Proposed Rule: Pipeline Safety: Standards For Increasing The Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure For Gas Transmission Pipelines

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.
49 / Wednesday, March 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 13167
or between refineries, except as noted in Program, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P– electronically through http://
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section. HW, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
* * * * * Colorado 80202–1129. EPA Region 8, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
[FR Doc. E8–4915 Filed 3–11–08; 8:45 am]
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
your comments to Carl Daly, Solid and Colorado, contact: Carl Daly, phone
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Hazardous Waste Program, EPA Region number (303) 312–6416, or the Colorado
8, Mailcode 8P–HW, 1595 Wynkoop Department of Public Health and
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Environment, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
AGENCY Such deliveries are only accepted 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver,
during the Regional Office’s normal Colorado 80222–1530, contact: Randy
40 CFR Part 271 hours of operation. The public is Perila, phone number (303) 692–3364.
advised to call in advance to verify the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
[EPA–R08–RCRA–2006–0382; FRL–8541–6] business hours. Special arrangements Daly, Solid and Hazardous Waste
should be made for deliveries of boxed Program, U.S. Environmental Protection
Colorado: Final Authorization of State
information. Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Hazardous Waste Management Instructions: Direct your comments to
Program Revisions Street, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303)
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–RCRA–2006–
312–6416, daly.carl@epa.gov.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection 0382. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For
Agency (EPA).
docket without change, including any additional information, please see the
ACTION: Proposed rule. immediate final rule published in the
personal information provided, unless
SUMMARY: Colorado has applied to EPA the comment includes information ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this
for final authorization of the changes to claimed to be Confidential Business Federal Register.
its hazardous waste program under the Information (CBI) or other information Dated: February 28, 2008.
Resource Conservation and Recovery whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Carol Rushin,
Act (RCRA). The EPA proposes to grant Do not submit information that you Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
final authorization to the hazardous consider to be CBI or otherwise [FR Doc. E8–4977 Filed 3–11–08; 8:45 am]
waste program changes submitted by protected through http://
Colorado. In the ‘‘Rules and www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The
Regulations’’ section of this Federal federal web site http://
Register, EPA is authorizing the State’s www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, which means EPA will DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
program changes as an immediate final
rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior not know your identity or contact
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
to the immediate final rule because we information unless you provide it in the
Safety Administration
believe these actions are not body of your comment. If you send an
controversial and do not expect e-mail comment directly to EPA without
49 CFR Part 192
comments to oppose them. We have going through http://
explained the reasons for this www.regulations.gov, your e-mail [Docket ID PHMSA–2005–23447; Notice 2]
authorization in the preamble to the address will be automatically captured RIN 2137–AE25
immediate final rule. Unless we get and included as part of the comment
written comments opposing this that is placed in the public docket and Pipeline Safety: Standards for
authorization during the comment made available on the Internet. If you Increasing the Maximum Allowable
period, the immediate final rule will submit an electronic comment, EPA Operating Pressure for Gas
become effective and the Agency will recommends that you include your Transmission Pipelines
not take further action on this proposal. name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous
If we receive comments that oppose
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA Materials Safety Administration
these actions, we will publish a
cannot read your comment due to (PHMSA), Department of Transportation
document in the Federal Register
withdrawing this rule before it takes technical difficulties, and cannot ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
effect. EPA will then address public contact you for clarification, EPA may
not be able to consider your comment. SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to amend
comments in a later final rule based on the pipeline safety regulations to
this proposal. Any parties interested in Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters or any form of prescribe safety requirements for the
commenting on these actions must do so operation of certain gas transmission
encryption, and be free of any defects or
at this time. EPA may not provide pipelines at pressures based on higher
viruses. For additional information
further opportunity for comment. stress levels. The result would be an
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
DATES: Comments must be received on Docket Center homepage at http:// increase of maximum allowable
or before April 11, 2008. www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. operating pressure (MAOP) over that
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Docket: All documents in the docket currently allowed in the regulations.
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– are listed in the http:// This action would update regulatory
RCRA–2006–0382, by one of the www.regulations.gov index. Although standards to reflect improvements in
following methods: listed in the index, some information pipeline materials, assessment tools,
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI and maintenance practices, which
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line or other information whose disclosure is together have significantly reduced the
instructions for submitting comments. restricted by statute. Certain other risk of failure in steel pipeline
• E-mail: daly.carl@epa.gov. material, such as copyrighted material, fabricated and installed over the last
• Fax: (303) 312–6341. will be publicly available only in hard twenty-five years. The proposed rule
• Mail: Send written comments to copy. Publicly available docket would allow use of an established
Carl Daly, Solid and Hazardous Waste materials are available either industry standard for the calculation of
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:18 Mar 11, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MRP1.SGM 12MRP1
13168 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules
MAOP, but limit application of the B.1. Current Regulations to failure over time than pipe
standard to pipelines posing a low B.2. Evolution in Views on Pressure manufactured and installed a generation
safety risk based on location, materials, B.3. History of PHMSA Consideration ago. Likewise, modern maintenance
B.4. Safety Conditions in Special Permits
and construction. The proposed rule practices, if consistently followed,
B.5. Codifying the Special Permits
would generate significant public B.6. How to Handle Special Permits and significantly reduce the risk that
benefits by boosting the potential Requests for Special Permits corrosion, or other defects affecting
capacity and efficiency of pipeline B.7. Statutory Considerations pipeline integrity, will develop in
infrastructure, while promoting C. The Proposed Rule installed pipelines. Most recently,
investment in improved pipe C.1. In General operators’ development and
technology and rigorous life-cycle C.2. Proposed Amendment to § 192.7— implementation of integrity
maintenance. Incorporation by Reference management programs have increased
C.3. Proposed New § 192.112—Additional
DATES: Anyone interested in filing understanding about the condition of
Design Requirements
written comments on the rule proposed C.4. Proposed New § 192.328—Additional pipelines and of how to reduce pipeline
in this document must do so by May 12, Construction Requirements risks. In view of these developments,
2008. PHMSA will consider late filed C.5. Proposed Amendment to § 192.619— PHMSA believes that certain gas
comments so far as practicable. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure transmission pipelines can be safely and
C.6. Proposed New § 192.620—Operation reliably operated at pressures above
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference at an Alternative MAOP current Federal pipeline safety design
Docket ID PHMSA–2005–23447 and C.6.1. Calculating the Alternative MAOP limits. With appropriate conditions and
may be submitted in the following ways: C.6.2. Which Pipelines Qualify
controls, permitting operation at higher
• E-Gov Web Site: http:// C.6.3. How an Operator Selects Operation
Under This Section pressures will increase energy capacity
www.regulations.gov. This site allows
C.6.4. Initial Strength Testing and efficiency, without diminishing
the public to enter comments on any
C.6.5. Operation and Maintenance system safety.
Federal Register notice issued by any
C.6.6. New Construction and Maintenance PHMSA has granted special permits
agency. Follow the instructions for
Tasks on a case-by-case basis to allow
submitting comments. C.6.7. Recordkeeping operation of particular pipeline
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. C.7. Additional Operation and Maintenance
• Mail: Docket Management System: segments at a higher MAOP than
Requirements currently allowed under the design
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 C.7.1. Threat Assessments
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12– requirements. These special permits
C.7.2. Public Awareness
140, Washington, DC 20590. C.7.3. Emergency Response have been limited to operation in Class
• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket C.7.4. Damage Prevention 1, 2, and 3 locations and conditioned on
Management System; Room W12–140, C.7.5. Internal Corrosion Control demonstrated rigor in the pipeline’s
on the ground floor of the West C.7.6. External Corrosion Control design and construction and the
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., C.7.7. Integrity Assessments operator’s performance of additional
C.7.8. Repair Criteria safety measures. Building on the record
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 C.8. Overpressure Protection—Proposed
p.m., Monday through Friday, except developed in the special permit
§ 192.620(e) proceedings, PHMSA now proposes to
Federal holidays. D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Instructions: Identify the docket ID, codify the conditions and limitations of
D.1. Privacy Act Statement
PHMSA–2005–23447, at the beginning D.2. Executive Order 12866 and DOT the special permits into standards of
of your comments. If you submit your Policies and Procedures general applicability.
comments by mail, submit two copies. D.3. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Background
If you wish to receive confirmation that D.4. Executive Order 13175
PHMSA received your comments, D.5. Paperwork Reduction Act B.1. Current Regulations
D.6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
include a self-addressed stamped The design factor specified in
1995
postcard. Internet users may submit D.7. National Environmental Policy Act § 192.105 restricts the MAOP of a steel
comments at http:// D.8. Executive Order 13132 gas transmission pipeline based on
www.regulations.gov. D.9. Executive Order 13211 stress levels and class location. For most
Note: Comments will be posted without steel pipelines, the MAOP is defined in
A. Purpose of the Rulemaking § 192.619 based on design pressure
changes or edits to http://
www.regulations.gov including any personal The regulatory relief proposed in this calculated using a formula, found at
information provided. Please see the Privacy rulemaking is made possible by § 192.111, that includes the design
Act heading in the Regulatory Analyses and dramatic improvements in pipeline factor. In sparsely populated Class 1
Notices section of the Supplemental technology and risk controls over the locations, the design factor specified in
Information for additional information. past 25 years. The current standards for § 192.105 restricts the stress level at
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For calculating maximum allowable which a pipeline can be operated to 72
information about this rulemaking, operating pressure (MAOP) on gas percent of the specified minimum yield
contact Barbara Betsock by phone at transmission pipelines were adopted in strength (SMYS) of the steel. The
(202) 366–4361, by fax at (202) 366– 1970, in the original pipeline safety operating pressures in more populated
4566, or by e-mail at regulations promulgated under Federal Class 2 and Class 3 locations are limited
barbara.betsock@dot.gov. For technical law. Almost all risk controls on gas to 60 and 50 percent of SMYS,
information, contact Alan Mayberry by transmission pipelines have been respectively. Paragraph (c) of § 192.619
strengthened in the intervening years, provides an exception to this
phone at (202) 366–5124, or by e-mail

