definition transmission lines, there are no smart

pigs (except camera pigs) that are designed for use in plastic pipe.

RSPA does not agree that the rule should except non-steel

pipelines. It is true that smart pigs cannot presently monitor non-

steel pipelines for as many defects or anomalies as are detectable in

steel pipelines. However, smart pigs can currently detect some physical

defects in non-steel pipelines; i.e. dents, change in internal

diameter, ovality, misalignment of joints, and change in position of

the pipe. Moreover, by making new and replacement plastic pipelines

piggable, they will be able to accommodate new smart pig technology as

it is developed. Nonetheless, all the exceptions in this rule

applicable to steel pipelines are also applicable to non-steel

pipelines.

Small Diameter Pipelines

Twenty-four commenters recommended that the rule except the smaller

diameter pipelines. Some reasoned that commercially available smart pig

technology is limited to the larger pipe sizes. Consequently, for those

sizes of pipe for which there are no commercially available smart pigs,

designing and constructing pipelines to pass smart pigs would be

impracticable.

RSPA does not agree that the rule should include a blanket

exception for all small diameter pipelines. In recent years we have

seen the increasing miniaturization of electro-mechanical components in

equipment used in smart pigs and we expect the trend to continue.

RSPA understands that where no commercially available technology

exists to inspect a particular pipe size by smart pigs, the pipeline

operator would lack sufficient technical information to establish the

design and construction criteria, e.g. minimum internal pipe diameter

and minimum pipe bend radius, essential for passage of smart pigs.

Therefore, the final rule has been written to apply only to pipeline

diameters for which there is a commercially available smart pig at the

time the new or replacement pipeline is designed. At the time of

preparation of this document, RSPA finds that 4 inches is the minimum

nominal pipe size for which smart pigs are commercially available.

Gas Transmission Lines Operated in Conjunction With Distribution

Systems

Twelve commenters recommended that the rule except lines classified

as transmission lines because their hoop stress is 20 percent or more

of SMYS, that operate in conjunction with gas distribution systems.

They reasoned that, typically, these lines have components and

configurations that impede passage of instrumented internal inspection

devices.

Some commenters reasoned that many of these transmission lines are

the sole gas supply to large gas distribution systems. So, inspection

of these lines by instrumented internal inspection devices could, if

problems develop while running the inspection device, disrupt customer

service.

RSPA does not agree that the rule should provide an exception for

gas transmission lines that are operated in conjunction with

distribution systems (except as discussed under the heading ``Gas

transmission lines in crowded underground locations''). First, although

such lines may have configurations or components that impede inspection

by smart pigs, the commenters did not provide information to

substantiate the contention that these conditions are impracticable to

avoid on new or replacement lines. RSPA believes it is practicable to

design and construct new and replacement transmission lines operated in

conjunction with distribution systems to accommodate passage of smart

pigs. Second, potential service disruption (from stuck smart pigs) on

single feed transmission lines will not be a factor on lines that are

properly designed, constructed and maintained to accommodate smart

pigs. Also, to further reduce the possibility of the smart pig becoming

stuck, prior runs can be scheduled, with cleaning and caliper pigs,

during periods of minimal load requirements. Third, the use of smart

pigs to monitor the integrity of single feed transmission lines can

detect problems before they can affect the reliability of the gas

supply to the customers.

Gas Transmission Lines in Crowded Underground Locations

Twelve commenters recommended that RSPA except gas transmission

lines located in certain urban areas. Most of them pointed out that

utility locations underneath city streets in downtown urban areas are

typically overcrowded. Physical constraints from other utilities and

the structural boundary of available space make the design and

construction of replacement pipelines to accommodate smart pigs

impracticable. For example, many underground utility locations lack

sufficient clearance between existing utilities to allow the

replacement of existing short radius elbows with longer radius elbows

(which consume more space) to permit passage of smart pigs.

Nonetheless, a commenter from a state with few large cities suggested

that internal inspection devices should only be required for pipelines

located in Class 3 or 4 locations and in environmentally sensitive

areas.

