[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 95 (Monday, May 17, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27861-27863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11005]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. RSPA-02-13208; Amdt. 192-96]
RIN 2137-AD01


Pipeline Safety: Pressure Limiting and Regulating Stations

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

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of September 15, 2003, RSPA published 
a final rule concerning the operation and capacity of existing pressure 
limiting and regulating stations on gas pipelines. The rule 
inadvertently established a pressure limit that could require a 
reduction in the operating pressure of some pipelines and be 
impracticable for others to meet. This direct final rule establishes an 
appropriate pressure limit to avoid these unintended results.

DATES: This direct final rule goes into effect September 14, 2004. If 
RSPA does not receive any adverse comment \1\ or notice of intent to 
file an adverse comment by July 16, 2004, it will publish a 
confirmation document within 15 days after the close of the comment 
period. The confirmation document will announce that this direct final 
rule will go into effect on the date stated above or at least 30 days 
after the document is published, whichever is later. If RSPA receives 
an adverse comment, it will publish a timely notice to confirm that 
fact and withdraw this direct final rule. RSPA may then incorporate 
changes based on the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final 
rule or may publish a notice of proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An adverse comment is one which explains why the rule would 
be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's underlying 
premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without 
a change. Comments that are frivolous or insubstantial will not be 
considered adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending a 
rule change in addition to the rule will not be considered an 
adverse comment, unless the commenter states why the rule would be 
ineffective without the additional change. (49 CFR 190.339(c))

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments directly to the dockets by 
any of the following methods:
     Mail: Dockets Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 20590-0001. Anyone wanting 
confirmation of mailed comments must include a self-addressed stamped 
postcard.
     Hand delivery or courier: Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Washington, DC. The Dockets Facility is open from 10 a.m. to 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov, click on ``Comment/
Submissions'' and follow instructions at the site.
    All written comments should identify the gas or liquid docket 
number and notice number stated in the heading of this notice.
    Docket access. For copies of this notice or other material in the 
dockets, you may contact the Dockets Facility by phone (202-366-9329) 
or visit the facility at the above street address. For Web access to 
the dockets to read and download filed material, go to http://dms.dot.gov/search. Then type in the last four digits of the gas or 
liquid docket number shown in the heading of this notice, and click on 
``Search.''
    Privacy Act Information. Anyone can search the electronic form of 
all comments filed in any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted for an 
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the April 11, 2000, issue of the 
Federal Register (65 FR 19477) or go to http://dms.dot.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (volume 65, number 70; pages 19477-78), or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.M. Furrow by phone at 202-366-4559, 
by fax at 202-366-4566, by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need To Revise Regulations on Existing Pressure Limiting and Regulating 
Stations

    Last September RSPA amended a regulation (49 CFR 192.739(c)) that 
applies to existing pressure limiting and regulating stations (68 FR 
53901; Sept. 15, 2003). The amendment established an upper limit on the 
control or relief pressure in pipelines these stations protect against 
accidental overpressure. These limits are the same as part 192 requires 
for newly installed pressure limiting and regulating stations. As a 
consequence, Sec.  192.739(c) now requires (through a cross-reference 
to Sec.  192.201(a)) that the control or relief pressure on steel 
pipelines whose maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) is 60 psig 
or more may not exceed the pressure that produces a hoop stress of 75 
percent of the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of the pipe.
    For new steel pipelines, 75 percent of SMYS is an appropriate limit 
on control or relief pressure because part 192 does not allow these 
pipelines to operate at

[[Page 27862]]

a hoop stress greater than 72 percent of SMYS. However, Sec.  
192.619(c) allows certain existing pipelines in rural areas to operate 
at pressures experienced before part 192 took effect. On some of these 
pipelines, current operating pressures produce hoop stresses greater 
than 72 percent of SMYS. Consequently, Duke Energy, an operator of 
interstate gas transmission lines, alerted RSPA that amended Sec.  
192.739(c) could be construed to require a reduction in the operating 
pressure of pipelines operating at hoop stresses greater than 72 
percent of SMYS. In addition, for other pipelines operating under Sec.  
192.619(c), operators may not be able to calculate hoop stress as a 
percentage of SMYS, either because a factor needed to calculate hoop 
stress (e.g., wall thickness) is unknown or SMYS is unknown. In such 
cases, compliance with the 75-percent-of-SMYS limit would be 
impracticable.
    Because these results were not intended, RSPA is revising Sec.  
192.739(c). The revision establishes an appropriate control or relief 
pressure limit for the affected pipelines (i.e., steel pipelines whose 
MAOP determined under Sec.  192.619(c) is 60 psig or more, with 
corresponding hoop stress greater than 72 percent of SMYS or unknown as 
a percentage of SMYS). Under revised Sec.  192.739(c), if the MAOP 
produces a hoop stress greater than 72 percent of SMYS, the control or 
relief pressure limit is MAOP plus 4 percent. This pressure limit 
corresponds to the 75-percent-of-SMYS limit for new steel pipelines 
under Sec.  192.201(a)(2)(i). MAOP plus 4 percent is also the limit on 
control or relief pressure that the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers prescribes for new steel pipelines that operate at hoop 
stresses greater than 72 percent of SMYS (Section 845.411(a), ASME 
B31.8-1999 code, ``Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems''). 
If the hoop stress is unknown as a percentage of SMYS (either hoop 
stress or SMYS is unknown), operators will have to determine a safe 
control or relief pressure limit after considering the operating and 
maintenance history of the protected pipeline and its MAOP. Operators' 
decisions on safe pressure limits must be explained in their operating 
and maintenance procedures, which are subject to review by government 
inspectors.
    RSPA made a similar amendment to Sec.  192.743(a), requiring the 
capacity of relief devices at existing pressure limiting and regulating 
stations to be consistent with the pressure limits of Sec.  192.201(a) 
(68 FR 53901; Sept. 15, 2003). Because of the 75-percent-of-SMYS limit 
discussed above, Duke Energy alerted RSPA that Sec.  192.743(a) also 
could be construed to require a reduction in the operating pressure of 
some pipelines operating at hoop stresses greater than 72 percent of 
SMYS. In addition, compliance with Sec.  192.743(a) would be 
impracticable if hoop stress as a percentage of SMYS were unknown. To 
avoid these unintended results, RSPA is revising Sec.  192.743(a) in 
the same manner as Sec.  192.739(c).