at alan.mayberry@dot.gov. beginning with the introduction of calculation of MAOP for pipelines built
improved manufacturing, metallurgy, before the issuance of the Federal
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
testing, and assessment tools and pipeline safety standards. A pipeline
Table of Contents standards. Pipe manufactured and that is ‘‘grandfathered’’ under this
A. Purpose of the Rulemaking tested to modern standards is far less section may be operated at a stress level
B. Background likely to contain defects that can grow exceeding 72 percent of SMYS (but not
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 13169
to exceed 80 percent of SMYS) if it was corrosion to continue unchecked and recommended setting the MAOP at 80
operated at that pressure for five years cause leaks. During operation, percent of the test pressure when the
prior to July 1, 1970. excavators’ substandard practices can minimum test pressure is 90 percent of
Part 192 also prescribes safety dent the line or corrosion can thin the SMYS or higher. Although the
standards for designing, constructing, wall of the pipe. committee responsible for the B31.8
operating, and maintaining steel The regulations on MAOP in part 192 Code received the report, the committee
pipelines used to transport gas. have their origin in engineering deferred consideration of its findings at
Although these standards have always standards developed in the 1950s, when that time because the Federal regulators
included several requirements for initial industry had relatively limited had already begun the process to
and periodic testing and inspection, information about the material incorporate the 1968 edition of the
prior to 2003, part 192 contained no properties of pipe and limited ability to B31.8 Code into the Federal pipeline
Federal requirements for internal evaluate a pipeline’s integrity during its safety standards.
inspection of existing pipelines. Internal operating lifetime. Early pipeline codes More than a decade later, the
inspection is performed using a tool allowed maximum operating pressures committee responsible for development
known as an ‘‘instrumented pig’’ (or to be set at a fixed amount over the of the B31.8 Code, now under the
‘‘smart pig’’). Many pipelines pressure of the initial strength test auspices of the American Society of
constructed before the advent of this without regard to SMYS. Pipeline Mechanical Engineers (ASME), revisited
technology cannot accommodate an engineers developing consensus the question of design factor it had
instrumented pig and, accordingly, standards looked for ways to lengthen deferred in the late 1960s. The
cannot be inspected internally. the time before defects initiated during committee determined pipelines could
Beginning in 1994, PHMSA required manufacture, construction, or operation operate safely at stress levels up to 80
operators to design new pipelines so could grow to failure. Their solution percent of SMYS. ASME updated the
that they could accommodate focused on tests done at the mill to design factors in a 1990 addendum to
instrumented pigs, paving the way for evaluate the ability of the pipe to the 1989 edition of the B31.8 Code, and
internal inspection (59 FR 17281; Apr. contain pressure during operation. They they remain in the current edition.
12, 1994). added an additional factor to the Although part 192 incorporates parts of
In December 2003, PHMSA adopted hydrostatic test pressure of the mill test. the B31.8 Code by reference, it does not
its gas transmission integrity At the time, the consensus standard, incorporate the updated design factors.
management rule, requiring operators to known as the B31.8 Code, used this With the benefit of operating experience
develop and implement plans to extend conservative margin of safety for gas with pipelines, it seems clear that
additional protections, including pipe design. A 25 percent margin of operating pressure plays a less critical
internal inspection, to pipelines located safety translated into a design factor role in pipeline integrity and failure
in ‘‘high consequence areas’’ (68 FR limiting stress level to 72 percent of consequence than other factors within
69816). Integrity management programs, SMYS in rural areas. Specifically, the the operator’s control.
as described in subpart O of part 192, MAOP of 72 percent of SMYS comes By any measure, new technologies
include threat assessments, both from dividing the typical maximum mill and risk controls have had a far greater
baseline and periodic internal test pressure of 90 percent of SMYS by impact on pipeline safety and integrity.
inspection or direct assessment, and 1.25. When issuing the first Federal A great deal of progress has occurred in
additional measures designed to prevent pipeline safety regulations in 1970, the manufacture of steel pipe and in its
and mitigate pipeline failures and their regulators incorporated this design initial inspection and testing.
consequences. A high consequence area, factor, as found in the 1968 edition of Technological advances in metallurgy
as defined in § 192.903, is a geographic the B31.8 Code, into the requirements and pipe manufacture decrease the risk
territory in which, by virtue of its for determining the MAOP. of incipient flaws occurring and going
population density and proximity to a Even as the Federal regulations were undetected during manufacture. The
pipeline, a pipeline failure would pose being developed, some technical detailed standards now followed in steel
a higher risk to people. For purposes of support existed for operation at a higher and pipe manufacture provide engineers
risk analysis, the regulations establish stress level, provided initial strength considerable information about their
four classifications based on population testing removed defects. In 1968, the material properties. The toughness
density, ranging from Class 1 American Gas Association published standards make the new steel pipe more
(undeveloped, rural land) through Class Report No. L30050 entitled Study of likely to resist fracture and to survive
4 (densely populated urban areas). In Feasibility of Basing Natural Gas mechanical damage. Knowledge about
addition to class location, one of the Pipeline Operating Pressure on the material properties allows engineers
criteria for identifying a high Hydrostatic Test Pressure prepared by to predict how quickly flaws, whether
consequence area is a potential impact the Battelle Memorial Institute. The inherent or introduced during
circle surrounding a pipeline. The research study concluded that: construction or operation, will grow to
calculation of the circle includes a • It is inherently safer to base the failure under known operating
factor for the MAOP, with the result that MAOP on the test pressure, which conditions.
a higher MAOP results in a larger demonstrates the actual in-place yield Initial inspection and hydrostatic
impact circle. strength of the pipeline, than to base it testing of pipelines allow operators to
on SMYS alone. discover flaws that have occurred prior
B.2. Evolution in Views on Pressure
• High pressure hydrostatic testing is to operation, such as during
Absent any defects, and with proper able to remove defects that may fail in transportation or construction. They
maintenance, steel pipe can last for service. also serve to validate the integrity of the
decades in gas service. However, the • Hydrostatic testing to actual yield, pipeline before operation. Initial
manufacture of the steel or casting of the as determined with a pressure-volume pressure testing causes longitudinal and
pipe can introduce flaws. In addition, plot, does not damage a pipeline. some other flaws introduced during
during construction, improper The report specifically recommended manufacture, transportation, or
backfilling can damage pipe coating. setting the MAOP as a percentage of the construction to grow to the point of
Over time, damaged coating can allow field test pressure. In particular, it failure. Initial pressure testing detects
all but one type of manufacturing or ‘‘class location’’ waivers (now called energy efficiency and capacity without
construction defect that could cause special permits) to operators reducing safety.
failure in the near term. The one type demonstrating an alternative integrity
B.4. Safety Conditions in Special
of defect pressure testing cannot management program for the affected
Permits
identify is a flaw in a girth weld. Such pipeline. A ‘‘class location’’ waiver
defects are detectable though pre- allows an operator to maintain current In 2005, operators began requesting
operational non-destructive testing, operating pressure on a pipeline waivers, now called special permits, to
which this proposed rule would require. following an increase in population that allow operation at the MAOP levels that
The most common defects initiated changes the class location. Absent a the ASME B31.8 Code would allow. In
during operation are caused by waiver, the operator would have to some cases, operators filed these
mechanical damage or corrosion. reduce pressure or replace the pipe with requests at the same time they were
Improvements in technology have thicker walled pipe. PHMSA held a seeking approval from the Federal
resulted in internal inspection meeting on April 14–15, 2004 to discuss Energy Regulatory Commission to build
techniques that provide operators a the criteria for the waivers. In a notice new gas transmission pipelines. In other
significant amount of information about seeking public involvement in the cases, operators sought relief from
defects. Although there is significant process (69 FR 22116; Apr. 23, 2004), current MAOP limits for existing
variance in the capability of the tools PHMSA announced: pipelines that had been built to more
used for internal inspections, they each rigorous design and construction
provide the operator information about Waivers will only be granted when pipe standards.
condition and active integrity management In developing an approach to the
flaws in the pipeline that an operator
provides a level of safety greater than or requests, PHMSA examined the
would not otherwise have. An operator
equal to a pipe replacement or pressure operating history of lines already
can then examine these flaws to reduction.
determine whether they are defects operated at higher stress levels.
requiring repair. In addition, internal A second notice (69 FR 38948; June Canadian and British standards have
inspections with inline inspection 29, 2004) announced the criteria. The allowed operation at the higher stress
devices, unlike pressure testing, are not criteria include the use of high quality levels for some time. The Canadian
destructive and can be done while the manufacturing and construction pipeline authority, which has allowed
pipeline is in operation. Initial internal processes, effective coating, and a lack higher stress levels since 1973, reports
inspection establishes a baseline. of systemic problems identified in the following experience with pipelines
Operators can use subsequent internal internal inspections. Although the class operating at stress levels higher than 72
inspections at appropriate intervals to location waivers do not address percent of SMYS:
monitor for changes in flaws already increases in stress levels, they do • About 6,000 miles of pipelines on
discovered or to find new flaws address many of the same concerns by the Alberta system, ranging from 6 to 42
requiring repair or monitoring. Internal looking at how to handle the risks inches in diameter, installed or
inspections, and other improved life caused by operating pressure. Many of upgraded between the early 1970s and
cycle management practices, increase the specific criteria, and certainly the 2005;
the likelihood operators will detect any approach to risk management in the • About 4,500 miles of pipelines on
flaws that remain in the pipe after initial class location waivers, helped PHMSA the Mainline system east of the Alberta-
inspection and testing, or that develop develop the approach to the special Saskatchewan border, ranging from 20
after construction, well before the flaws permits discussed below and, to 42 inches in diameter, installed or
grow to failure. ultimately, to this proposed rule. upgraded between the early 1970s and
2005; and
B.3. History of PHMSA Consideration Beginning in 2005, operators began • More than 600 miles in the
Although the agency has never addressing the issue of stress level Foothills Pipe Line system, ranging from
formally revisited its part 192 MAOP directly with requests that PHMSA 36 to 40 inches in diameter, installed
standards, developments in related allow operation at the MAOP levels that between 1979 and 1998.
arenas have increasingly set the stage for the ASME B31.8 Code would allow. In the United Kingdom, about 1,140
the more limited action we propose With the increasing interest, PHMSA miles of the Northern pipeline system
here. Grandfathered pipelines have held a public meeting on March 21, has been uprated to operate at higher
operated successfully at higher stress 2006, to discuss whether to allow stress level in the past ten years.
levels in the United States during more increased MAOP consistent with the In the United States, some 5,000 miles
than 35 years of Federal safety updated ASME standards. PHMSA also of gas transmission lines that were
regulation. Many of these grandfathered solicited technical papers on the issue. grandfathered under § 192.619(c) when
pipelines have operated at higher stress Papers filed in response, as well as the the Federal pipeline safety regulations
levels for more than 50 years without a transcript of the public meeting, are in were adopted in the early 1970s
higher rate of failure. We have also been the docket for this rulemaking. Later in continue to operate at stress levels
aware of pipelines outside the United 2006, PHMSA again sought public higher than 72 percent of SMYS. After
States operating successfully at the comment at a meeting of its advisory some accidents caused by corrosion on
higher stress levels permitted under the committee, the Technical Pipeline grandfathered pipelines, PHMSA
ASME standard. A technical study Safety Standards Committee. The considered whether to remove the
published in December 2000 by R.J. transcript and briefing materials for the exception in § 192.619(c). In 1992,
Eiber, M. McLamb, and W. B. McGehee, June 28, 2006 meeting are in the docket PHMSA decided to continue to allow
Quantifying Pipeline Design at 72% for the advisory committee, Docket ID operation at the grandfathered pressures
SMYS as a Precursor to Increasing the PHMSA-RSPA–1998–4470–204, 220. (57 FR 41119; Sept. 9, 1992). PHMSA
Design Stress Level, GRI–00/0233, This docket can be found at http:// based its decision on the operating
further raised interest in the issue. www.regulations.gov. Comments and history of two of the operators whose
In connection with our issuance of the papers during these efforts pipelines contained most of the mileage
2003 integrity management regulations, overwhelmingly support examining operated at the grandfathered pressures.
PHMSA announced a policy to grant increased MAOP as a way to increase PHMSA noted the incident rate on these
pipelines, operated at stress levels above protective coating before transporting any failure consequences to leaks rather
72 percent of SMYS, was between 10 the pipe to the right-of-way. With the than ruptures. This toughness usually
percent and 50 percent of the incident newer coating materials and careful allows time for the operator to detect the
rate of pipelines operated at the lower application, coating provides damage during internal inspection well
pressure. Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline considerable protection against external before the pipe fails.
Company (now Spectra Energy), the corrosion and facilitates the application To evaluate each request, PHMSA
operator of many of the grandfathered of induced current, commonly called established a docket and sought public
pipelines, attributed the lower incident cathodic protection, to prevent comment on the request. We received
rate to aggressive inspection and corrosion from developing at any breaks few public comments, most in response
maintenance. This included initial that may occur in the coating. Regularly to the first special permits considered.
hydrostatic testing to 100 percent of monitoring the level of protection and Many of the comments supported
SMYS, internal inspection, visual addressing any low readings corrects granting the special permits. Those who
examination of anomalies found during conditions that can cause corrosion at did not may have been unappreciative
internal inspection, repair of defects, an early stage. Vigilant corrosion of the significance of the safety upgrades
and selective pressure testing to validate protection includes close attention to required for the special permits. A few
the results of the internal inspection. operating conditions that lead to raised technical concerns. Among these
Internal inspection was not in common internal corrosion, such as poor gas were questions about the impact of rail
use in the industry prior to the 1980s. quality. In addition, for new pipelines, crossings and blasting activities in the
PHMSA’s statistics show these pipelines operators’ compliance with a rule issued vicinity of the pipeline. The special
continue to have an equivalent safety earlier this year requiring greater permits did not change the current
record when compared with pipelines attention to internal corrosion requirements where road crossings exist
operating according to the design factors protection during design and and added a requirement to monitor
in the pipeline safety regulations. construction (72 FR 20059; Apr. 23, activities, such as blasting, that could
PHMSA also considered technical 2007) will prevent internal corrosion. impact earth movement. Some
studies and required companies seeking Finally, corrosion protection includes commenters expressed concern about
special permits to provide information internal inspection and other the impact radius of the pipeline
about the pipeline’s design and assessment techniques for early operating at a higher stress level.
construction and to specify the detection of both internal and external PHMSA included supplemental safety
additional inspection and testing to be corrosion. criteria to address the increased radius.
used. PHMSA also considered how to One of the major causes of serious The remainder of the comment
handle findings that could compromise pipeline failure is mechanical damage addressed concerns, such as
the long term serviceability of the pipe. caused by outside forces, such as an compensation or aesthetics, which were
PHMSA concluded that pipelines can equipment strike during excavation outside the scope of the special permits.
operate safely and reliably at stress activities. Burying the pipeline deeper, PHMSA permits do not address issues
levels up to 80 percent of SMYS if the increased patrolling, and additional line on siting, which is governed by the
pipeline has well-established marking helps prevent the risk that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
metallurgical properties and can be excavation will cause mechanical PHMSA has now issued several
managed to protect it against known damage. Further, enhanced pipe special permits in response to these
threats, such as corrosion and properties increase the pipe’s resistance requests and continues to receive and
mechanical damage. to immediate puncture from a single evaluate other requests. The following
Early and vigilant corrosion equipment strike. Improved toughness table identifies the status of special
protection reduces the possibility of increases the ability of the pipe to permit requests and the dockets
corrosion occurring. At the earliest withstand mechanical damage from an containing additional information about
stage, this includes care in applying a outside force and also may also limit them.
TABLE B.4.—STATUS OF SPECIAL PERMITS