While gas transmission lines operated in conjunction with

distribution systems are generally covered under this rule, RSPA agrees

that the rule should provide an exception whenever gas transmission

lines operated in conjunction with distribution systems are located in

certain congested urban areas. RSPA believes it is impracticable to

design and construct these particular transmission lines, considering

the arguments presented above, to accommodate passage of smart pigs

when there exist physical constraints, not associated with the pipe

itself, which are beyond an operator's control. Furthermore, RSPA

understands that underground utility areas in Class 4 locations are

typically overcrowded and unable to accommodate the pipeline

configurations needed for the accommodation of smart pigs. So, in the

final rule, Sec. 192.150(b)(6) excepts gas transmission lines that are:

Operated in conjunction with a gas distribution system and installed in

Class 4 locations. However, gas transmission lines, not operated in

conjunction with a gas distribution system are not excepted because

these lines generally pose greater risks, typically transporting gas at

higher pressures.

Gas, Oil and Carbon Dioxide Storage Facilities

Twelve commenters recommended that the rule except gas transmission

lines which are part of injection/withdrawal systems at gas storage

facilities. Commenters said these gas storage facilities have small

diameter piping configured in a grid-like pattern that would not permit

the passage of smart pigs. The TPSSC likewise recommended that storage

facilities be excepted. Similarly, one commenter urged an exception of

delivery/withdrawal piping associated with hazardous liquid storage in

breakout tanks, due to the short lengths, short radius bends and other

tank farm piping configurations which are unable to accommodate the

passage of smart pigs. The THLPSSC also recommended that tank farm

piping be excepted from compliance with this rule.

RSPA agrees that because of piping configuration constraints

associated with the storage facilities for gas, hazardous liquids and

carbon dioxide it is generally impracticable for design and

construction to accommodate passage of smart pigs. Therefore,

Sec. 192.150(b)(3) of the rule excepts piping associated with gas

storage facilities, other than a continuous run of transmission line

between a compression station and storage facilities, and

Sec. 195.120(b)(2) excepts piping associated with liquid storage

facilities. Nonetheless, RSPA will be studying underground storage

issues and, based on that work, may initiate rulemaking to address new

safety measures that may be necessary.

Emergencies and Unforeseen Construction Problems

The NPRM proposed to exclude from the rule piping that the

Administrator finds, upon petition by an operator, to be impracticable

to design and construct to accommodate the passage of smart pigs.

Eighteen commenters stated that many construction situations are under

tight contractual or other time constraints that do not allow

sufficient time to obtain a finding by the Administrator. For example,

an operator may have to make immediate adjustments in the field because

of the discovery of obstructions or other unforeseen problems. Thus,

some commenters reasoned that while the Administrator would have at

least 90 days to decide whether to grant a petition, most pipeline

construction projects would not allow delays of a few days. A few

commenters suggested that the operators should be permitted to accept

the ``burden of proof'' when encountering an impracticability during

construction and so inform RSPA.

Similarly, the TPSSC recommended that the test for impracticability

be left up to the operator instead of petitioning the Administrator for

a finding. The Committee suggested the wording ``and any other piping

that the operator determines and documents would be impracticable to

design and construct to accommodate the passage of an instrumented

internal inspection device'' be substituted for ``the Administrator

finds'' in the exception of Sec. 192.150(b) from the NPRM. Also, the

TPSSC recommended that ``emergency repairs'' be added to the list of

exceptions contained in Sec. 192.150(b).

RSPA acknowledges that emergencies, construction time constraints,

and unforeseen pipeline construction problems would not allow operators

the time to petition for a finding of impracticability and wait for

RSPA's response. Therefore, RSPA has added Secs. 192.150(c) and

195.120(c) which permit an operator discovering an emergency,

construction time constraint or other unforeseeable construction

problem to make a provisional determination of impracticability. In

such instances the operator must document the circumstances resulting

in its impracticability determination. Within 30 days after discovering

an emergency or a construction problem, the operator must petition

under the new Sec. 190.9, ``Petitions for finding or approval'' for a

finding by the Administrator that design and construction to

accommodate passage of internal inspection devices would be

impracticable. If the petition is denied, the operator must modify the

line section to allow passage of instrumented internal inspection

devices, within 1 year after the date of the notice of denial.

