Pipeline Safety: Polyamide-11 (PA-11) Plastic Pipe Design Pressures, 1307-1312 [E8-33]
Download as PDF
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) extends the date for filing
reply comments from December 31,
2007, to January 16, 2008, to provide
parties additional time to evaluate the
extensive comments received and
prepare their replies.
DATES: Reply comments are due on or
before January 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file
reply comments on or before January 16,
2008. All filings related to this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking should refer to
WC Docket No. 07–135. Comments may
be filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
Rulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper
copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
• For ECFS filers, if multiple dockets
or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
transmit one electronic copy of the
comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messenger-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
delivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours
at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
• To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Slotten, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Pricing Policy Division, (202)
418–1572.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order in
WC Docket No. 07–135, adopted on
December 20, 2007, and released on
December 20, 2007. The complete text
of this Order is available for public
inspection Monday through Thursday
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from
8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center,
Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text is available also on the
Commission’s Internet site at https://
www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are
available for persons with disabilities by
contacting the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202)
418–0531, TTY (202) 418–7365, or at
fcc504@fcc.gov. The complete text of the
decision may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copying and Printing, Inc., Room
CY–B402, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202)
488–5300, facsimile (202) 488–5563,
TTY (202) 488–5562, or e-mail at
fcc@bcpiweb.com.
Synopsis of Order
1. Reply comments are currently due
on December 31, 2007, 72 FR 64179
(Nov. 15, 2007). We find that providing
an additional sixteen days to file reply
comments in this proceeding will
facilitate the development of a more
accurate and complete record. We note
that it is the policy of the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1307
that extensions of time shall not be
routinely granted. Given the complexity
of the issues that are raised, the large
number of comments that were filed,
and the intervening holidays, however,
we find that good cause exists to
provide all parties an extension of time
from December 31, 2007 to January 16,
2008 for filing reply comments in this
proceeding.
2. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to §§ 4(i), 4(j), and 5(c) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
154(j), 155(c), and §§ 0.91, 0.291, and
1.46 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
0.91, 0.291, 1.46, reply comments in this
matter shall be filed on or before
January 16, 2008.
3. It is further ordered that the
motions of FUTUREPHONE.COM, LLC.,
the National Telephone Cooperative
Association and the Independent
Telephone and Telecommunications
Alliance, and CTIA—the Wireless
Association for Extension of Time are
granted, as set forth herein.
Federal Communications Commission.
Dana R. Shaffer,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. E8–117 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA—2005—21305, Notice
2]
RIN 2137–AE26
Pipeline Safety: Polyamide-11 (PA–11)
Plastic Pipe Design Pressures
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to revise
the Federal pipeline safety regulations
to allow certain thermoplastic pipelines
made from new Polyamide-11 (PA–11)
pipe to be designed using a higher
design factor and to raise the design
pressure limit for the same pipelines.
Design pressure calculations and design
pressure limitations for all other
thermoplastic pipes (PE-polyethylene,
PB-polybutylene, PVC-polyvinyl
chloride, etc.) would remain unchanged.
These rule changes would allow
pipeline operators to operate certain
pipelines constructed of new PA–11
pipe at higher operating pressures than
currently allowed by the existing rules.
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1308
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules
This would allow pipeline operators to
take advantage of the strength
characteristics of PA–11 pipe.
DATES: Anyone interested in filing
written comments on this proposal must
do so by February 7, 2008. PHMSA will
consider late comments filed so far as
practical.
Comments should reference
Docket No. PHMSA–2005–21305 and
may be submitted in the following ways:
• E–Gov Web Site: https://
www.regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: DOT Docket
Management System; U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: Identify the docket
number, PHMSA–2005–21305, at the
beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, submit
two copies. To receive confirmation that
PHMSA received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped
postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at https://
www.regulations.gov.
ADDRESSES:
Note: Comments are posted without
changes or edits to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. There is a privacy
statement published on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Sanders at (405) 954–7214, or
by e-mail at Richard.Sanders@dot.gov;
or Wayne Lemoi at (404) 832–1160, or
by e-mail at Wayne.Lemoi@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Theoretical Maximum Design Pressure
for Plastic Pipe
Plastic pipe is used to transport
various products in both pressure and
non-pressure applications. In pressure
service, such as the transport of water or
natural gas, the theoretical maximum
internal design pressure for plastic
pipes is independent of the product
being transported. That is, the
theoretical maximum design pressure of
a plastic pipe is a function of (1) the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
pipe’s physical dimensions and (2) the
long-term hydrostatic strength (LTHS) of
the pipe material.