Docket ID PHMSA— Status of request Type
2005–23448, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (Spectra Energy) ............ Granted, July 11, 2006 .................. Pipeline in operation since 1999.
2005–23387, Alliance Pipeline ................................................................ Granted, July 11, 2006 .................. Pipeline in operation since 2000.
2006–23998, Rockies Express Pipeline ................................................. Granted, July 11, 2006 .................. New pipeline.
2006–25803, Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline .................................... Granted, April 19, 2007 ................. New pipeline.
2006–25802, CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission ............................ Granted, July 18, 2007 .................. New pipeline.
2006–26533, Gulf South Pipeline ........................................................... Granted, August 24, 2007 ............. New pipeline.
2006–26616, Ozark Gas Transmission .................................................. Pending .......................................... New pipeline.
2006–27607, Southeast Supply Header ................................................. Pending .......................................... New pipeline.
2006–27842, Midcontinent Express (Kinder Morgan) ............................ Pending .......................................... New pipeline.
2007–27121, Transwestern Pipeline ....................................................... Pending .......................................... Pipeline in operation since 1992
and 2005.
2007–28994, Gulf South Pipeline (SouthEast Expansion Project) ......... Pending .......................................... New pipeline.
2007–29078, Kern River Gas Transmission Company .......................... Pending .......................................... Pipeline in operation since 1992.
In each case, PHMSA provides that any flaws are detected before they additional risk involved in operating the
oversight to confirm the line pipe is, or can fail. PHMSA accomplishes this by pipeline at a higher stress level. A
will be, as free of inherent flaws as imposing a series of conditions on the proposed pipeline must be built to
possible, that construction and grant of special permits. The conditions rigorous design and construction
operation do not introduce flaws, and are designed to address the potential standards, and the operator requesting a
special permit for an existing pipeline standards that go beyond current increases individually through the
must be able to demonstrate that the regulation, address the safety concerns special permit process.
pipeline has been built to rigorous related to operating the pipeline at a • Bare pipe. This pipe lacks the
design and construction standards. higher stress level. PHMSA will step up coating needed to prevent corrosion and
These additional design and inspection and oversight of pipeline to make cathodic protection effective.
construction standards focus on design and construction, in addition to • Pipe with wrinkle bends. Section
producing a high quality pipeline that is review and inspection of enhanced life- 192.315(a) currently prohibits wrinkle
free from inherent defects that could cycle maintenance requirements for bends in pipeline operating at hoop
grow more rapidly under operation at a these pipelines. stress exceeding 30 percent of SMYS.
higher stress level and more resistant to With special permits, PHMSA • Pipe experiencing failures
expected operational risks. In addition, individually examined the design, indicative of a systemic problem, such
the operator of a pipeline receiving a construction, and operation and as seam flaws, during the initial
special permit must comply with maintenance plans for a particular hydrostatic testing. Such pipe is more
operation and maintenance pipeline before allowing operation at a likely to have inherent defects that can
requirements that exceed current higher pressure than currently grow to failure more rapidly at higher
pipeline safety regulations. These authorized. In each case, PHMSA stress levels and thus will not qualify.
additional operation and maintenance • Pipe manufactured by certain
conditioned approval based on
requirements focus on the potential for processes, such as low frequency
compliance with a series of rigorous
corrosion and mechanical damage and electric welding process, will not
design, construction, operation, and
on detecting defects before the defects qualify because it could not satisfy the
maintenance standards. PHMSA’s
can grow to failure. requirements of the proposed rule.
experience with these requests for • Segments which cannot
B.5. Codifying the Special Permits special permits leads to the conclusion accommodate internal inspection
that a rule of general applicability is devices. These segments would not
This proposed rule would put in appropriate. With a rule of general
place a process for managing the life qualify because the proposed rule
applicability, the conditions for would require internal inspection.
cycle of a pipeline operating at a higher
approval are established for all without We are proposing to establish slightly
stress level. Integrity management
need to craft the conditions based on different requirements for segments that
focuses on managing and extending the
individual evaluation. Thus, this have already been operating and those
service life of the pipeline. Life-cycle
proposed rule would set rigorous safety which are to be newly built. Some
management goes beyond the operations
standards. In place of individual variation is necessary or appropriate
and maintenance practices, including
examination, the proposed rule would with an existing pipeline. For example,
integrity management, to address steel
require senior executive certification of the requirement for cathodically
production, pipeline manufacture,
an operator’s adherence to the more protecting pipeline within 12 months of
pipeline design, and installation.
Industry experience with integrity rigorous safety standards. An operator construction is an existing requirement
management demonstrates the value of seeking to operate at a higher pressure for all pipelines. A proposed
life-cycle maintenance. Through than allowed by current regulation requirement for the operator of an
baseline assessments in integrity would have to certify that a pipeline is existing segment to prove that the
management programs, gas transmission built according to rigorous design and segment was in fact cathodically
operators identified and repaired 2,883 construction standards and agree to protected within 12 months of
defects in the first three years of the operate under stringent operation and construction provides greater
program (2004, 2005, and 2006). More maintenance standards. After PHMSA confidence in the condition of the
than 2,000 of these were discovered in receives an operator’s certification existing segment. Proposing proof of
the first two years as operators assessed indicating its intention to operate at a five percent fewer nondestructive tests
their highest risk, generally older, higher stress level, PHMSA could then done on an existing segment at the time
pipelines. In a September 2006 report, follow up with the operator to verify of construction recognizes the
GAO–09–946, the General compliance. As with the special possibility that, over time, an operator’s
Accountability Office noted this data as permits, this proposed rule would allow records might not be complete. The
an early indication of improvement in an operator to qualify both new and overriding principal in the variation is
pipeline safety. In order to qualify for existing segments of pipeline for to allow qualification of a quality
operation at higher stress levels under operation at the higher MAOP, provided pipeline with minimal distinction.
this proposed rule, pipelines will be the operator meets the conditions for the Based on our review of requests for
designed and constructed under more segment. special permits on existing pipelines,
rigorous conditions. Baseline Several types of segments will not PHMSA does not believe the more
assessment of these lines as proposed qualify under the proposed rule. These rigorous standards proposed here are
will likely uncover few defects, but include the following: too high for existing segments. Setting
removing those few defects will result • Segments in densely populated the qualification standards lower for
in safer pipelines. In addition, the Class 4 locations. In addition to the existing segments could encourage
results of the baseline assessment will increased consequences of failure in a operators to construct a pipeline at the
aid in evaluating anomalies discovered Class 4 location, the level of activity in lower standards and seek to raise the
during future assessments. such a location increases the risk of operating pressure at some future date.
This proposed rule, based on the excavation damage. Although pipeline proponents have
terms and conditions of the special • Segments of grandfathered pipeline not yet revealed their final plans,
permits allowing operation at higher already operating at a higher stress level PHMSA anticipates the proposed trans-
stress levels, would impose similar but not constructed in accordance with Alaskan gas pipeline will require an
terms and conditions and limitations on modern standards. Although alternative design approach to address
operators seeking to apply the new rule. grandfathered pipeline has operated anticipated operating conditions in the
The terms and conditions, which successfully at the higher stress level, Arctic. This alternative approach will be
include meeting current design PHMSA would examine any further subject to PHMSA review. To a large
degree, the technical requirements for operation, and maintenance of gas recommendations in preparing final
operation at a higher stress level in this transmission pipelines. Under 49 U.S.C. action.
proposed rule will guide agency actions 60104(b), PHMSA may not require an
C. The Proposed Rule
in reviewing the plans for a trans- operator to modify or replace existing
Alaskan gas pipeline. However, the pipeline to meet a new design or C.1. In General
unique operating environment of the construction standard. Although this
Arctic will dictate changes. For proposal includes design and The proposed rule would add a new
instance, even higher strength steels construction standards, these standards section (§ 192.620) to Subpart L—
will be needed. PHMSA will have to simply add more rigorous, non- Operations. This new section would
look closely at the level of inspection mandatory requirements. This proposal explain what an operator would have to
needed to protect the environment and does not require an operator to modify do to operate at a higher MAOP than
help ensure the long-term safety of the or replace existing pipeline or to design currently allowed by the design
pipeline. and construct new pipeline in requirements. Among the conditions set
accordance with these non-mandatory forth in proposed new § 192.620 is the
B.6. How To Handle Special Permits requirement that the pipeline be
and Requests for Special Permits standards. If, however, a new or existing
pipeline meets these more rigorous designed and constructed to more
Table B.4 describes the status of standards, the proposal would allow an rigorous standards. These additional
requests for special permits seeking operator to elect to calculate the MAOP design and construction standards are
relief from the current design for the pipeline based on a higher stress set forth in two additional new sections
requirements to allow operation at level. This would allow operation at an (§§ 192.112 and 192.328) to be located
higher stress levels. For the most part, increased pressure over that otherwise in Subpart C—Pipe Design and Subpart
this proposed rule addresses the relief allowed for pipeline built since the G—General Construction Requirements
requested. PHMSA has already granted Federal regulations were issued in the for Transmission Lines and Mains,
many of these under terms and 1970s. To operate at the higher pressure, respectively. In addition, the proposed
conditions that vary slightly from those the operator would have to comply with rule would make necessary conforming
in this proposed rule. In some cases, the more rigorous operation and changes to existing sections on
relief granted extends beyond the issues maintenance requirements. incorporation by reference (§ 192.7) and
addressed in this proposed rule. It may maximum allowable operating pressure
Under 49 U.S.C. 60102(b), a gas
be appropriate for PHMSA to review the (§ 192.619).
pipeline safety standard must be
special permits already granted after
practicable and designed to meet the C.2. Proposed Amendment to § 192.7—
completion of the rulemaking to
need for gas pipeline safety and for Incorporation by Reference
determine the need for changes. We
protection of the environment. PHMSA
seek comment on this issue. The proposed rule would add ASTM
PHMSA is also considering how to must consider several factors in issuing
a safety standard. These factors include Designation: A 578/A578M—96 (Re-
handle the pending requests and
the relevant available pipeline safety approved 2001) ‘‘Standard Specification
whether to consider others during the
and environmental information, the for Straight-Beam Ultrasonic
course of rulemaking. One option is to
appropriateness of the standard for the Examination of Plain and Clad Steel
continue evaluating each request in
type of pipeline, the reasonableness of Plates for Special Applications’’ to the
light of the terms and conditions
the standard, and reasonably documents incorporated by reference
proposed here. Any grants of special
identifiable or estimated costs and under § 192.7. This specification
permits during the course of rulemaking
benefits. PHMSA has considered these prescribes standards for ultrasonic
could be limited in time with the
factors in developing this proposed rule testing of steel plates. It is referenced in
intention of revisiting the need for a
and provides its analysis in the proposed new § 192.112.
special permit after completing the
rulemaking. Another option is to defer preamble. C.3. Proposed New § 192.112—
further action on pending requests at PHMSA must also consider any Additional Design Requirements
least until PHMSA completes the comments received from the public and
rulemaking. any comments and recommendations of The proposed rule would add a new
In any case, issuance of a final rule the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards section to Subpart C—Pipe Design in 49
will not foreclose future requests for Committee (Committee). Both the public CFR Part 192. The new section,
relief through the special permit and the Committee have already § 192.112 would prescribe additional
process. We can anticipate, for instance, reviewed the concepts underlying this design standards required for the steel
that operators may seek special permits proposal. As discussed above, PHMSA pipeline to be qualified for operation at
covering pipeline that does not meet opened this docket and conducted a an alternative MAOP based on higher
fully some of the terms and conditions public meeting in 2006 to discuss the stress levels. These include
in a final rule. In such a case, the potential for increasing MAOP. PHMSA requirements for rigorous steel
operator may be able to demonstrate the subsequently briefed the Committee. chemistry and manufacturing practices
existence of other safety measures that Finally, PHMSA has sought public and standards. Pipelines designed under
address the unmet terms and comment on several requests for special these standards contain pipe with
conditions. Notwithstanding the final permits to allow operation at increased toughness properties to resist damage
rule, the operator would be able to MAOP. PHMSA considered the from outside forces and to control
request a special permit which PHMSA Committee discussion and public fracture initiation and growth. The
would consider under the usual public comment in developing this proposed considerable attention paid to the
process for special permits. rule. This notice of proposed quality of seams, coatings, and fittings
rulemaking seeks public comment on would prevent flaws leading to pipe
B.7. Statutory Considerations the proposed rule; the Committee will failure. Unlike other design standards,
Under 49 U.S.C. 60102(a), PHMSA formally consider it in a future meeting. § 192.112 would apply to a new or
has broad authority to issue safety PHMSA will address the public existing pipeline only to the extent that
standards for the design, construction, comments and the Committee’s an operator elects to operate at a higher
MAOP than allowed in current external corrosion. A quality assurance coatings at one construction site which
regulations. program would address all aspects of were applied at lower temperature than
Proposed paragraph (a) sets high the application of coating that will needed for good adhesion to the pipe.
manufacturing standards for the steel protect the pipe. This would include Because coating is so critical to
plate or coil used for the pipe. These applying a coating resistant to damage corrosion protection, proposed
include reducing oxygen content to during installation of the pipe and paragraph (a) would require quality
produce more uniform chemistry in the examining the coated pipe to determine assurance plans to contain specific
plate and limiting the use of alloys in whether the applied coating is uniform performance measures for field coating.
place of carbon. The pipe would be and without gaps. Thin spots or holes in Field coating would have to meet
manufactured in accordance with level the coating make it more likely for substantially the same standards as
2 of API Specification 5L, with the wall corrosion to occur and more difficult to coating applied at the mill and the
thickness and the ratio between protect the pipe cathodically. individuals applying the coating would
diameter and wall thickness limited to Proposed paragraph (g) would require have to be appropriately trained and
prevent the occurrence of denting and that factory-made fittings, induction qualified.
ovality during construction or bends, and flanges be certified as to Proposed paragraph (b) would require
operation. Improved construction and their serviceability. In addition, the non-destructive testing of all girth
inspection practices discussed amount of non-carbon added in the steel welds. Although past industry practice
elsewhere in this notice of proposed for these fittings and flanges would be has been to non-destructively test only
rulemaking also help prevent denting limited. a sample of girth welds, no alternative
and ovality. Proposed paragraph (h) would require exists for verifying the integrity of the
Proposed paragraph (b) addresses compressor design to limit the remaining welds. The initial pressure
fracture control of the metal. First the temperature of discharge to a specified testing once construction is complete
metal would have to be tough; that is, maximum. Higher temperature can does not detect flaws in girth welds.
deform plastically before fracturing. To damage pipe coating. An exception to PHMSA believes that most modern
the extent that the accepted industry the specified maximum is allowed if pipeline construction projects include
toughness standard does not explicitly testing of the coating shows it can non-destructive testing of all girth
address the particular pipe used and withstand a higher temperature. The welds. However, because the regulations
expected operating conditions, testing must be of sufficient length and do not require testing of all girth welds,
correction factors would have to be rigor to detect coating integrity issues. an operator’s records for pipelines
used. Second, the pipe would have to already in operation may not be
C.4. Proposed New § 192.328—
pass several tests designed to reduce the complete. To account for this, proposed
Additional Construction Requirements
risk that fractures would initiate. Third, paragraph (b) would require testing
to the extent it would be physically The proposed rule would also add a records for only 95 percent of girth
impossible for particular pipe to meet new section to Subpart G—General welds on existing segments.
toughness standards under certain Construction Requirements for Proposed paragraph (c) would require
conditions, crack arrestors would have Transmission Lines and Mains. The new deeper burial of segments operated at
to be added to stop a fracture within a section, § 192.328, would prescribe higher stress level. A greater depth of
specified length. additional construction requirements, cover decreases the risk of damage to
Proposed paragraph (c) provides tests including rigorous quality control and the pipeline from excavation, including
to verify that there are no deleterious inspections, as conditions for operation farming operations.
imperfections in the plate or coil. The of the steel pipeline at higher stress Proposed paragraph (d) addresses the
macro-etch test will identify flaws that levels. These include requirements for results of the initial strength test and the
impact the surface of the plate or coil. rigorous quality control and inspection assurance these results provide that the
Interior flaws will show up in ultrasonic during construction. Unlike other material in the pipeline is free of pre-
testing. construction standards, § 192.328 would operational flaws which can grow to
In addition to the quality of the steel, apply to a new or existing pipeline only failure over time. Since the initial
the integrity of a pipe depends on the to the extent that an operator elects to strength test is a destructive test, it only
integrity of the seams. Proposed operate at a higher MAOP than allowed detects flaws relatively close to failure
paragraph (d) provides for a quality in current regulations. during operation. This could leave in
assurance program to assure tensile Proposed paragraph (a) would require place smaller flaws that could grow
strength and toughness of the seams so a quality assurance plan for more rapidly at higher stress level. To
that they resist breaking under regular construction. Quality assurance, also prevent this from occurring, the
operations. Hardness and ultrasonic called quality control, is common in proposed paragraph would disqualify
tests would ensure that the seams also modern pipeline construction. any segment which experiences a failure
resist puncture damage. Activities such as lowering the pipe into during the initial strength test indicative
Proposed paragraph (e) would require the ditch and backfilling, if poorly done, of systemic flaws in the material.
a longer mill test pressure for new pipe can damage the pipe. Other construction Proposed paragraph (e) addresses
at a higher hoop stress than required by activities such as nondestructive cathodic protection on an existing
current regulations. The mill test is used examination, if poorly done, will result segment. Applying this requirement to
to discover flaws introduced in in flaws remaining in the pipeline. new segments is unnecessary since
manufacture. Because the pipeline will Using a quality assurance plan helps to current regulations already require
be operated at a higher stress level, the verify that the basic tasks done during cathodic protection within 12 months of
more rigorous mill test is needed to construction of a pipeline are done construction. Proposed paragraph (e)
match (or exceed) the level of safety correctly. would prevent an existing segment not
provided for pipelines operated at less Field application of coating is one of cathodically protected within 12
than 72 percent of SMYS. these basic tasks to be covered in a months after construction from
Proposed paragraph (f) would set quality assurance plan. During the qualifying for operation at a higher
rigorous standards for factory coating course of analyzing requests for special stress level under this proposed
designed to protect the pipe from permits, PHMSA discovered field regulation.
Proposed paragraph (f) addresses special permits did not expressly requirements is required if an operator
electrical interference for new segments. mention mechanical couplings, PHMSA elects to calculate the MAOP for a
During construction, it is relatively easy would not have granted a special permit segment under paragraph (a) and
to identify sources of electrical if the pipeline involved had mechanical notifies PHMSA of that election under
interference which can impair future couplings. paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
cathodic protection. Addressing C.6.3. How an Operator Selects C.6.6. New Construction and
interference at this time supports better Operation Under This Section Maintenance Tasks
corrosion control. The proposed
additional operation and maintenance Proposed §§ 192.620(c)(1) and (2) Proposed § 192.620(c)(5)
requirements of proposed Proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) Proposed paragraph (c)(5) addresses
§ 192.620(d)(6) require operators would require an operator to notify the need for competent performance of
electing operation at higher stress levels PHMSA when it elects to establish the both new construction, and future
to address electrical interference on MAOP under this section. An operator maintenance activities, to ensure the
existing pipelines prior to raising the notifies PHMSA of the election by integrity of the segment. PHMSA now
MAOP. submitting a certification by a senior requires operators to ensure that
C. 5. Proposed Amendment to executive that the pipeline meets the individuals who perform pipeline
§ 192.619—Maximum Allowable rigorous additional design and operation and maintenance activities are
construction regulations of this qualified. During a 2005 review of the
Operating Pressure
proposed rule. A senior executive must qualifications program, PHMSA
The proposed rule would amend also certify that the operator has discussed the need to ensure that
existing § 192.619 by adding a new changed its operation and maintenance construction-related activities are
paragraph (d) Proposed § 192.619(d) procedures to include the more rigorous properly done:
would provide an additional means to additional operation and maintenance
determine the MAOP for certain steel We also have anecdotal information about
requirements of the proposed rule. In errors in construction and the problems they
pipelines. In addition, the proposed rule addition, a senior executive must certify cause. One incident [in late 2006] caused