Petitions for Finding or Approval

The NPRM proposed that Sec. 190.9, ``Petitions for finding or

approval'' be added to part 190 of this Chapter. Except as discussed

above, commenters did not oppose the establishment of a procedure to

allow an operator to petition the Administrator for an administrative

ruling on any rule under parts 192, 193, and 195 in which the

Administrator is authorized to make a finding or approval. Heretofore,

a similar procedure in part 193 (Sec. 193.2015) applied only to

petitions relating to LNG facilities.

In this rule, the Sec. 190.9 has been revised to require operators

of intrastate pipelines located in states, participating under section

5 of the NGPSA or section 205 of the HLPSA to direct their petitions to

the state pipeline safety agency. The participating state agency will

then make a recommendation to the Administrator as to the disposition

of the petition.

Restraining Elements

Nine commenters objected to the proposed requirement to add

restraining devices to all fittings providing branch line connections.

Restraining elements are added when the outlet to the branch line could

impede the passage of the smart pig. Many commenters argued that the

addition of restraining elements to these fittings may inhibit cleaning

of the branch lines by spheres or cleaning pigs. Other commenters

pointed out that the use of restraining elements in the main line is

unnecessary whenever the branch line has a significantly smaller

diameter than the main line.

RSPA agrees that the rule should not require restraining elements

where they are unnecessary or make impracticable other functions that

are an essential and routine part of pipeline operations and

maintenance. So, the rule does not include a requirement for installing

restraining elements, but leaves their installation to the discretion

of the operator.

Offshore Pipelines

Eleven commenters recommended that the rule except offshore

pipelines. Several commenters based their recommendations on the fact

that offshore pipeline networks are tied-in by ``hot-tapped'' or tee

connections and these tie-ins are without restraining elements. This

type of construction permits cleaning pigs or spheres, required for

removal of materials (such as liquids from gas lines and wax from oil

lines) that impede normal flow, to pass into laterals of ever

increasing diameters.

The system design is contingent on the passage of these cleaning

devices through the various laterals for final tie-in to the liquid

trunk (main) lines and to the gas transmission lines. Then, these

larger diameter lines transport the cleaning pigs to onshore

facilities, for eventual retrieval.

An operator of offshore gas systems said that because of the many

subsea tie-ins to pipelines of larger diameter, smart pigs will require

some type of elaborate receiving device or physically disconnecting/

lifting the pipeline; either of which would be very expensive. Other

commenters advised that smart pigs cannot be launched or received

subsea. An offshore operator said that new offshore platforms typically

connect new platforms to an existing subsea network. Connections to an

existing subsea pipeline are ``hot-tapped'' or are extensions to

existing laterals. This operator summed up his recommendations by

saying that it is impractical to design for the passage of smart pigs

through these connections and it is certainly impractical to install

subsea traps.

Commenters also stated that because of space limitations on the

offshore platforms, the pipelines (risers) which have been routed up

onto the platforms have been designed and constructed with short radius

bends and other fittings that are only adequate for the launching of

cleaning pigs or spheres. These commenters argue that the construction

of the risers with long-sweeping bends on the sea floor and on the

platform, and the installation of the longer launchers and receivers

required to accommodate smart pigs, would be impracticable. For many of

the same reasons, both the TPSSC and the THLPSSC recommended that

offshore pipelines be excepted from the rule.

RSPA acknowledges that many subsea pipelines have been designed and

constructed without restraining bars on branch line connections,

because they would prohibit the passage of cleaning pigs and spheres.

This design allows cleaning pigs and spheres to pass through the

network of subsea laterals and ultimately into larger transmission or

trunk (main) lines that transport gas or liquids to shore facilities.

It is also apparent to RSPA, that designers of offshore platforms

seldom anticipated the space required to accommodate facilities

necessary for the operation of smart pigs. Moreover, RSPA accepts that

smart pigs cannot be launched or received subsea. However, RSPA does

not agree with the commenters or the two advisory committees that all

gas and liquid offshore pipelines should be fully excepted from this

rule.

For pipelines subject to part 195, the current Sec. 195.120

requires that each component of a main line system, other than

manifolds, that change direction within the pipeline system must have a

radius of turn that readily allows the passage of pipeline scrapers,

spheres, and internal inspection equipment. This requirement for main

line components to readily allow the passage of smart pigs through

changes of direction has been in effect since 1970, when offshore

liquid lines became subject to part 195.