The physical dimensions used to
calculate the design pressure of a plastic
pipe are its outside diameter and wall
thickness. In practice these physical
dimensions are often expressed by a
standard dimension ratio (SDR), which
is the ratio of a pipe’s average specified
outside diameter to the minimum
specified wall thickness of the pipe. For
a given pipe diameter, the higher the
SDR the thinner the pipe wall. Typical
SDRs are specified in industry standards
developed by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI).
The LTHS used to calculate the
design pressure of a plastic pipe is
usually represented in pipe design
formulas by an assigned value known as
the hydrostatic design basis (HDB). The
HDB is a reflection of a plastic pipe’s
ability to resist internal pressure over
long periods of time. The Hydrostatic
Stress Board of the Plastics Pipe
Institute (PPI) assigns an HDB to a
plastic pipe material based on testing of
the material using the industry accepted
test methods published by ASTM
International. The HDB for various
plastic pipes can be found in the PPI
Technical Report, TR–4, Recommended
Hydrostatic Strengths and Design
Stresses for Thermoplastic Pipe and
Fittings Compounds (see https://
plasticpipe.org/publications/
technical_reports.html).
Allowable Design Pressure for Plastic
Pipe
For safety reasons, plastic pipe in any
service is not allowed to operate up to
its theoretical maximum internal design
pressure. That is, the theoretical
maximum design pressure for plastic
pipe in service is reduced by a safety
factor to calculate an allowable design
pressure, which is the pressure at which
a pipe can safely operate. Safety factors,
commonly referred to as design factors,
are generally built into plastic pipe
design pressure formulas to account for
unknowns in the pipeline operations
and environment. For example, plastic
pipes used in water service may use a
design factor of 0.50, which reduces the
allowable design pressure to 50 percent
of the theoretical maximum design
pressure. For transporting natural gas,
the Federal pipeline safety regulations
set the design factor at a more
conservative 0.32 due to the increased
hazards associated with transporting
natural gas as compared to water. This
design factor limits a plastic pipe’s
allowable design pressure to 32 percent
of its theoretical maximum design
pressure. This proposed rulemaking
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would increase the design factor for
plastic pipe in natural gas service to
0.40 (40 percent) for certain PA–11 pipe.
Design Pressure Limitations for Plastic
Pipe in Natural Gas Service
For plastic pipe used to transport
natural gas, the allowable design
pressure is limited by the Federal
pipeline safety regulations in two ways.
First, as explained above, the plastic
pipe design pressure formula in
§ 192.121 contains a built-in limitation
of 0.32, which limits the allowable
design pressure to 32 percent of the
theoretical maximum design pressure.
Second, the allowable design pressure
calculated using the design formula in
§ 192.121 cannot exceed the design
pressure limitations in § 192.123. For
plastic pipes produced before July 14,
2004, the design pressure cannot exceed
100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)
(689 kilopascal (kPa)) for pipelines in
distribution systems and in class 3 or 4
locations. For PE 2406 and PE 3408
polyethylene thermoplastic pipe
produced after July 14, 2004, the
allowable design pressure cannot
exceed 125 psig (862 kPa) for 12-inch
iron pipe size (IPS) [nominal pipe
diameter] or less. This proposed
rulemaking would increase the design
pressure limit from 100 psig (689 kPa)
to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for certain PA–
11 pipe.
Arkema Rulemaking Petitions
In October 2004 Arkema, Inc.
(Arkema), a manufacturer of PA–11
thermoplastic pipe, submitted two
petitions to PHMSA requesting we
revise 49 CFR 192.121 and 192.123. The
first petition requested an increase in
the design factor from 0.32 to 0.40 in
§ 192.121 for new PA–11 plastic pipes.
The second petition requested an
increase in the design pressure limit in
§ 192.123 from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200
psig (1378 kPa) for new 2-inch IPS, PA–
11 plastic pipes. These changes would
allow new 2-inch IPS, PA–11 pipeline
systems to be operated up to an
allowable design pressure determined
by the increased design factor of 0.40 or
200 psig (1378 kPa), whichever is less.
The design factor and design pressure
limits for all other plastic pipes would
remain unchanged.
Arkema asserted in its petition that
new PA–11 material will pose less risk
to the public at a design factor of 0.40
than older thermoplastic piping
materials used with a 0.32 design factor.
