[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 1994)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8622]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 12, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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