Part 192 has applied to offshore gas lines since 1971. In

accordance with the requirements of section 108(b) of the

Reauthorization Act, RSPA sees the need for certain new and replacement

offshore gas transmission lines and risers from these lines to be

designed and constructed to allow passage of smart pigs.

Accordingly, in Secs. 192.150(b)(7) and 195.120(b)(6), while the

rule has not excepted all offshore lines and related facilities, it has

excepted offshore lines which are not gas transmission lines or liquid

main lines 10 inches or greater in nominal diameter that transport

these commodities to onshore facilities. RSPA limited the accommodation

of smart pigs to these larger gas transmission and liquid main lines

because we find, for the reasons expressed by the commenters, that the

unique design and construction of the excepted offshore pipeline

systems makes them generally impracticable for the passage of smart

pigs.

When the rulemaking mandated by the PLSA of 1992 discussed under

the heading--Future Rulemaking Involving Smart Pigs--is issued, RSPA

may prescribe the circumstances for inspection with smart pigs. Such

circumstances, if included in any final rule, may require the need for

offshore platforms that contain risers, to also accommodate launchers

and (where appropriate) receivers for the passage of smart pigs.

Above Ground Pipelines

Three commenters recommended that RSPA except above ground

pipelines because operators can inspect these pipelines visually.

RSPA finds that regardless of whether an operator can visually

inspect a line above ground is irrelevant to the practicability of

design and construction of pipelines to accommodate passage of smart

pigs. Furthermore, smart pigs are capable of detecting internal defects

that cannot be discovered by a visual inspection of the outside surface

of a pipeline. Moreover, above ground pipelines are required to be

externally coated and coating materials usually preclude visual

inspection of the outside surface. So, this recommendation was not

adopted.

Clarification of the Term ``Replacement''

Thirteen commenters recommended that the terms ``replacement

transmission line'' and ``replacement pipeline'' be clarified to

indicate the portion of an existing line that must be modified to

accommodate smart pigs when replacements are made for other reasons.

A gas pipeline operator recommended that the meaning of the term

``replacement transmission line'' be limited to the pipe and components

such as valves, bends, and fittings which are added to or replaced in

an existing transmission line. Another gas pipeline operator expressed

support for regulations stating that replacement pipeline facilities

could not be constructed which would further restrict the passage of a

smart pig. RSPA cannot accept the first commenter's recommendations

because if ``replacement'' is limited to a replaced valve, a joint of

pipe, or other component, then pipelines with restrictive components,

such as elbows and tight radius field bends (which when properly

maintained never need replacement) would never be piggable. Also RSPA

cannot accept the second commenter's position because it appears to

mean that the operator need only to make the replacement no more

restrictive than it was prior to it being replaced. The clear intent of

the congressional mandate is to improve an existing pipeline's

piggability.

A pipeline operator and a pipeline related association, recommended

that the word ``pipeline'' be replaced with ``line section'' defined in

Sec. 195.2. A gas pipeline association urged that ``replacement

transmission line'' be changed to ``replacement transmission section''

to clearly indicate that only the portion of line replaced must

accommodate the passage of smart pigs. Another pipeline related

association interpreted ``replacement'' to mean either: (1) Replacement

of the entire line, or (2) replacement of the line segment between two

logical points (e.g. compressor stations). A gas pipeline operator also

believed the term ``segment'' is appropriate because it is frequently

used in part 192 and it recognizes that pipelines are segmented for

different regulatory purposes. A gas transmission operator felt that

the definition of ``replacement line'' should exempt the replacement of

partial segments of existing gas pipelines within a valve section that

are replaced because of class change or regular maintenance work

because of construction restraints. A gas distribution operator stated

that if the proposal was intended to apply to the replaced or relocated

section only, then that limitation should be in the final rule.