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    RSPA does consider this Direct Final Rule to be a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 
51735; Oct. 4, 1993). Therefore, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has not received a copy of this rulemaking to review. RSPA also 
does not consider this rulemaking to be significant under DOT 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    The regulations being revised by this Direct Final Rule, Sec. Sec.  
192.739(c) and 192.743(a), were published in the Federal Register of 
September 15, 2003. RSPA prepared a Regulatory Evaluation of the costs 
and benefits of those regulations, and a copy is in the docket. The 
evaluation concluded there should be no cost for operators to comply 
with the regulations, and possibly a cost savings. Because this Direct 
Final Rule merely removes an unintended impact of the regulations, RSPA 
does not believe that any further evaluation of costs and benefits is 
needed. If you disagree with this conclusion, please provide 
information to the public docket as described above.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), RSPA 
must consider whether its rulemakings have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulations being 
revised by this Direct Final Rule are consistent with customary 
practices in the pipeline industry. Therefore, based on the facts 
available about the anticipated impacts of this rulemaking, I certify 
that this rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. If you have any information that 
this conclusion about the impact on small entities is not correct, 
please provide that information to the public docket as described 
above.

Executive Order 13175

    This Direct Final Rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.'' 
Because the Direct Final Rule does not significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of the Indian tribal governments and would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation 
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This Direct Final Rule does not impose any new information 
collection requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This Direct Final Rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, and would be the least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), RSPA prepared an Environmental Assessment of the 
regulations being revised by this Direct Final Rule, and a copy is in 
the docket. The assessment determined that because the regulations are 
consistent with customary practices, they do not significantly affect 
the quality of the human environment. Because this Direct Final Rule 
merely removes an unintended impact of the regulations, RSPA does not 
believe that any further assessment of environmental impact is needed. 
If you disagree with this conclusion, please submit your comments to 
the docket as described above.

Executive Order 13132

    This Direct Final Rule has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 
(``Federalism''). The Direct Final Rule does not have any provision 
that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local 
governments; or (3) preempts state law. Therefore, the

[[Page 27863]]

consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not 
apply.

Executive Order 13211

    This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive 
Order 13211. It is not a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on 
the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rulemaking 
has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.


0
Accordingly, 49 CFR part 192 is amended as follows:

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: 
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.


0
2. Amend Sec.  192.739 as follows:
0
a. Redesignate the undesignated introductory text and paragraphs (a) 
through (d) as paragraph (a) introductory text, and paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(4), respectively;
0
b. Revise newly designated paragraph (a)(3) and add paragraph (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  192.739  Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Inspection 
and testing.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, set to 
control or relieve at the correct pressure consistent with the pressure 
limits of Sec.  192.201(a); and
* * * * *
    (b) For steel pipelines whose MAOP is determined under Sec.  
192.619(c), if the MAOP is 60 psi (414 kPa) gage or more, the control 
or relief pressure limit is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the MAOP produces a hoop stress that
                  is:                      Then the pressure limit is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 72 percent of SMYS........  MAOP plus 4 percent.
Unknown as a percentage of SMYS........  A pressure that will prevent
                                          unsafe operation of the
                                          pipeline considering its
                                          operating and maintenance
                                          history and MAOP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Revise Sec.  192.743(a) to read as follows:


Sec.  192.743  Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of 
relief devices.

    (a) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and 
pressure regulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect 
the facilities to which they are connected. Except as provided in Sec.  
192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of 
Sec.  192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not 
exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing 
the devices in place or by review and calculations.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2004.
Samuel G. Bonasso,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-11005 Filed 5-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P