Arkema also asserted that allowing an
increased design pressure will allow gas
companies to replace steel pipeline
systems with 2-inch plastic pipe
operating up to 200 psig (1378 kPa), and
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules
avoid the risk of corrosion failure in
steel pipes. A detailed technical
justification, including performance test
results for PA–11 pipe and a discussion
of its history and use, is provided in the
petitions. This information may be read
in docket PHMSA–2005–21305.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Public Comments
On June 22, 2005, PHMSA published
a notice in the Federal Register (70 FR
36093) seeking comments on the
Arkema petitions. We received
comments from two operators of PA–11
trial systems, one local gas distribution
company, the Gas Piping Technology
Committee (GPTC), the American Gas
Association (AGA), the Illinois
Commerce Commission (ICC), two
plastic pipe fitting manufacturers and a
plastics pipe consultant. All
commenters supported the Arkema
petitions. The ICC recommended that
PHMSA consider requiring additional
protection to prevent third-party
damage to higher pressure natural gas
lines and suggested adding a warning
tape or other technology to protect these
lines during digging. As a result of the
public comments and recommendations
made by PHMSA’s staff, Arkema
submitted two amended petitions to
PHMSA on April 6, 2006. No public
comments have been received for or
against Arkema’s amended petitions,
which are discussed in detail below.
Arkema Amended Rulemaking Petitions
On April 6, 2006, Arkema submitted
two amended petitions to PHMSA to
replace the original petitions of October
2004. The new petitions addressed the
public comments received by PHMSA
and recommendations made by
PHMSA’s staff. In the first amended
petition, Arkema requested an increase
in the design factor in § 192.121 from
0.32 to 0.40 for new PA–11 pipe of all
pipe diameters with two conditions.
First, the minimum wall thickness for
pipe of a given diameter must be SDR–
11 or thicker. Second, the rapid crack
propagation (RCP) characteristics of
each new pipe diameter or thicker wall
for an already tested diameter must be
measured using accepted industry
standard test methods. Arkema
subsequently notes that since its
original petition, industry test methods,
including RCP testing, now have been
completed to qualify new 4-inch pipe,
which had not been tested at the time
of the original petition. Therefore,
PHMSA proposes to update the
regulation to allow the revised design
factor for new PA–11 up to 4-inch
diameter pipe and appurtenances.
Arkema’s second amended petition
requested a revision to § 192.123 to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
allow the use of PA–11 pipe at a
maximum allowable operating pressure
of up to 200 psig (1378 KPa) for SDR–
11 pipe at diameters of up to 4-inch IPS.
This request is based on the availability
of complete PA–11 piping systems,
results from a three-year research
program by the Gas Technology Institute
(GTI) and the successful testing of
exhumed samples from field
installations of PA–11. Therefore,
PHMSA is proposing to allow the use of
PA–11 pipe at a maximum of 200 psig
(1378 kPa). Arkema also supported the
ICC recommendation to require warning
tape and included proposed draft rule
language in its amended petition to
address this issue.
Polyamide–11 (PA–11) Plastic Piping
Research and Evaluation
The GTI sponsored laboratory and
field research on PA–11 pipe and piping
systems beginning in the late 1990s. The
research was accomplished by Nicor
Technologies (Nicor). Final reports on
this laboratory and field research are in
the docket for this rulemaking.
In 1997, Nicor began with laboratory
research on the physical, mechanical,
and chemical properties of PA–11 pipe
materials. Nicor used comprehensive
laboratory testing and evaluation
protocols to examine PA–11 pipe
materials from three individual
production samples and concluded that
overall ‘‘the results of the
comprehensive short term and long term
testing * * * indicate that PA–11 pipe
is a suitable plastic alternative to steel
systems operating at higher pressure
and under exposure to high
temperatures for a short period of time.’’
Nicor followed up the laboratory
research on the properties of PA–11
pipe materials with additional
laboratory and field research on the
economic feasibility of using PA–11 gas
distribution piping systems at higher
operating pressures and temperatures
than currently permitted for plastic
materials. Nicor performed laboratory
tests on numerous PA–11 fittings and
appurtenances. This was followed by
the field testing of a PA–11 trial piping
system installed at a Nicor private test
site in Illinois, where Nicor installed
approximately 400 feet of PA–11 pipe
using three different installation
techniques: Plowing, directional boring
and open trenching. Nicor concluded
that the ‘‘results of the trial installation
of PA–11 piping system have
successfully demonstrated that PA–11
piping systems can be safely and
effectively installed at higher operating
pressures.’’
Nicor used the results of the research
on the PA–11 trial system to petition the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1309
ICC and PHMSA for a waiver to install
and operate a PA–11 pipeline system at
pressures above 100 psig (689 kPa) in
Woodstock, Illinois. The ICC and
PHMSA approved the waiver. The
pipeline was installed in December
1999. This has allowed GTI and Nicor
to continue the research on PA–11
piping systems. This final phase
allowed the researchers to evaluate the
effects of high operating pressures (150
psig), moisture, aging and other factors
on an actual operating natural gas
pipeline system. The study concluded,
‘‘PA–11 has met or exceeded all of the
provisions contained within ASTM
D2513–99 [American Society of Testing
Materials, Standard Specification for
Thermoplastic Gas Pressure Pipe,
Tubing, and Fittings, D2513–99]
Appendix XI for the use of new
materials in underground natural gas
distribution application[s].’’