The Congressional mandate requires the gradual elimination of

restrictions in existing gas transmission lines and existing hazardous

liquid and carbon dioxide lines in a manner that will eventually make

the lines piggable. Operators are only required to remove the

restrictions when replacements are made on the pipeline. On those

occasions, the economic burden of the upgrading is reduced because

crews and equipment will be on the site and that portion of the

pipeline will need to be out of service. Six of the commenters appear

to have considered the favorable economics when they recommended that

the upgrading for piggability cover the ``line segment'' or ``line

section''. While ``line segment'' is frequently used in the gas

regulations it is not defined, although it's used similarly to ``line

section'' (one commenter suggested it was the distance between two

logical points e.g. compressor stations).

Therefore, in consideration of the comments ``line section'' is

used in place of the term ``replacement transmission line'' in part

192, and ``line section'' is used in place of the term ``replacement

pipeline'' in part 195, as those terms are used in the NPRM. ``Line

section,'' as added to part 192 is similar to ``line section'' as it is

defined in Sec. 195.2.

In part 195, ``line section'' is currently defined in Sec. 195.2 to

mean a continuous run of pipe between adjacent pressure pump stations,

between a pressure pump station and terminal or breakout tanks, between

a pressure pump station and a block valve, or between adjacent block

valves. Now, in part 192 ``line section'' is defined in Sec. 192.3 to

mean a continuous run of transmission line between adjacent compressor

stations, between a compressor station and storage facilities, between

a compressor station and a block valve, or between adjacent block

valves.

Accordingly, Secs. 192.150(a) and 195.120(a) have been revised to

clarify that when a replacement is made of line pipe, line valve, line

fitting, or other line component in an existing pipeline, covered by

this rule, the complete line section must be made to accommodate smart

pigs.

Also, RSPA has modified the final rule in response to the comment

from the gas transmission operator that felt replacements of certain

partial segments within an existing valve section that are replaced

because of MAOP class change or regular maintenance work requirements,

should be excepted because of construction constraints. Although, the

construction restraints were not specified, RSPA has addressed

construction type problems with the procedure set out in

Secs. 192.150(c) and 195.120(c).

Launchers and Receivers

Several commenters agreed with statements in the NPRM that

installation of pig traps should not be required by this rulemaking,

but should be left to the discretion of pipeline operators. Also, a

commenter agreed with the statement in the NPRM that operators should

determine where pig traps are to be permanently located based on

individual operating circumstances. A gas pipeline operator said that

in a practical sense, it would be more cost effective to add launchers

and receivers at the time of construction rather than after the

transmission line is in service (which could again require the line to

be taken out of service). The National Transportation Safety Board

urged RSPA to revise its proposal so that facilities for entering and

removing smart pigs are required on all pipelines capable of being

traversed by such equipment. However, RSPA believes that revising the

NPRM for this purpose would delay the regulatory effect of this

rulemaking and the requirement may be included in a future rulemaking.

In the final rule, as in the NPRM, RSPA has not included

requirements for launchers or receivers. However, when the rulemaking

mandated by the PLSA of 1992 is issued, RSPA may prescribe the

circumstances for inspection with smart pigs. Such circumstances, if

included in any final rule, may require facilities for launching or

receiving smart pigs. In the meantime, RSPA urges pipeline operators to

consider the economic advantages of voluntarily installing facilities,

at the time of construction or replacement of pipelines, for launching

and receiving smart pigs.

Exemption of Gathering Lines

Several commenters urged clarification of the exception for gas

gathering lines in the proposed Sec. 192.9.

In light of the comments, RSPA agrees that clarification is needed.

Therefore, the exception, of the new Sec. 192.150, has been retained

and the current exception, as provided in Sec. 192.1, has been

referenced in the revised Sec. 192.9.

Moreover, in Secs. 192.150(b)(7) and 195.120(b)(6), RSPA has

excepted offshore pipelines other than gas transmission or liquid main

lines, 10 inches or larger, that transport gas or liquids to onshore

facilities. Liquid gathering lines, which are defined in Sec. 195.2,

are included in this exception.

Economic Impact

Nineteen commenters discussed the economic impact and the majority

found fault with RSPA's assessment that the rule would add minimally to

the average expense of pipeline design and construction.

