Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 49 CFR Part 192

Docket ID: [Docket No. RSPA-03-16330; Notice 4]

RIN ID: RIN 2137-AB71

NOTICE: PROPOSED RULES

ACTION: Pipeline safety:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Request for information.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Pipeline Safety: Passage of Internal Inspection Devices

DATES: Persons interested in submitting written responses to the questions posed in this document must do so by December 31, 2003.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: On April 12, 1994, RSPA issued a regulation requiring pipeline operators to design and construct certain new transmission lines and certain existing line sections that contain replaced pipe or components to accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices. Responding to petitions for reconsideration, we suspended enforcement on some facilities and invited comments on proposed changes to the regulation. To help us reach a
[[Page 67129]]
final decision on the petitions and issues raised by commenters, this notice seeks responses to the questions stated below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION concerning offshore gas transmission lines.

SUMMARY: Internal inspection devices; information request,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Following Congressional mandates,\1\ RSPA published regulations (49 CFR 192.150 and 195.120) requiring that, except where impracticable, operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines must design and construct certain pipelines to accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices, or smart pigs (59 FR 17281; Apr. 12, 1994). In response to petitions for reconsideration from the American Gas Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), we proposed to modify provisions of Sec. 192.150 that apply to offshore transmission lines and that require removal of smart pig obstructions from transmission line sections (59 FR 49896; Sept. 30, 1994). In addition, pending completion of the rulemaking, we suspended enforcement of Sec. 192.150 on offshore transmission lines and on onshore transmission line sections except replacement parts (60 FR 7133; Feb. 7, 1995).
\1\ Sections 108(b) and 207(b) of the Pipeline Safety
Reauthorization Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100561; Oct. 31, 1988).

One of the issues raised by INGAA's petition and by comments on the proposed modification of Sec. 192.150 concerns the applicability of Sec. 192.150 to new offshore transmission lines 10 inches or larger. INGAA and industry commenters strongly suggested the rule should exempt all offshore transmission lines. The reasons were increased design and construction costs and lack of benefits. In addition, the Technical Pipeline Safety Standard Committee, RSPA's advisory committee on proposed gas pipeline safety standards, supported industry's view at a meeting in Washington, DC, on May 2, 1995.

In contrast, operators of hazardous liquid pipelines did not object to the similar pigpassage rule in Sec. 195.120 that applies to offshore pipelines 10 inches or larger. And the Marine Board, in a 1994 study jointly sponsored by RSPA and the Minerals Management Service, ``Improving the Safety of Marine Pipelines,'' recommended that ``[n]ew mediumto largediameter pipelines running from platform to platform or platform to shore should be designed to accommodate smart pigs whenever reasonably practical.'' (The study is available at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309050472/ html/.)

Questions

In light of this background and the considerable time since persons submitted written comments on the proposed changes to Sec. 192.150, we have the following questions:
Do operators of offshore gas transmission lines still object to applying Sec. 192.150 to new offshore transmission lines 10 inches or larger?
If the answer is yes, given that new hazardous liquid pipelines 10 inches or larger are meeting Sec. 195.120, what differences are there between gas and liquid pipeline design and construction practices that would justify exempting new offshore gas transmission lines 10 inches or larger from Sec. 192.150?
Regarding the Marine Board's recommendation, when would it not be ``reasonably practical'' to design new gas transmission lines 10 inches or larger running between platforms or platforms and shore to accommodate the passage of smart pigs?

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 24, 2003.
Stacey L. Gerard,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 0329853 Filed 112803; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 491059P

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT L. M. Furrow by phone at 202-366-4559, by fax at 2023664566, by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590, or by email at buck.furrow@rspa.dot.gov.