would make conforming changes to that the operator has reviewed its serious concern within PHMSA. The incident
existing paragraph (a) of the section. damage prevention program in light of involved a dig-in by the pipeline company
C.6. Proposed New § 192.620— industry consensus standards and during construction near a large school. If the
practices and made any needed changes released gas had ignited, it could have
Operation at an Alternative MAOP resulted in a catastrophe exceeding the one
to it to ensure that the program meets or
The proposed rule would add a new exceeds those standards or practices. An that led to enactment of the Natural Gas
section, § 192.620, to subpart L of part Pipeline Safety Act of 1968. Although the
operator would have to submit the
192, to specify what an operator would construction project was not new
certification at least 180 days prior to construction, the distinctions between new
have to do in order to elect an commencing operations at the MAOP construction and maintenance are often
alternative MAOP based on higher stress established under this section. This will blurred, and excavation of the right-of-way of
levels. The proposed rule would apply provide PHMSA sufficient time for an active pipeline for any form of
to both new and existing pipelines. appropriate inspection which may construction requires careful safety oversight.
include checks of the manufacturing Federal and State inspectors can point to
C.6.1. Calculating the Alternative MAOP numerous situations in which they found
process, visits to the pipeline
Proposed § 192.620(a) construction sites, analysis of operating dents or coating damage probably caused by
poor backfill, pipeline handling, or
Proposed paragraph (a) describes how history of existing pipelines, and review
equipment damage likely occurring during
to calculate the alternative MAOP based of test records, plans, and procedures. construction. When these problems become
on the higher stress levels. Qualifying C.6.4. Initial Strength Testing evident after the line has been in operation
segments of pipe would use higher many years, it is too late for either
design factors to calculate the Proposed § 192.620(c)(3) remediation or enforcement action.
alternative MAOP. For a segment Proposed paragraph (c)(3) addresses Occasionally we have been able to address
currently in operation this would result initial strength testing requirements. In problems discovered soon after construction.
As an example, a multi-agency investigation
in an increase in MAOP. No changes order to establish the MAOP under this into construction of a natural gas
would be made in the design factors section, an operator would have to transmission line in the mid-1990s
used for segments within compressor or perform the initial strength testing of a uncovered numerous violations of pipeline
meter stations or segments underlying new segment at a pressure at least as safety and other environmental laws. Our
certain crossings. great as 125 percent of the MAOP. Since enforcement order directed the operator to
an existing pipeline was previously undertake a program to remediate the
C.6.2. Which Pipeline Qualifies problems associated with numerous
operated at a lower MAOP, it may have
Proposed § 192.620(b) been initially tested at a pressure less instances of improper backfill.
Finally, we analyzed the pipeline incident
Proposed paragraph (b) describes than 125 percent of the higher MAOP
data. In the first analysis, we reviewed the
which segments of new or existing allowed under this section. If so, incidents from 1984 through 2005 where the
pipeline are qualified for operation at paragraph (c) would allow the operator operator had noted construction as either the
the alternative MAOP. The alternative to elect to conduct a new strength test primary or a secondary causal factor.
MAOP would be allowed only in Class in order to raise the MAOP. Although the number of incidents is small,
1, 2, and 3 locations. Only steel we observe a trend line increasing for both
C.6.5. Operation and Maintenance gas transmission and hazardous liquid
pipelines meeting the rigorous design
and construction requirements of Proposed § 192.620(c)(4) pipelines. This is contrary to the general
trend in pipeline incidents. We next looked
§§ 192.112 and 192.328 and monitored Proposed paragraph (c)(4) would at incidents in which we suspect
by supervisory data control and require an operator to comply with the construction issues were involved, incidents
acquisition systems would qualify. additional operating and maintenance occurring within two years of construction of
Mechanical couplings in lieu of welding requirements of paragraph (d). the pipeline. We eliminated those incidents
would not be allowed. Although the Compliance with these additional clearly not caused by construction error, such
as excavation damage occurring during C.7. Additional Operation and C.7.2. Public Awareness
operation of the line. When we add these Maintenance Requirements
suspected construction-related incidents to
Proposed § 192.620(d)(2)
those clearly involving construction error, Proposed § 192.620(d) Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would
the trend line, for both gas transmission and require an operator to include any
hazardous liquid pipelines, is sloped more
Paragraph (d) sets forth 11 operating people potentially impacted by
steeply upward. and maintenance requirements that operation at a higher stress level within
supplement the existing requirements in the outreach effort in its public
FDMS Docket ID PHMSA–RSPA– part 192. Current § 192.605 requires an education program required under
2004–19857–56, p. 2. Proposed operator to develop operation and existing § 192.616. In order to identify
paragraph (c)(5) would require operators maintenance procedures to implement this population, an operator would use
seeking to operate at the higher stress the requirements of subpart L and M. a broad area measured from the
levels allowed under this section to take Since proposed § 192.620(d) is in centerline of the pipe plus, in high
steps designed to reduce incidents subpart L, an operator would have to consequence areas, the potential impact
caused by errors during new develop and follow the operation and circle recalculated to reflect operation at
construction and maintenance activities. maintenance procedures developed a higher stress level. This is intended to
As part of the 2005 review of the under this section. These include get necessary information for safety to
qualifications program, PHMSA sought requirements for an operator to evaluate the people potentially impacted by a
comment on a broad approach to and address the issues associated with failure.
ensuring that construction-related operating at higher pressures. Through
activities are done properly. Proposed its public education program, an C.7.3. Emergency Response
paragraph (c)(5) would incorporate this operator would inform the public of any Proposed § 192.620(d)(3)
approach. The approach would allow an risks attributable to higher pressure
operator to select an appropriate way to Proposed paragraph (d)(3) addresses
operations. The additional operating the additional needs for responding to
verify the proper performance of a and maintenance requirements address
construction-related activity. For emergencies for operation at higher
the two main risks the pipelines face, stress levels. Consistent with the
example, non-destructive testing of all excavation damage and corrosion,
girth welds will significantly reduce the conditions imposed in the special
through a combination of traditional permits, and past experience with
risk of a future weld failure. An operator practices and integrity management.
could also effectively use quality response issues, the paragraph would
Traditional practices include cathodic require methods such as remote control
controls during construction or qualify protection, control of gas quality, and
the individuals performing the tasks. valves to provide more rapid shut-down
maintenance of burial depth. Integrity in the event of an emergency.
Both industry consensus standards, and management includes internal
subpart N, provide models for inspection on a periodic basis to C.7.4. Damage Prevention
qualifying individuals performing safety identify and repair flaws before they can Proposed § 192.620(d)(4)
tasks. fail. These are discussed in more detail Proposed paragraph (d)(4) addresses
C.6.7. Recordkeeping below. one of the major risks of failure faced by
Proposed § 192.620(c)(6) C.7.1. Threat Assessments a pipeline, damage from outside force
such as damage occurring during
Proposed paragraph (c)(6) clarifies Proposed § 192.620(d)(1) excavation in the right-of-way. Although
recordkeeping requirements for Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would the improved toughness of pipe reduces
operators electing to establish the require preparation of a threat the risk of damage, it does not prevent
MAOP under this section. Existing assessment consistent with that done it and additional measures are
regulations, such as §§ 192.13, appropriate for pipelines operating at
under integrity management to address
192.517(a), and 192.709, already require higher stress levels. This paragraph
the risks of operating at an increased
operators to maintain records applicable proposes to add several new or more
stress level. This proposed requirement
to this section. However, because the specific measures to existing
is not limited to high consequence
additional requirements proposed in requirements designed to prevent
areas, but applies to the entire segment
this section address requirements found damage to pipelines from outside force.
operating at the increased stress level.
in other subparts of part 192, the Additional attention to this area is
recordkeeping requirements may cause This proposed requirement comes important since the trend line for
confusion. For example, proposed from our experience with integrity incidents caused by outside force on gas
§ 192.620(d)(9) would require a baseline management and special permits. Under transmission pipelines between 2002
assessment for integrity for a segment integrity management, operators and 2006 is increasing.
operated at the higher stress level develop a detailed threat matrix The first more specific measure, in
regardless of its potential impact on a identifying the risks associated with proposed paragraph (d)(4)(i), addresses
high consequence area. Section 192.947 operating their pipelines. These risks patrolling, required for all transmission
requires operators to maintain records of include both general risks faced by all pipelines by § 192.705. More frequent
baseline assessments for the useful life pipelines and those risks specific to the patrols of the right-of-way prevent
of the pipeline. However, proposed new particular pipeline and its environment. damage by giving the operator more
§ 192.620 would be in subpart L. The matrix lists specific threats and the accurate and timely information about
Section 192.709 requires an operator to mitigative measures an operator is using potential sources of ground disturbance
retain records for an inspection done to address each threat. As applied to the and other outside force damage. These
under subpart L for a more limited time. special permits, and in this proposed include both naturally occurring
Accordingly, this paragraph would rule, this threat assessment ensures that conditions, such as wash outs, and
clarify the need to maintain all records an operator takes into account any human activity, such as construction in
demonstrating compliance for the useful additional risk operation at a higher the vicinity of the pipeline. The
life of the pipeline. stress level imposes. proposed requirement would be for
patrols on the same frequency as for standards and practices. An operator those programs to provide better
hazardous liquid pipelines (i.e., a would have to identify the standards or protection for the right-of-way of
minimum of 26 times a year). This is practices used and make appropriate pipeline operated at higher stress level.
slightly more frequent than included in changes to the damage prevention
C.7.5. Internal Corrosion Control
the special permits, but PHMSA program. The resulting program would
believes that it is appropriate for a rule have to meet or exceed the identified Proposed § 192.620(d)(5)
of general applicability. standards or practices. This approach is Proposed paragraph (d)(5) would add
The increased patrols that would be consistent with annual reviews of specificity to the requirements for
required by this rulemaking, however, operation and maintenance programs internal corrosion control now in
represent the majority of the under § 192.605. An operator would pipeline safety standards for pipelines
incremental costs imposed by this rule. have to include in the certification operated at higher stress levels. These
Therefore, PHMSA specifically requests required under proposed § 192.620(c)(1) internal corrosion control programs
comment on whether the number of that the review and upgrade has would have to include mandated use of
patrols required optimally balances the occurred. filter separators, gas quality monitoring
potential risk reduction and increase in Proposed paragraph (d)(4) would also equipment, cleaning pigs, and
burden. We seek information on: require one measure not included as a inhibitors. Maximum levels of
• Would patrolling less frequently
condition in the special permits, namely contaminants that could promote
such as four times per year (similar to
a right-of-way management plan. In the corrosion are set to be monitored
requirements at highway and railroad
past several years, PHMSA has seen quarterly. PHMSA believes the levels
crossings) provide a cost-effective
recurring similarities in pipeline are fully consistent with the
alternative?
• How often are pipelines that accidents on construction sites. In each requirements in Federal Energy
currently operate at 80% of SMYS case, better management of the pipeline Regulatory Commission tariffs designed
patrolled? How effective are these right-of-way could have prevented the to prevent internal corrosion.
patrols in providing accurate and timely accidents. Better management would
C.7.6. External Corrosion Control
information about potential sources of include closer attention to the
qualifications of individuals critical to Proposed §§ 192.620(d)(6), (7), and (8)
ground disturbance and other outside
force damage? damage prevention, better marking Since external corrosion is one of the
• How could operators incorporate practices, and closer oversight of the greatest risks to the integrity of
patrolling in their risk management plan excavation. In 2006, PHMSA issued two pipelines operating at higher stress
if PHMSA did not mandate a fixed advisory bulletins to alert operators of levels, the special permits and this
frequency? the need to pay closer attention to these proposed rule contain several measures
Other more specific or new measures important damage prevention issues. to prevent it from occurring. These
to address damage prevention include The first advisory bulletin described include use of effective coating,
developing and implementing a plan to three accidents in which either operator addressing interference, early
monitor and address ground movement, personnel or contractors damaged gas installation of cathodic protection,
a proposed requirement of paragraph transmission pipelines during confirming the adequacy of coating and
(d)(4)(ii). Ground movement such as excavation in the rights-of-way (ADB– cathodic protection and diligent
earthquakes, landslides, and nearby 06–01; 71 FR 2613; Jan. 17, 2006). This monitoring of cathodic protection
demolition or tunneling can damage bulletin advised operators to pay closer levels. The quality of the coating and
pipe. Since pipelines near the surface attention to integrating operator installation of cathodic protection are
are more likely to be damaged by qualification regulations into excavation addressed in proposed sections on
surface activities, proposed paragraph activities and providing that excavation design and construction. The remaining
(d)(4)(iii) would require an operator to is included as a covered task under external corrosion provisions are
maintain the depth of cover over a operator qualification programs required addressed here.
pipeline. Line-of-sight markers alert by subpart N. The second advisory Interference from overhead power
excavators, emergency responders, and bulletin pointed to an additional lines, railroad signaling, stray currents,
the general public of the presence and excavation accident where the excavator or other sources can interfere with the
general location of pipelines. Proposed struck an inadequately marked gas cathodic protection system and, if not
paragraph (d)(4)(iv) would require these transmission pipeline (ADB–06–03; 71 properly mitigated, even accelerate the
markers to improve both damage FR 67703; Nov. 22, 2006). This advisory rate of external corrosion. Proposed
prevention and enhance public bulletin advised pipeline operators to paragraph (d)(6) would require an
awareness. pay closer attention to locating and operator to identify and address
Damage prevention programs are marking pipelines before excavation interference early before damage to the
improving because of the work being activities begin and pointed to several pipe can occur.
done by the Common Ground Alliance, good practices as well as the best Proposed paragraph (d)(7) would
a national, non-profit educational practices described by the Common require an operator to confirm both the
organization dedicated to preventing Ground Alliance. This proposed effectiveness of the coating and the
damage to pipelines and other paragraph would require an operator adequacy of the cathodic protection
underground utilities. The Common electing to operate at a higher stress system soon after deciding on operation
Ground Alliance has compiled best level to develop a plan to manage the at higher stress levels. This is
practices applicable to all parties protection of their right-of-way from accomplished through indirect
relevant to preventing damage to excavation activities. Each operator assessment, such as a close interval
underground utilities and actively already has a damage prevention survey. After completion of the baseline
promotes their use. Proposed paragraph program, under § 192.614, and a internal inspection required by
(d)(4)(v) would require operators program to ensure qualification of proposed § 192.620(d)(9), an operator
electing to operate at higher stress levels pipeline personnel, under subpart N. would have to integrate the results of
to evaluate their damage prevention This management plan would require that inspection with the indirect
programs in light of industry consensus the operator to integrate activities under assessments. An operator would have to
also take remedial action to correct any coating and seams, and careful attention with the proposed rule that industry
inadequacies. In high consequence to damage prevention and corrosion and PHMSA technical staff have
areas, an operator would have to protection, a pipeline operated at higher identified. The expected benefits of the
periodically repeat indirect assessment stress levels should experience few proposed rule that cannot be readily
to confirm that the cathodic protection anomalies needing evaluation. The quantified include:
system remains as functional as when higher stress levels of operation can • Reductions in incident
first installed. allow more rapid growth of anomalies. consequences
Proposed paragraph (d)(8) would Therefore, more conservative repair • Increases in pipeline capacity
require more rigorous attention to criteria are needed. • Increases in the amount of natural
ensure adequate levels of cathodic gas filling the line, commonly called
protection. Regulations now require an C.8. Overpressure Protection line pack
operator discovering a low reading, Proposed § 192.620(e) • Reductions in capital expenditures
meaning a reduced level of protection, on compressors for new pipelines
The alternative MAOP is higher than • Reductions in adverse
must act promptly to correct the
the upper limit of the required environmental impacts
deficiency. This section puts an outer
overpressure protection under existing In the case of new pipelines, the
limit of six months on the time for
regulations. Proposed paragraph (e) ability to use an alternative MAOP will
completion of the remedial action and
would increase the overpressure make it possible to transport more
restoration of an adequate level of
protection limit to 104 percent of the product. Quantifying the value of this
cathodic protection. In addition, the
MAOP, which is 83 percent of SMYS, increased capacity is difficult, and no
operator would have to confirm,
for a segment operating at the estimate has been developed for this
through a close interval survey, that
alternative MAOP. analysis. Nonetheless, PHMSA expects
adequate cathodic protection levels
were restored. D. Regulatory Analyses and Notices the value of increased capacity due to
use of alternative MAOP by gas
C.7.7 Integrity Assessments D.1. Privacy Act Statement pipelines to be significant. Estimates
Proposed §§ 192.620(d)(9) and (10) Anyone may search the electronic made with respect to the proposed
Among the most important ways of form of all comments received for any trans-Alaskan gas pipeline include an
ensuring integrity during pipeline of our dockets. You may review DOT’s estimated increase of 14.2 million
operations are the assessments done complete Privacy Act Statement in the standard cubic feet of gas per day. In
under the integrity management Federal Register published on April 11, areas where production is already well-
program requirements in subpart O. 2000 (65 FR 19477). established, there is an even greater
Proposed paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(10) potential for increased pipeline
D.2. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
would require operators electing to capacity. For example, one recipient of
Policies and Procedures
operate at higher stress levels to perform a special permit estimated a daily
Due to billions of dollars in benefits, increase of at least 62 million standard
both baseline and periodic assessments the Department of Transportation (DOT)
of the entire segment operating at the cubic feet of gas.
considers this proposed rulemaking to Similarly, increases in line pack will
higher stress level, regardless of whether be a significant regulatory action under produce enormous benefits which are
the segment is located in a high section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 difficult to quantify. The reduced
consequence area. The operator would (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993). Therefore, amount of exterior storage capacity
have to use both a geometry tool and a DOT submitted it to the Office of resulting from increased line pack may
high resolution magnetic flux tool for Management and Budget for review. result in capital or operation and
the entire segment. In very limited This proposed rulemaking is also maintenance savings for the pipelines or
circumstances in which internal significant under DOT regulatory their customers. Increased line pack
inspection is not possible because policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; increases the ability to continue gas
internal inspection tools cannot be Feb. 26, 1979). delivery during short outages such as
accommodated, such as a short PHMSA prepared a draft Regulatory maintenance and to increase the amount
crossover segment connecting two Evaluation of the proposed rule. A copy of gas quickly during peak periods.
pipelines in a right-of-way, an operator is in Docket ID PHMSA–2005–23447. If These benefits are not readily
would substitute direct assessment. The you have comments about the quantifiable.
operator would then integrate the Regulatory Evaluation, please file them The quantified benefits consist of
information provided by these as described under the ADDRESSES • Fuel cost savings
assessments with testing done under heading of this document. • Capital expenditure savings on pipe
previously described paragraphs. This PHMSA estimates that the proposed for new pipelines
analysis would form the basis for rule will result in gas transmission Of these, pipeline fuel cost savings is
mitigating measures described in the pipeline operators uprating 3,500 miles the most important contributor to the
operator’s threat assessment, and of existing pipelines to an alternative estimated benefits. Although these
prompt repairs under proposed MAOP. Additionally PHMSA estimates quantified benefits do not capture the
paragraph (d)(11). that, in the future, the proposed rule full benefits of the proposed rule, they
C.7.8. Repair Criteria will result in an annual additional 700 exceed $100 million per year.
miles of new pipeline whose operators As a consequence of the proposed
Proposed § 192.620(d)(11) elect to use an alternative MAOP. rule, PHMSA estimates that pipeline
The repair criteria under proposed PHMSA expects the benefits of the operators will realize annually recurring
paragraph (d)(11) for anomalies in a proposed rule to be substantial and benefits due to fuel cost savings of $58.8
segment operating at a higher stress greatly in excess of $100 million per million that begin in the initial year
level are slightly more conservative than year. This expectation is based on after the rule goes into effect and $9.8
for other pipeline, including pipeline quantified benefits in excess of $100 million that begin in each subsequent
covered by a integrity management million per year (see below), coupled year. Additionally, PHMSA estimates
program. With the tougher pipe, better with un-quantified benefits associated that each year pipeline operators will
realize one-time benefits for savings in added each year, the one-time benefits expected to be as presented in the
capital expenditures of $54.6 million resulting from this added mileage will following table:
(since 700 miles of new pipeline be the same each year.) The benefits of
operating at an alternative MAOP are the proposed rule over 20 years are
TABLE D.2.–1—SUMMARY AND TOTAL FOR THE ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Estimate of new benefits occurring
Estimate for year 1
Benefit in each subsequent year
(millions of dollars per year) (millions of dollars per year)
Reduced incident consequences ............................................................ Not quantified ................................ Not quantified.