As a result of information presented by the commenters, RSPA has

excepted various categories of pipelines from the final rule. These

exceptions are: Piping associated with storage facilities, other than

gas transmission lines; piping sizes for which a smart pig is not

commercially available; gas transmission lines, operated in conjunction

with a distribution system, which are installed in Class 4 locations;

and offshore pipelines other than certain gas transmission and liquid

main lines. Additionally, operators are permitted to make a provisional

determination of impracticability in instances of emergencies,

construction time constraints or other unforeseeable construction

problems that require immediate action. Other less urgent problems can

be handled through the newly established procedure in Sec. 190.9,

``Petitions for finding or approval.''

Accordingly, these exceptions together with others carried forward

from the NPRM substantially reduce the cost of compliance with the

rule. RSPA finds that the compliance costs will be minimal. A

Regulatory Evaluation has been prepared and is available in the Docket.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action

under 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not

considered significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

RSPA believes that the rule will add minimally to the average

expense of pipeline design and construction. The information RSPA has

collected for the study under section 304 of the Reauthorization Act

shows that about 90 percent of hazardous liquid pipelines and 60

percent of gas transmission lines have been constructed to accommodate

the passage of smart pigs. This information confirms RSPA's field

experience that most operators are now constructing new and replacement

gas transmission lines and hazardous liquid pipelines to accommodate

smart pigs.

RSPA lacks detailed information about carbon dioxide pipelines

which recently became subject to part 195. However, there are only

about 10 such pipeline systems and we understand that they are not

expected to grow in mileage or to require a significant amount of

replacement in the near term. Thus, those pipelines should not be

greatly affected by the revision of Sec. 195.120.

Federalism Assessment

This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the

states, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the

states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive

Order 12612 (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987), RSPA has determined that

this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

There are very few small entities that operate pipelines affected

by this rulemaking. To the extent that any small entity is affected,

the regulatory evaluation accompanying this rule shows that the costs

are minimal. Based on these facts, I certify that under section 605 of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this final regulation does not have

a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 190

Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Pipeline safety.

49 CFR Part 192

Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 193

Fire prevention, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures.

49 CFR Part 195

Anhydrous Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA amends 49 CFR parts 190,

192, 193, and 195 as follows:

PART 190--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1672, 1677, 1679a, 1679b, 1680, 1681,

1804, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; 49 CFR 1.53.

2. Section 190.9 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 190.9 Petitions for finding or approval.

(a) In circumstances where a rule contained in parts 192, 193 and

195 of this chapter authorizes the Administrator to make a finding or

approval, an operator may petition the Administrator for such a finding

or approval.

(b) Each petition must refer to the rule authorizing the action

sought and contain information or arguments that justify the action.

Unless otherwise specified, no public proceeding is held on a petition

before it is granted or denied. After a petition is received, the

Administrator or participating state agency notifies the petitioner of

the disposition of the petition or, if the request requires more

extensive consideration or additional information or comments are

requested and delay is expected, of the date by which action will be

taken.

(1) For operators seeking a finding or approval involving

intrastate pipeline transportation, petitions must be sent to: (i) The

state agency certified to participate under section 5 of the NGPSA (49

U.S.C. 1674) or section 205 of the HLPSA (49 App. U.S.C. 2004); or

(ii) Where there is no state agency certified to participate, the

Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

(2) For operators seeking a finding or approval involving

interstate pipeline transportation, petitions must be sent to the

Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th

Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

(c) All petitions must be received at least 90 days prior to the

date by which the operator requests the finding or approval to be made.

(d) The Administrator will make all findings or approvals of

petitions initiated under this section. A participating state agency

receiving petitions initiated under this section shall provide the

Administrator a written recommendation as to the disposition of any

petition received by them. Where the Administrator does not reverse or

modify a recommendation made by a state agency within 10 business days

of its receipt, the recommended disposition shall constitute the

Administrator's decision on the petition.

PART 192--[AMENDED]

3. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1672 and 1804; 49 CFR 1.53.

4. In Sec. 192.3, the definition of Secretary is removed, and

definitions of Administrator and Line section are added to read as

follows:

Sec. 192.3 Definitions

Administrator means the Administrator of the Research and Special

Programs Administration or any person to whom authority in the matter

concerned has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.

* * * * *

Line section means a continuous run of transmission line between

adjacent compressor stations, between a compressor station and storage

facilities, between a compressor station and a block valve, or between

adjacent block valves.