To continue and expand the research
on PA–11, GTI solicited several utilities
to participate in field trials across the
United States. The utilities sought and
received both Federal and State waivers
to allow some of the PA–11 trial systems
to be designed using a 0.40 design factor
in the plastic pipe design formula in
§ 192.121 and to operate at pressures
above the plastic pipe design limitations
in § 192.123. The PA–11 trial systems
were installed from December 1999 to
November 2004 in Arizona, Illinois,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee and
Utah in various geographic, climatic and
operating temperature and pressure
environments. Three of the trial systems
were designed using a design factor of
0.40. One system was designed using an
HDB of 1600 psig at a temperature of
140° F. All the trial systems operate
between 60 psig (413 kPa) and 200 psig
(1378 kPa) with half operating above
175 psig (1206 kPa). The GTI final
report on this research, Utility
Participation in PA–11 Evaluation
Project, March 2005, is in the docket for
this rulemaking.
The Proposed Rule
Proposed Regulations
PHMSA is proposing to change the
design pressure limits in §§ 192.121 and
192.123 for certain PA–11 pipes. The
changes would allow new 4-inch IPS or
less, SDR–11, PA–11 pipelines to be
designed using a design factor of 0.40
(in lieu of 0.32) in the plastic pipe
design formulas in § 192.121. The
design pressure limit in § 192.123
would be raised from 100 psig (689 kPa)
to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for new 4-inch
IPS or less, SDR–11, PA–11 plastic pipe
used in distribution system pipelines
and in pipelines in class 3 and 4
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1310
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules
locations. This would allow design
pressures up to the design pressure
calculated in § 192.121 but not greater
than 200 psig (1378 kPa). All other
design pressure limitations would
remain unchanged.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Basis for Increasing the Design Factor
for PA–11 Plastic Pipe
When 49 CFR Part 192 was first
promulgated in 1970 there were
multiple design factors for plastic pipe
based on the class location in which the
pipeline was installed. They ranged
from 0.20 in class 4 locations to 0.32 in
class 1 locations. In 1977, the Materials
Transportation Board (MTB) [now
PHMSA] proposed a single design factor
within the range of 0.32 to 0.50 to be
used in the plastic pipe design formula
in § 192.121 (see 42 FR 8386). This
single factor would allow operators to
use the same pipe for identical design
pressures throughout their systems, thus
saving the cost of keeping various pipes
and matching components in inventory
for different class locations. At the time
of that proposal, some commenters,
including the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee (TPSSC)
suggested that a design factor of 0.40 be
adopted, based on its many years of
satisfactory use prior to adoption of the
more conservative factor in § 192.121.
Other commenters favored a single
design factor equal to 0.50. This view
was stated for several reasons, but it was
based primarily on the fact that plastic
pipe did not have a history of pressure
failures. After considering the several
arguments favoring either 0.40 or 0.50,
a 0.32 design factor was adopted. The
more conservative increment was
chosen to protect against unforeseeable
events and has remained in effect since
May 1978.
The 0.32 design factor was accepted
as a conservative value based on the
state of plastic pipe technology in 1978.
Advances in plastic pipe technology
coupled with the extensive laboratory
and field research on PA–11 by Nicor
under the sponsorship of the GTI,
provide sufficient evidence that the
design factor can be increased to 0.40
for certain PA–11 pipes without
compromising safety. This evidence
includes the history of the PA–11 trial
systems, which have been operating
safely for several years at increased
operating pressures. Moreover,
increasing the design factor may allow
PA–11 pipe to be used in lieu of steel
pipe in some locations, thereby
reducing corrosion, a primary factor in
pipeline failures.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
Basis for Increasing the Design Pressure
Limit for PA–11 Plastic Pipe
When 49 CFR Part 192 was first
promulgated in 1970 the design
pressure limit for plastic pipe used in
distribution systems and class 3 or 4
locations was set at 100 psig (689 kPa),
which was the design pressure limit in
ANSI B31.8 Standard, Gas Transmission
Distribution and Piping Systems. The
design pressure was raised in 2004 for
PE 2406 and 3408 thermoplastic pipe
because of new developments in
polyethylene materials and better
technology for detecting the rate of
crack growth, i.e., slow crack growth.
When PHMSA was considering the
pressure limit increase for PE 2406 and
PE 3408 thermoplastic pipes, eleven of
the commenters on the proposed new
rule agreed the proposed increase in the
design pressure limit was warranted.