Fuel cost savings .................................................................................... $49.0 (recurring) ............................ $0.0 (recurring).
Reduced capital expenditures ................................................................. $54.6 (non-recurring) ..................... $54.6 (non-recurring).
Increased pipeline capacity ..................................................................... Not quantified ................................ Not quantified.
Increased line pack ................................................................................. Not quantified ................................ Not quantified.
Reduced adverse environmental impacts ............................................... Not quantified ................................ Not quantified.
Other expected benefits .......................................................................... Not quantified ................................ Not quantified.
Total ................................................................................................. $49.0 recurring + $54.6 non-recur- $54.6 non-recurring.

ring.
The present value of the benefits PHMSA expects the costs attributable • Preparing threat assessments
evaluated over 20 years at a three to the proposed rule are most likely to • Patrolling pipeline rights-of-way
percent discount rate would be $1,541 be incurred by operators for
• Performing baseline internal • Preparing the paperwork notifying
million, while the present value of the
inspections PHMSA of the decision to use an
benefits over 20 years at a seven percent
discount rate would be $1,098 million. • Performing additional internal alternative MAOP
For both discount rates, the annualized inspections Overall, the costs of the proposed rule
• Performing anomaly repairs over 20 years are expected to be as
benefits would be $103.6 million. • Installing remotely controlled
presented in the following table:
valves on either side of high
consequence areas
TABLE D.2.–2—SUMMARY AND TOTALS FOR THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Cost by year after implementation
(thousands of dollars)
Cost item
1st 2nd–10th 11th 12th–20th
Baseline internal inspections ......................... $29,119 ...................... None .......................... None .......................... None.
Additional internal inspections ....................... None .......................... None .......................... $17,471 ...................... $2,912 each year.
Anomaly repairs ............................................. $1,015 ........................ None .......................... $1,218 ........................ $203 each year.
Remotely controlled valves ............................ $3,528 ........................ $588 each year .......... $588 ........................... $588 each year.
Threat assessments ....................................... $180 ........................... $30 each year ............ $30 ............................. $30 each year.
Patrolling ........................................................ $10,080 ...................... $11,760 to $25,200 .... $26,880 ...................... $28,560 to $42,000.
Notifying PHMSA ........................................... Nominal ...................... Nominal ...................... Nominal ...................... Nominal.
Total ........................................................ $43,922 ...................... $618 each year plus $46,187 ...................... $3,733 each year plus
patrolling costs. patrolling costs.
The present value of the costs D.3. Regulatory Flexibility Act The affected gas transmission systems
evaluated over 20 years at a three all belong to NAICS 486210, Pipeline
percent discount rate would be $435 Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Transportation of Natural Gas. In
million, while the present value of the (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA must accordance with the size standards
costs over 20 years at a seven percent consider whether rulemaking actions published by the Small Business
discount rate would be $293 million. would have a significant economic Administration, a business with $6.5
The annualized costs at the 3% discount impact on a substantial number of small million or less in annual revenue is
rate would be $29 million, while the entities. considered a small business in this
annualized costs at the 7% discount rate The proposed rule would affect NAICS.
would be $28 million. operators of gas pipelines. Based on Based on August 2006 information
Since the present value of the annual reports submitted by operators, from Dunn & Bradstreet on firms in
quantified benefits ($1,541 million at there are approximately 1,450 gas NAICS 486210, PHMSA estimates that
three percent and $1,098 million at transmission and gathering systems and 33% of the gas transmission and
seven percent) exceeds the present an equivalent number of distribution gathering systems have $6.5 million or
value of the costs ($435 million at three systems potentially affected by the less in revenue. Thus, PHMSA estimates
percent and $293 million at seven proposed rule. The size distribution of that 479 of the gas transmission and
percent), the proposed rule is expected these operators is unknown and must be gathering systems affected by the
to be cost-beneficial. estimated. proposed rule will have $6.5 million or
less in annual revenue. PHMSA does 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 provides that Federal regulation would
not expect that any local gas million or more in any one year to either not preempt state law for intrastate
distribution companies or gathering State, local, or tribal governments, in the pipelines. In addition, 49 U.S.C.
systems will be taking advantage of the aggregate, or to the private sector, and 60120(c) provides that the Federal
potential to use an alternative MAOP. is the least burdensome alternative that pipeline safety law ‘‘does not affect the
The proposed rule mandates no action achieves the objective of the proposed tort liability of any person.’’ It is these
by gas transmission pipeline operators. rulemaking. statutory provisions, not the proposed
Rather, it provides those operators with rule, that govern preemption of State
the option of using an alternative MAOP D.7. National Environmental Policy Act
law. Therefore, the consultation and
in certain circumstances, when certain PHMSA has analyzed the proposed funding requirements of Executive
conditions can be met. Consequently, it rulemaking for purposes of the National Order 13132 do not apply.
imposes no economic burden on the Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
affected gas pipeline operators, large or 4321 et seq.). The proposed rulemaking D.9. Executive Order 13211
small. Based on these facts, I certify that would require limited physical change This proposed rulemaking is likely to
this proposed rule will not have a or other work that would disturb increase the efficiency of gas
substantial economic impact on a pipeline rights-of-way. In addition, the transmission pipelines. A gas
substantial number of small entities. proposed rulemaking would codify the transmission pipeline operating at an
PHMSA invites public comment on terms of special permits PHMSA has increased MAOP will result in increased
impacts this proposed rule would have granted. Although PHMSA sought capacity, fuel savings, and flexibility in
on small entities. public comment on environmental addressing supply demands. This is a
D.4. Executive Order 13175 impacts with respect to most requests positive rather than an adverse effect on
for special permits to allow operation at the supply, distribution, and use of
PHMSA has analyzed this proposed
pressures based on higher stress levels, energy. Thus this proposed rulemaking
rulemaking according to Executive
no commenters addressed is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
environmental impacts. PHMSA has under Executive Order 13211. Further,
Coordination with Indian Tribal
preliminarily determined the proposed the Administrator of the Office of
Governments.’’ Because the proposed
rulemaking is unlikely to significantly Information and Regulatory Affairs has
rulemaking would not significantly or
affect the quality of the human not identified this proposed rule as a
uniquely affect the communities of the
environment. An environmental significant energy action.
Indian tribal governments, nor impose
assessment document is available for
substantial direct compliance costs, the List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
funding and consultation requirements review in the docket. PHMSA will make
a final determination on environmental Design pressure, Incorporation by
of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
impact after reviewing the comments to reference, Maximum allowable
D.5. Paperwork Reduction Act this proposal. operating pressure, and Pipeline safety.
This proposed rule adds notification D.8. Executive Order 13132 For the reasons provided in the
and threat assessment paperwork preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend
requirements on pipeline operators PHMSA has analyzed the proposed 49 CFR part 192 as follows:
voluntarily choosing an alternative rulemaking according to Executive
MAOP for their pipelines. Based on Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF
analysis of the regulation, there will be 1999) and concluded that no additional NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY
an estimated 2,712 total annual burden consultation with States, local PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL
hours attributable to the notification and governments or their representatives is SAFETY STANDARDS
threat assessment requirements in the mandated beyond the rulemaking
process. The proposed rule does not 1. The authority citation for part 192
first year. In following years, the annual continues to read as follows:
burden is expected to decrease to 452 have a substantial direct effect on the
hours. The associated cost of these States, the relationship between the Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104,
annual burden hours is $180,289 in year national government and the States, or 60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, and 60118; and
the distribution of power and 49 CFR 1.53.
one, and $30,048 thereafter. No other
burden hours and associated costs are responsibilities among the various 2. In § 192.7, in paragraph (c)(2)
expected. See the Paperwork Reduction levels of government. The proposed rule amend the table of referenced material
Act analysis in the docket for a more does not impose substantial direct by redesignating items C.(6) through
detailed explanation. PHMSA seeks compliance costs on State or local C.(13) as C.(7) through C.(14) and
comments on these projections. governments. adding a new item C.(6) to read as
Further, no consultation is needed to follows:
D.6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of discuss the preemptive effect of the
1995 proposed rule. The pipeline safety law, § 192.7 Incorporation by reference.
This proposed rule does not impose specifically 49 U.S.C. 60104(c), * * * * *
unfunded mandates under the prohibits State safety regulation of (c) * * *
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of interstate pipelines. The same law (2) * * *
Source and name of referenced material 49 CFR reference