* * * * *

5. Section 192.9 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 192.9 Gathering lines.

Except as provided in Secs. 192.1 and 192.150, each operator of a

gathering line must comply with the requirements of this part

applicable to transmission lines.

6. Section 192.150 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 192.150 Passage of internal inspection devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,

each new transmission line and each line section of a transmission line

where the line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line component is

replaced must be designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of

instrumented internal inspection devices.

(b) This section does not apply to: (1) Manifolds;

(2) Station piping such as at compressor stations, meter stations,

or regulator stations;

(3) Piping associated with storage facilities, other than a

continuous run of transmission line between a compressor station and

storage facilities;

(4) Cross-overs;

(5) Sizes of pipe for which an instrumented internal inspection

device is not commercially available;

(6) Transmission lines, operated in conjunction with a distribution

system which are installed in Class 4 locations;

(7) Offshore pipelines, other than transmission lines 10 inches or

greater in nominal diameter, that transport gas to onshore facilities;

and

(8) Other piping that, under Sec. 190.9 of this chapter, the

Administrator finds in a particular case would be impracticable to

design and construct to accommodate the passage of instrumented

internal inspection devices.

(c) An operator encountering emergencies, construction time

constraints or other unforeseen construction problems need not

construct a new or replacement segment of a transmission line to meet

paragraph (a) of this section, if the operator determines and documents

why an impracticability prohibits compliance with paragraph (a) of this

section. Within 30 days after discovering the emergency or construction

problem the operator must petition, under Sec. 190.9 of this chapter,

for approval that design and construction to accommodate passage of

instrumented internal inspection devices would be impracticable. If the

petition is denied, within 1 year after the date of the notice of the

denial, the operator must modify that segment to allow passage of

instrumented internal inspection devices.

PART 193--[AMENDED]

7. The authority citation for part 193 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 1671 et seq.; and 49 CFR 1.53.

Sec. 193.2015 [Removed]

8. Section 193.2015 is removed and reserved.

PART 195--[AMENDED]

9. The authority citation for part 195 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2002 and 2015; 49 CFR 1.53.

10. In Sec. 195.2, the definition of Secretary is removed, and the

definition of Administrator is added to read as follows:

Sec. 195.2 Definitions.

Administrator means the Administrator of the Research and Special

Programs Administration or any person to whom authority in the matter

concerned has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.

* * * * *

Secs. 195.8, 195.56, 195.58, 195.106, 195.260 [Amended]

11. In Secs. 195.8, 195.56(a), 195.58, 195.106(e), and 195.260(e),

the term ``Secretary'' is removed and the term ``Administrator'' is

added in its place.

12. Section 195.120 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 195.120 Passage of internal inspection devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,

each new pipeline and each line section of a pipeline where the line

pipe, valve, fitting or other line component is replaced; must be

designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of instrumented

internal inspection devices.

(b) This section does not apply to:

(1) Manifolds;

(2) Station piping such as at pump stations, meter stations, or

pressure reducing stations;

(3) Piping associated with tank farms and other storage facilities;

(4) Cross-overs;

(5) Sizes of pipe for which an instrumented internal inspection

device is not commercially available;

(6) Offshore pipelines, other than main lines 10 inches or greater

in nominal diameter, that transport liquids to onshore facilities; and

(7) Other piping that the Administrator under Sec. 190.9 of this

chapter, finds in a particular case would be impracticable to design

and construct to accommodate the passage of instrumented internal

inspection devices.

(c) An operator encountering emergencies, construction time

constraints and other unforeseen construction problems need not

construct a new or replacement segment of a pipeline to meet paragraph

(a) of this section, if the operator determines and documents why an

impracticability prohibits compliance with paragraph (a) of this

section. Within 30 days after discovering the emergency or construction

problem the operator must petition, under Sec. 190.9 of this chapter,

for approval that design and construction to accommodate passage of

instrumented internal inspection devices would be impracticable. If the

petition is denied, within 1 year after the date of the notice of the

denial, the operator must modify that segment to allow passage of

instrumented internal inspection devices.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 6, 1994.

Ana Sol Gutierrez,

Acting Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.

[FR Doc. 94-8622 Filed 4-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P