AGA, for example, noted that modern
polyethylene pipe was already being
reliably operated at pressures greater
than 100 psig (689 kPa) under waivers
granted by State pipeline safety
regulators. AGA further contended that
the reliability of newer polyethylene
pipe was supported by laboratory and
field analysis of the long-term
hydrostatic strength of the polyethylene
materials.
Bay State and Northern Natural Gas,
two natural gas distribution system
operators, suggested that the design
pressure limit be established per
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) standards, which
allow any design pressure permitted by
the measured HDB. UGI Utilities
suggested an even higher maximum
allowable pressure. However, because
there was insufficient data to conclude
that pipelines operating at such
pressures would operate safely, PHMSA
concluded that prescribing a maximum
pressure higher than 125 psig was
unsupported at that time. The design
pressure limit for existing pipe and new
pipes other than PE 2406 and PE 3408,
such as PA–11, remains at 100 psig (689
kPa).
As explained above, the design
pressure of thermoplastic pipe is a
function of the physical dimensions and
HDB of the pipe. Therefore, for plastic
pipes of the same physical dimensions,
or SDR, the calculated design pressure
is directly proportional to the HDB. PA–
11 has an HDB twice that of PE 2406.
Therefore, the design pressure of PA–11
calculated using the plastic pipe design
formula in § 192.121 is twice the design
pressure of PE 2406. For SDR–11 pipe,
the calculated design pressure of PA–11
is 160 psig, while the design pressure of
PE 2406 is 80 psig. With the current
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
design pressure limit of 100 psig in
§ 192.123 for distribution systems and
class 3 or 4 locations, however, PA–11
is limited to a design pressure of only
4 percent of its HDB while the PE 2406
can operate up to 6.4 percent of its HDB.
If PE 2406 can safely operate at 6.4
percent of its HDB, 80 psig, then it
stands to reason that PA–11 should also
be allowed to operate at 6.4 percent of
its HDB, 160 psig, all else being equal.
But all else is not equal. Existing
regulations allow certain sizes of PE
2406 pipes to operate up to 125 psig (10
percent of HDB) in distribution systems
and class 3 or 4 locations. For example,
a PE 2406, SDR–7 pipeline with a
calculated design pressure of 133 psig
could operate up to 125 psig (10 percent
of HDB), but a PA–11, SDR–7 pipeline
would be limited to 100 psig (4 percent
of HDB) in the exact same application.
If the design limits were applied equally
based on the long-term pressure
carrying capability of each pipe, the
PA–11, SDR–7 pipeline would be
allowed to operate up to 250 psig (10
percent of HDB).
The proposed regulation would only
allow pipelines constructed from 4-inch
IPS or less, PA–11, SDR–11 pipe to be
operated up to 200 psig (8 percent of
HDB). This requires two actions. First,
the design factor in § 192.121 would
have to be raised to 0.40, as explained
above, so the calculated design pressure
will equal 200 psig (1378 kPa). Second,
the design pressure limit in § 192.123
would have to be raised to 200 psig
(1378 kPa) to allow PA–11 pipelines to
operate at 200 psig (1378 kPa) in
distribution systems and class 3 or 4
locations. PHMSA believes these
changes would not be inconsistent with
pipeline safety because the HDB of PA–
11 is twice that of PE 2406. Moreover,
the extensive laboratory and field
research, coupled with the successful
field trial systems, validate that PA–11
pipelines can safely operate up to 200
psig (1378 kPa).
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Privacy Act Statement
Anyone may search the electronic
form of comments received in response
to any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment if submitted for an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Policies and Procedures
This proposed rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
(58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was not
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget. This proposed rulemaking
is not significant under the Regulatory
Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR
11034).
Installing PA–11 is not mandated; it is
optional. PHMSA believes operators
may choose to install PA–11 pipe, rather
than some other type of pipe, only if it
is the most cost-effective alternative
available. Consequently, PHMSA
anticipates that the benefits of this
proposal will equal or exceed its costs.
Any gas transmission operators with (or
installing) pipelines in class 3 or 4
locations could potentially be affected
by the proposed rulemaking.
Furthermore, all gas distribution
operators could potentially be affected
by the proposed rule. In total, PHMSA
estimates that the proposed rule could
potentially affect 900 gas transmission
operators and 1,450 gas distribution
system operators. The draft economic
evaluation is available for review and
comment in the docket.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA must
consider whether rulemaking actions
would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. PHMSA estimates that the
proposed rulemaking could potentially
affect as many as 479 transmission
system operators that are small entities,
as well as 1,131 gas distribution systems
that are small entities.