* * * * * * *
C.* * *
(6) ASTM Designation: A 578/A578M—96 (Re-approved 2001) ‘‘Standard Specification for Straight-Beam Ultrasonic § 192.112(c)(2)(ii)
Examination of Plain and Clad Steel Plates for Special Applications.
* * * * * * *
3. Add § 192.112 to subpart C to read § 192.112 Additional design requirements the alternative maximum allowable
as follows: for steel pipe using alternative maximum operating pressure calculated under
allowable operating pressure. § 192.620, a segment must meet the
For a new or existing pipeline following additional design
segment to be eligible for operation at requirements:
To address this design issue: The pipeline segment must meet this additional requirement:
(a) General standards for the steel pipe ............ (1) The plate or coil used for the pipe must be micro-alloyed, fine grain, fully killed, continu-
ously cast steel with calcium treatment.
(2) The carbon equivalents of the steel used for pipe must not exceed 0.23 percent by weight,
as calculated by the Ito-Bessyo formula (Pcm formula), for wall thickness of one inch (25
mm) or less, and 0.25 percent for wall thickness greater than one inch (25 mm).
(3) The ratio of the specified outside diameter of the pipe to the specified wall thickness must
be less than 100. The wall thickness must prevent denting and ovality anomalies during
construction, strength testing and anticipated operational stresses.
(4) The pipe must be manufactured using API Specification 5L, product specification level 2
(incorporated by reference, see § 192.7) for maximum operating pressures and minimum op-
erating temperatures and other requirements under this section.
(b) Fracture control ............................................. (1) The toughness properties for pipe must address the potential for initiation, propagation and
arrest of fractures in accordance with:
(i) API Specification 5L (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7); and
(ii) Any correction factors needed to address pipe grades, pressures, temperatures, or gas
compositions not expressly addressed in API Specification 5L, product specification
level 2 (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7).
(2) Fracture control must:
(i) Ensure resistance to fracture initiation while addressing the full range of operating tem-
peratures, pressures and gas compositions the pipeline is expected to experience;
(ii) Address adjustments to toughness of pipe for each grade used and the decompression
behavior of the gas at operating parameters;
(iii) Ensure at least 99 percent probability of fracture arrest within eight pipe lengths with a
probability of not less than 90 percent within five pipe lengths; and
(iv) Include fracture toughness testing that is equivalent to that described in supple-
mentary requirements SR5A, SR5B, and SR6 of API Specification 5L (incorporated by
reference, see § 192.7) and ensures ductile fracture and arrest with the following excep-
tions:
(A) The results of the Charpy impact test prescribed in SR5A must indicate at least
80 percent minimum shear area for any single test on each heat of steel; and
(B) The results of the drop weight test prescribed in SR6 must indicate 80 percent av-
erage shear area with a minimum single test result of 60 percent shear area for
any steel test samples.
(3) If it is not physically possible to achieve the pipeline toughness properties of paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section, mechanical crack arrestors of proper design and spacing must
be used to ensure fracture arrest as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(c) Plate/coil quality control ................................ (1) There must be a comprehensive mill inspection program to check for defects and inclu-
sions affecting pipe quality.
(2) This mill inspection program must include:
(i) A macro etch test or other equivalent method to identify inclusions that may form cen-
terline segregation during the continuous casting process. Use of sulfur prints is not an
equivalent method. The test must be carried out on the first or second slab of each se-
quence graded with an acceptance criteria of at least 2 on the Mannesmann scale or
equivalent; and
(ii) An ultrasonic test of the ends and at least 50 percent of the surface of the plate/coil or
pipe to identify imperfections that impair serviceability such as laminations, cracks, and
inclusions. At least 95 percent of the lengths of pipe manufactured must be tested. For
pipeline designed after [the effective date of the final rule], the test must be done in ac-
cordance with Level B of ASTM A 578/A578M (incorporated by reference, see § 192.7)
or equivalent.
(d) Seam quality control ..................................... (1) There must be a quality assurance program for pipe seam welds:
(i) To assure tensile strength provided in API Specification 5L (incorporated by reference,
see § 192.7) for appropriate grades; and
(ii) To assure toughness of at least 35 foot-pounds at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (or minimum
operating temperature).
(2) There must be a hardness test, using Vickers (Hv10) hardness test method or equivalent
test method to assure a maximum hardness of 280 Vickers of the following:
(i) A cross section of the weld seam of one pipe from each heat plus one pipe from each
welding line per day; and
(ii) For each sample cross section, a minimum of 13 readings (three for each heat af-
fected zone, three in the weld metal, and two in each section of pipe base metal).
(3) All of the seams must be ultrasonically tested after cold expansion and hydrostatic testing.
(e) Mill hydrostatic test ....................................... (1) All pipe to be used in a new segment must be hydrostatically tested at the mill at a test
pressure corresponding to a hoop stress of 95 percent SMYS for 20 seconds, including the
allowance for end loading stresses.
(2) Pipe previously in operation must have been hydrostatically tested at the mill at a test
pressure corresponding to a hoop stress of 90 percent SMYS for 10 seconds.
To address this design issue: The pipeline segment must meet this additional requirement:
(f) Coating ........................................................... (1) The pipe must be protected against external corrosion by non-shielding, fusion bonded
epoxy coating.
(2) Coating on pipe used for trenchless installation must resist abrasions and other damage
possible during installation.
(3) A quality assurance inspection and testing program for the coating must cover the surface
quality of the bare pipe, surface cleanliness and chlorides, blast cleaning, application tem-
perature control, adhesion, cathodic disbondment, moisture permeation, bending, coating
thickness, holiday detection, and repair.
(g) Fittings and flanges ....................................... (1) There must be certification records of flanges, factory induction bends and factory weld
ells.
(2) If the carbon equivalents of flanges, bends and ells are greater than 0.42 percent by
weight, the qualified welding procedures must include a pre-heat procedure.
(h) Compressor stations ..................................... (1) A compressor station must be designed to limit discharge temperature to a maximum of
120 degrees Fahrenheit (49 degrees Centigrade) or the higher temperature allowed in para-
graph (h)(2) of this section.
(2) If testing shows that the coating will withstand a higher temperature in long-term oper-
ations, the compressor station may be designed to limit discharge temperature to that higher
temperature.
4. Add § 192.328 to subpart G to read § 192.328 Additional construction the alternative maximum allowable
as follows: requirements for steel pipe using operating pressure calculated under
alternative maximum allowable operating § 192.620, a segment must meet the
pressure.
following additional construction
For a new or existing pipeline requirements:
segment to be eligible for operation at
To address this construction issue: The pipeline segment must meet this additional construction requirement:
(a) Quality assurance ......................................... (1) The construction of the segment must be done under a quality assurance plan addressing
pipe inspection, hauling and stringing, field bending, welding, non-destructive examination of
girth welds, applying and testing field applied coating, lowering of the pipeline into the ditch,
padding and backfilling, and hydrostatic testing.
(2) The quality assurance plan for applying and testing field applied coating to girth welds
must be:
(i) Equivalent to that required under § 192.112(f)(3) for pipe; and
(ii) Performed by an individual with the knowledge, skills, and ability to assure effective
coating.
(b) Girth welds .................................................... (1) All girth welds on a new segment must be non-destructively examined in accordance with
§ 192.243(b) and (c).
(2) At least 95 percent of girth welds on a segment that was constructed prior to the effective
date of this rule must have been non-destructively examined in accordance with
§ 192.243(b) and (c).
(c) Depth of cover ............................................... (1) Notwithstanding any lesser depth of cover otherwise allowed in § 192.327, there must be at
least 36 inches (914 millimeters) of cover.
(2) In areas where deep tilling or other activities could threaten the pipeline, the top of the
pipeline must be installed at least one foot below the deepest expected penetration of the
soil.
(d) Initial strength testing .................................... (1) The segment must not experience any failures indicative of fault in material during strength
testing, including initial hydrostatic testing.
(e) Cathodic protection ....................................... (1) If the segment has been in operation, the cathodic protection system on the segment must
have been operational within 12 months of construction.
(f) Interference currents ...................................... (1) For a new segment, the construction must address the impacts of induced alternating cur-
rent from parallel electric transmission lines and other known sources of potential inter-
ference with corrosion control.
5. Amend § 192.619 by revising (d) The operator of a segment of steel operating pressure? An operator
paragraph (a) introductory text and by pipeline meeting the conditions calculates the alternative maximum
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: prescribed in § 192.620(b) may elect to allowable operating pressure by using
operate the segment at a maximum different factors in the same formulas
§ 192.619 Maximum allowable operating allowable operating pressure used for calculating maximum
pressure: Steel or plastic pipelines. determined under § 192.620(a). allowable operating pressure under
(a) No person may operate a segment 6. Add § 192.620 to subpart L to read § 192.619(a) as follows:
of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure as follows:

(1) In determining the design pressure
that exceeds a maximum allowable § 192.620 Alternative maximum allowable under § 192.105, use a design factor
operating pressure determined under operating pressure for certain steel determined in accordance with
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, or pipelines. § 192.111 (b), (c), or (d) or, if none of
the lowest of the following: (a) How does an operator calculate these paragraphs apply, in accordance
* * * * * the alternative maximum allowable with the following table:
Design factor (6) If a segment has been previously (ii) For a segment in existence prior to
Class location (F) operated, the segment has not the effective date of this regulation,
experienced any failure during normal certify, under paragraph (c)(1) of this
1 .............................................. 0.80 operations indicative of a fault in section, that the strength test performed
2 .............................................. 0.67
material. under § 192.505 was conducted at a test
3 .............................................. 0.56
(c) What is an operator electing to use pressure of at least 125 percent of the
(2) The maximum allowable operating the alternative maximum allowable maximum allowable operating pressure
pressure is the lower of the following: operating pressure required to do? If an calculated under paragraph (a) of this
(i) The design pressure of the weakest operator elects to use the maximum section.
element in the segment, determined allowable operating pressure calculated (4) Comply with the additional
under subparts C and D of this part. under paragraph (a) of this section for a operation and maintenance
(ii) The pressure obtained by dividing segment, the operator must do each of requirements described in paragraph (d)
the pressure to which the segment was the following: of this section.
tested after construction by a factor (1) Certify, by signature of a senior (5) If the performance of a
determined in the following table: executive officer of the company, as construction task affects the integrity of
follows: the segment, ensure that the task is
Class location Factor (A) The segment meets the conditions performed properly by doing at least
described in subsection (b) of this one of the following:
1 .............................................. 1.25 section; and (i) Include quality controls during
2 .............................................. 1.50 construction addressing performance of
(B) The operating and maintenance
3 .............................................. 1.50
procedures include the additional the task;
(b) When may an operator use the operating and maintenance (ii) Use an integrity verification
alternative maximum allowable requirements of subsection (d) of this method that addresses performance of
operating pressure calculated under section; and the task; or
paragraph (a) of this section? An (C) The review and any needed (iii) Demonstrate that the individual
operator may use a maximum allowable program upgrade of the damage performing the task has the knowledge,
operating pressure calculated under prevention program required by skills, and ability to do so.
paragraph (a) of this section if the subsection (d)(4)(v) of this section has (6) Maintain, for the useful life of the
following conditions are met: been completed. pipeline, records demonstrating
(1) The segment is in a Class 1, 2, or (2) Notify PHMSA of its election with compliance with paragraphs (b), (c)(5),
3 location; respect to a segment at least 180 days and (d) of this section.
(2) The segment is constructed of steel before operating at the alternative (d) What additional operation and
pipe meeting the additional design maximum allowable operating pressure maintenance requirements apply to
requirements in § 192.112; by sending the certification to the operation at the alternative maximum
(3) A supervisory control and data Information Resources Manager as allowable operating pressure? In
acquisition system provides remote provided for reports under § 192.951. addition to compliance with other
monitoring and control of the segment; (3) For each segment, do one of the applicable safety standards in this part,
(4) The segment meets the additional following: if an operator establishes a maximum
construction requirements described in (i) Perform a strength test as described allowable operating pressure for a
§ 192.328; in § 192.505 at a test pressure of at least segment under paragraph (a) of this
(5) The segment does not contain any 125 percent of the maximum allowable section, an operator must comply with
mechanical couplings used in place of operating pressure calculated under the additional operation and
girth welds; and paragraph (a) of this section; or maintenance requirements as follows:
To address increased risk of a maximum allow-