The proposed rule mandates no action
by gas pipeline operators. Rather, it
provides operators with an option to use
PA–11 pipe in certain pipeline systems
based on economic, operations or other
considerations. Consequently, the
proposal imposes no economic burden
on these potentially affected gas
pipeline operators. PHMSA concludes
this proposed rulemaking would not
have a significant negative economic
impact on any small entity.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Executive Order 13175
PHMSA has analyzed this rulemaking
according to Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments.’’ Because
the proposed rule would not
significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of the Indian tribal
governments or impose substantial
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
direct compliance costs, the funding
and consultation requirements of
Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal does not impose any
new information collection
requirements.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rulemaking does not
impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. It does not result in costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector, and is the least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the proposed
rulemaking.
1311
Affairs has not identified this proposal
as a significant energy action.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Gas, Natural gas, Pipelines, Pipeline
safety.
For the reasons provided in the
preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend
49 CFR Part 192 as follows:
PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF
NATURAL GAS AND OTHER GAS BY
PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL
SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 192
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104,
60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, 60116, and
60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Revise § 192.121 to read as follows:
National Environmental Policy Act
§ 192.121
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed
rulemaking for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and preliminarily
determined the proposed rulemaking
may provide minor beneficial impacts
on the quality of the human
environment due primarily to a
potential reduction in corrosion leaks if
PA–11 pipe is used to replace steel pipe.
The draft environmental assessment is
available for review and comment in the
docket. PHMSA will make a final
determination on environmental impact
after reviewing the comments on this
proposal.
Subject to the limitations of § 192.123,
the design pressure for plastic pipe is
determined by either of the following
formulas:
P = 2 S t (DF) / (D¥t)
P = 2S (DF) / (SDR¥1)
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed
rulemaking according to Executive
Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). The
proposal does not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed
rulemaking does not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. This proposed
regulation would not preempt state law
for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements
of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Executive Order 13211
Transporting gas impacts the nation’s
available energy supply. However, this
proposed rulemaking is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under
Executive Order 13211 and is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Design of plastic pipe.
Where:
P = Design pressure, gauge, psig (kPa).
S = For thermoplastic pipe, the HDB is
determined in accordance with the listed
specification at a temperature equal to 73° F
(23° C), 100° F (38° C), 120° F (49° C), or 140°
F (60° C). In the absence of an HDB
established at the specified temperature, the
HDB of a higher temperature may be used in
determining a design pressure rating at the
specified temperature by arithmetic
interpolation using the procedure in Part D.2
of PPI TR–3/2004, HDB/PDB/SDB/MRS
Policies (incorporated by reference, see
§ 192.7). For reinforced thermosetting plastic
pipe, 11,000 psig (75,842 kPa).
t = Specified wall thickness, inches (mm).
D = Specified outside diameter, inches
(mm).
SDR = Standard dimension ratio, the ratio
of the average specified outside diameter to
the minimum specified wall thickness,
corresponding to a value from a common
numbering system that was derived from the
American National Standards Institute
preferred number series 10.
D F = 0.32, or = 0.40 for nominal pipe size
(IPS) 4 or less, SDR–11, polyamide-11 (PA–
11) pipe produced after February 7, 2008
only.
3. Amend § 192.123 to revise
paragraph (a) introductory text and to
add a new paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
§ 192.123
pipe.
Design limitations for plastic
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) and paragraph (f) of this section, the
design pressure may not exceed a gauge
pressure of 100 psig (689 kPa) for plastic
pipe used in:
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
1312
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(f) The design pressure for polyamide11 (PA–11) pipe produced after
February 7, 2008 may exceed a gauge
pressure of 100 psig (689 kPa) provided
that:
(1) The design pressure does not
exceed 200 psig (1378 kPa);
(2) The pipe size is nominal pipe size
(IPS) 4-inch or less;
(3) The pipe has a standard dimension
ratio of SDR–11 only; and
(4) Pipes with design pressures above
100 psig (689 kPa) shall be buried with
a warning tape or other device sufficient
to warn an excavator of the presence of
a high pressure gas line near the tape or
other device before reaching the burial
depth of the pipeline.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
27, 2007.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E8–33 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R8–ES–2007–0022; 1111 FY07 MO;
ABC Code: B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Pygmy Rabbit
(Brachylagus idahoensis) as
Threatened or Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
initiation of status review.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition To list the
pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)
as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the pygmy rabbit may be
warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are
initiating a status review to determine if
listing the species is warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding this species.