able operating pressure based on higher stress Take the following additional step:
levels in the following areas:
(1) Assessing threats .......................................... Develop a threat matrix consistent with § 192.917 to do the following:
(i) Identify and compare the increased risk of operating the pipeline at the increased
stress level under this section with conventional operation; and
(ii) Describe procedures used to mitigate the risk.
(2) Notifying the public ........................................ (i) Recalculate the potential impact circle as defined in § 192.903 to reflect use of the alter-
native maximum operating pressure calculated under paragraph (a) of this section and pipe-
line operating conditions; and
(ii) In implementing the public education program required under § 192.616, do the following:
(A) Include persons occupying property within 220 yards of the centerline and within the
potential impact circle within the targeted audience; and
(B) Include information about the integrity management activities performed under this
section within the message provided to the audience.
(3) Responding to an emergency in an area de- (i) Ensure that the identification of high consequence areas reflects the larger potential impact
fined as a high consequence area in circle recalculated under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
§ 192.903.
(ii) If personnel response time to mainline valves on either side of the high consequence area
exceeds one hour, provide remote valve control through a supervisory control and data ac-
quisition system, other leak detection system, or an alternative method of control.
(iii) Remote valve control must include the ability to open and close the valve, monitor the po-
sition of the valve, and monitor pressure upstream and downstream.
(iv) A line break valve control system using differential pressure, rate of pressure drop or other
widely-accepted method is an acceptable alternative to remote valve control.

(4) Protecting the right of way ............................ (i) Patrol the right of way at intervals not exceeding 3 weeks, but at least 26 times each cal-
endar year, to inspect for excavation activities, ground movement, wash outs, leakage, or
other activities or conditions affecting the safety operation of the pipeline.
(ii) Develop and implement a plan to monitor for and mitigate occurrences of unstable soil and
ground movement.
(iii) Maintain the depth of cover provided for new pipeline under § 192.327 or § 192.328(c). If
observed conditions indicate the possible loss of cover, perform a depth of cover study and
replace cover as necessary to restore the depth of cover.
(iv) Use line-of-sight line markers satisfying the requirements of § 192.707(d) except in agricul-
tural areas, large water crossings or where prohibited by Federal Energy Regulatory Com-
mission orders, permits, or local law.
(v) Review the damage prevention program under § 192.614(a) in light of national consensus
standards and practices, to ensure the program provides adequate protection of the right-of-
way. Identify the standards or practices considered in the review, and meet or exceed those
standards or practices by incorporating appropriate changes into the program.
(vi) Develop and implement a right-of-way management plan to protect the segment from dam-
age due to excavation activities.
(5) Controlling internal corrosion ........................ (i) Develop and implement a program to monitor for and mitigate the presence of, deleterious
gas stream constituents.
(ii) At points where gas with potentially deleterious contaminants enters the pipeline, use filter
separators and gas quality monitoring equipment.
(iii) Use gas quality monitoring equipment that includes a moisture analyzer, chromatograph,
and periodic hydrogen sulfide sampling.
(iii) Use cleaning pigs and inhibitors, and sample accumulated liquids.
(iv) Address deleterious gas stream constituents as follows:
(A) Limit carbon dioxide to 3 percent by volume;
(B) Allow no free water and otherwise limit water to seven pounds per million cubic feet of
gas; and
(C) Limit hydrogen sulfide to 0.50 grain per hundred cubic feet of gas.
(v) Review the program at least quarterly based on the gas stream experienced and imple-
ment adjustments to monitor for, and mitigate the presence of, deleterious gas stream con-
stituents.
(6) Controlling interference that can impact ex- (i) Prior to operating an existing segment at a maximum allowable operating pressure cal-
ternal corrosion. culated under this section, or within six months after placing a new segment in service at a
maximum allowable operating pressure calculated under this section, address interference
issues on the segment.
(ii) To address interference issues, do the following:
(A) Conduct an interference survey to detect the presence and level of any electrical cur-
rent that could impact external corrosion;
(B) Analyze the results of the survey; and
(C) Take any remedial action needed to protect the segment from deleterious current.
(7) Confirming external corrosion control (i) Within six months after placing the cathodic protection of a new segment in operation, or
through indirect assessment. within six months after recalculating the maximum allowable operating pressure of an exist-
ing segment under this section, assess the integrity of the coating and adequacy of the ca-
thodic protection through an indirect method such as close-interval survey, direct current
voltage gradient, or alternating current voltage gradient.
(ii) Remediate any construction damaged coating with a voltage drop classified as moderate or
severe indication under section 4, table 3 of NACE RP–0502–2002 (incorporated by ref-
erence, see § 192.7).
(iii) Within six months after completing the baseline internal inspection required under para-
graph (9) of this section, integrate the results of the indirect assessment required under
paragraph (7)(i) of this section with the results of the baseline internal inspection and take
any needed remedial actions.
(iv) For all segments in high consequence areas, do periodic assessments as follows:
(A) Conduct periodic close interval surveys with current interrupted to confirm voltage
drops in association with periodic assessments under subpart O of this part.
(B) Locate pipe-to-soil test stations at half-mile intervals within each high consequence
area ensuring at least one station is within each high consequence area.
(C) Integrate the results with those of the baseline and periodic assessments for integrity
done under paragraphs (d)(9) and (d)(10) of this section.
(8) Controlling external corrosion through ca- (i) If an annual test station reading indicates cathodic protection below the level of protection
thodic protection. required in subpart I of this part, complete remedial action within six months of the failed
reading; and
(ii) After remedial action to address a failed reading, confirm restoration of adequate corrosion
control by a close interval survey on either side of the affected test station to the next test
station.
(9) Conducting a baseline assessment of integ- (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(9)(iii) of this section, for a new segment, do a baseline
rity. internal inspection as follows:
(A) Assess using a geometry tool after the initial hydrostatic test and backfill within six
months after placing the new segment in service; and
(B) Assess using a high resolution magnetic flux tool within three years after placing the
new segment in service.

(ii) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(9)(iii) of this section, for an existing segment, do a
baseline internal assessment using a geometry tool and a high resolution magnetic flux tool
before, but within two years prior to, raising pressure as allowed under this section.
(iii) If headers, mainline valve by-passes, compressor station piping, meter station piping, or
other short portion of a segment cannot accommodate a geometry tool and a high resolution
magnetic flux tool, use direct assessment to assess that portion.
(10) Conducting periodic assessments of integ- (i) Determine a frequency for subsequent periodic inspections as if the segments were cov-
rity. ered by subpart O of this part.
(ii) Conduct periodic internal inspections using a high resolution magnetic flux tool on the fre-
quency determined under paragraph (d)(10)(i) of this section.
(iii) Use direct assessment for periodic assessment of a portion of a segment to the extent
permitted for a baseline assessment under paragraph (d)(9)(iii) of this section.
(11) Making repairs ............................................. (i) Do the following when evaluating an anomaly:
(A) Use the most conservative calculation for determining remaining strength or an alter-
native validated calculation based on pipe diameter, wall thickness, grade, operating
pressure, operating stress level, and operating temperature: and
(B) Take into account the tolerances of the tools used for the inspection.
(ii) Repair a defect immediately if any of the following apply:
(A) The defect is a dent discovered during the baseline assessment for integrity under
paragraph (d)(9) of this section and the defect meets the criteria for immediate repair in
§ 192.309(b).
(B) The defect meets the criteria for immediate repair in § 192.933(d).
(C) The maximum allowable operating pressure was based on a design factor of 0.67
under paragraph (a) of this section and the failure pressure is less than 1.25 times the
maximum allowable operating pressure.
(D) The maximum allowable operating pressure was based on a design factor of 0.56
under paragraph (a) of this section and the failure pressure is less than or equal to 1.4
times the maximum allowable operating pressure.
(iii) If paragraph (d)(11)(ii) of this section does not require immediate repair, repair a defect
within one year if any of the following apply:
(A) The defect meets the criteria for repair within one year in § 192.933(d).
(B) The maximum allowable operating pressure was based on a design factor of 0.80
(C) The maximum allowable operating pressure was based on a design factor of 0.67
(D) The maximum allowable operating pressure was based on a design factor of 0.56
under paragraph (a) of this section and the failure pressure is less than or equal to 1.80
times the maximum allowable operating pressure.
(iv) Evaluate any defect not required to be repaired under paragraph (d)(11)(ii) or (iii) of this
section to determine its growth rate, set the maximum interval for repair or re-inspection,
and repair or re-inspect within that interval.
(e) Is there any change in overpressure Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
protection associated with operating at 2008.
the alternative maximum allowable Jeffrey D. Wiese, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
operating pressure? Notwithstanding Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. Administration
the required capacity of pressure [FR Doc. E8–4656 Filed 3–11–08; 8:45 am]
relieving and limiting stations otherwise 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
required by § 192.201, if an operator [Docket No. 080229343–8368–01]
establishes a maximum allowable
operating pressure for a segment in RIN 0648–XF87
accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section, an operator must: Listing Endangered and Threatened
Species: Notification of Finding on a
(1) Provide overpressure protection
Petition to List Pacific Eulachon as an
that limits mainline pressure to a
Endangered or Threatened Species
maximum of 104 percent of the under the Endangered Species Act
maximum allowable operating pressure;
and AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
(2) Develop and follow a procedure

for establishing and maintaining Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
accurate set points for the supervisory Commerce.
control and data acquisition system. ACTION: Notification of finding; request
for information, and initiation of status
review.

Proposed Rule: Pipeline Safety: Standards For Increasing The Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure For Gas Transmission Pipelines

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Proposed Rule: Pipeline Safety: Standards For Increasing The Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure For Gas Transmission Pipelines

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No.

49 / Wednesday, March 12, 2008 / Proposed Rules 13167

phone at (202) 366–5124, or by e-mail

TABLE B.4.—STATUS OF SPECIAL PERMITS

Reduced incident consequences ............................................................ Not quantified ................................ Not quantified.

Total ................................................................................................. $49.0 recurring + $54.6 non-recur- $54.6 non-recurring.

Source and name of referenced material 49 CFR reference

of steel or plastic pipeline at a pressure as follows:

To address increased risk of a maximum allow-

To address increased risk of a maximum allow-

To address increased risk of a maximum allow-

(2) Develop and follow a procedure

Вам также может понравиться