We will make a determination on
critical habitat for this species, which
was also requested in the petition, if and
when we initiate a listing action.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on January 8, 2008.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
To be considered in the 12-month
finding for this petition, data,
comments, and information must be
submitted to us on or before March 10,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–
ES–2007–0022; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor,
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office by mail
(see ADDRESSES), by telephone (775–
861–6300), or by facsimile (775–861–
6301). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing a
species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species. To
ensure that the status review is
complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are soliciting
information concerning the status of the
pygmy rabbit. We request any additional
information, comments, and suggestions
from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties. We are opening a 60day comment period to allow all
interested parties an opportunity to
provide information on the status of the
pygmy rabbit throughout its range,
including:
(1) Information regarding the species’
historical and current population status,
distribution, and trends; its biology and
ecology; and habitat selection;
(2) information on the effects of
potential threat factors that are the basis
for a listing determination under section
4 (a) of the Act, which are:
(a) present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
species’ habitat or range;
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(b) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (in relation to the pygmy
rabbit, this includes hunting and
research);
(c) disease or predation;
(d) the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence; or
(3) information on management
programs for the conservation of the
pygmy rabbit.
Please note that comments merely
stating support or opposition to the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) directs that determinations as to
whether any species is a threatened or
endangered species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’ At the
conclusion of the status review, we will
issue the 12-month finding on the
petition, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this finding by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. We will not accept comments
you send by e-mail or fax. Please note
that we may not consider comments we
receive after the date specified in the
DATES section in our final
determination.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that we
will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. While you can ask
us in your comment to withhold your
personal identifying information from
public review, we cannot guarantee that
we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this finding, will be
available for public inspection on
https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service’s Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite
234, Reno, NV 89502–7147; telephone
775–861–6300.
Background
For more information on the biology,
habitat, and range of the pygmy rabbit,
please refer to the ‘‘Species
Information’’ section in our previous 90day finding published in the Federal
Register on May 20, 2005 (70 FR 29253).
E:\FR\FM\08JAP1.SGM
08JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1307-1312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-33]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA--2005--21305, Notice 2]
RIN 2137-AE26
Pipeline Safety: Polyamide-11 (PA-11) Plastic Pipe Design
Pressures
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: PHMSA proposes to revise the Federal pipeline safety
regulations to allow certain thermoplastic pipelines made from new
Polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe to be designed using a higher design factor
and to raise the design pressure limit for the same pipelines. Design
pressure calculations and design pressure limitations for all other
thermoplastic pipes (PE-polyethylene, PB-polybutylene, PVC-polyvinyl
chloride, etc.) would remain unchanged. These rule changes would allow
pipeline operators to operate certain pipelines constructed of new PA-
11 pipe at higher operating pressures than currently allowed by the
existing rules.
[[Page 1308]]
This would allow pipeline operators to take advantage of the strength
characteristics of PA-11 pipe.
DATES: Anyone interested in filing written comments on this proposal
must do so by February 7, 2008. PHMSA will consider late comments filed
so far as practical.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2005-21305 and
may be submitted in the following ways:
E-Gov Web Site: https://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System; U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2005-21305, at the
beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit
two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at https://www.regulations.gov.
Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Sanders at (405) 954-7214, or
by e-mail at Richard.Sanders@dot.gov; or Wayne Lemoi at (404) 832-1160,
or by e-mail at Wayne.Lemoi@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Theoretical Maximum Design Pressure for Plastic Pipe
Plastic pipe is used to transport various products in both pressure
and non-pressure applications. In pressure service, such as the
transport of water or natural gas, the theoretical maximum internal
design pressure for plastic pipes is independent of the product being
transported. That is, the theoretical maximum design pressure of a
plastic pipe is a function of (1) the pipe's physical dimensions and
(2) the long-term hydrostatic strength (LTHS) of the pipe material.
The physical dimensions used to calculate the design pressure of a
plastic pipe are its outside diameter and wall thickness. In practice
these physical dimensions are often expressed by a standard dimension
ratio (SDR), which is the ratio of a pipe's average specified outside
diameter to the minimum specified wall thickness of the pipe. For a
given pipe diameter, the higher the SDR the thinner the pipe wall.
Typical SDRs are specified in industry standards developed by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
The LTHS used to calculate the design pressure of a plastic pipe is
usually represented in pipe design formulas by an assigned value known
as the hydrostatic design basis (HDB). The HDB is a reflection of a
plastic pipe's ability to resist internal pressure over long periods of
time. The Hydrostatic Stress Board of the Plastics Pipe Institute (PPI)
assigns an HDB to a plastic pipe material based on testing of the
material using the industry accepted test methods published by ASTM
International. The HDB for various plastic pipes can be found in the
PPI Technical Report, TR-4, Recommended Hydrostatic Strengths and
Design Stresses for Thermoplastic Pipe and Fittings Compounds (see
https://plasticpipe.org/publications/technical_reports.html).
Allowable Design Pressure for Plastic Pipe
For safety reasons, plastic pipe in any service is not allowed to
operate up to its theoretical maximum internal design pressure. That
is, the theoretical maximum design pressure for plastic pipe in service
is reduced by a safety factor to calculate an allowable design
pressure, which is the pressure at which a pipe can safely operate.
Safety factors, commonly referred to as design factors, are generally
built into plastic pipe design pressure formulas to account for
unknowns in the pipeline operations and environment. For example,
plastic pipes used in water service may use a design factor of 0.50,
which reduces the allowable design pressure to 50 percent of the
theoretical maximum design pressure. For transporting natural gas, the
Federal pipeline safety regulations set the design factor at a more
conservative 0.32 due to the increased hazards associated with
transporting natural gas as compared to water. This design factor
limits a plastic pipe's allowable design pressure to 32 percent of its
theoretical maximum design pressure. This proposed rulemaking would
increase the design factor for plastic pipe in natural gas service to
0.40 (40 percent) for certain PA-11 pipe.
Design Pressure Limitations for Plastic Pipe in Natural Gas Service
For plastic pipe used to transport natural gas, the allowable
design pressure is limited by the Federal pipeline safety regulations
in two ways. First, as explained above, the plastic pipe design
pressure formula in Sec. 192.121 contains a built-in limitation of
0.32, which limits the allowable design pressure to 32 percent of the
theoretical maximum design pressure. Second, the allowable design
pressure calculated using the design formula in Sec. 192.121 cannot
exceed the design pressure limitations in Sec. 192.123. For plastic
pipes produced before July 14, 2004, the design pressure cannot exceed
100 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) (689 kilopascal (kPa)) for
pipelines in distribution systems and in class 3 or 4 locations. For PE
2406 and PE 3408 polyethylene thermoplastic pipe produced after July
14, 2004, the allowable design pressure cannot exceed 125 psig (862
kPa) for 12-inch iron pipe size (IPS) [nominal pipe diameter] or less.
This proposed rulemaking would increase the design pressure limit from
100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378 kPa) for certain PA-11 pipe.
Arkema Rulemaking Petitions
In October 2004 Arkema, Inc. (Arkema), a manufacturer of PA-11
thermoplastic pipe, submitted two petitions to PHMSA requesting we
revise 49 CFR 192.121 and 192.123. The first petition requested an
increase in the design factor from 0.32 to 0.40 in Sec. 192.121 for
new PA-11 plastic pipes. The second petition requested an increase in
the design pressure limit in Sec. 192.123 from 100 psig (689 kPa) to
200 psig (1378 kPa) for new 2-inch IPS, PA-11 plastic pipes. These
changes would allow new 2-inch IPS, PA-11 pipeline systems to be
operated up to an allowable design pressure determined by the increased
design factor of 0.40 or 200 psig (1378 kPa), whichever is less. The
design factor and design pressure limits for all other plastic pipes
would remain unchanged.
Arkema asserted in its petition that new PA-11 material will pose
less risk to the public at a design factor of 0.40 than older
thermoplastic piping materials used with a 0.32 design factor. Arkema
also asserted that allowing an increased design pressure will allow gas
companies to replace steel pipeline systems with 2-inch plastic pipe
operating up to 200 psig (1378 kPa), and
[[Page 1309]]
avoid the risk of corrosion failure in steel pipes. A detailed
technical justification, including performance test results for PA-11
pipe and a discussion of its history and use, is provided in the
petitions. This information may be read in docket PHMSA-2005-21305.
Public Comments
On June 22, 2005, PHMSA published a notice in the Federal Register
(70 FR 36093) seeking comments on the Arkema petitions. We received
comments from two operators of PA-11 trial systems, one local gas
distribution company, the Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC), the
American Gas Association (AGA), the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC),
two plastic pipe fitting manufacturers and a plastics pipe consultant.
All commenters supported the Arkema petitions. The ICC recommended that
PHMSA consider requiring additional protection to prevent third-party
damage to higher pressure natural gas lines and suggested adding a
warning tape or other technology to protect these lines during digging.
As a result of the public comments and recommendations made by PHMSA's
staff, Arkema submitted two amended petitions to PHMSA on April 6,
2006. No public comments have been received for or against Arkema's
amended petitions, which are discussed in detail below.
Arkema Amended Rulemaking Petitions
On April 6, 2006, Arkema submitted two amended petitions to PHMSA
to replace the original petitions of October 2004. The new petitions
addressed the public comments received by PHMSA and recommendations
made by PHMSA's staff. In the first amended petition, Arkema requested
an increase in the design factor in Sec. 192.121 from 0.32 to 0.40 for
new PA-11 pipe of all pipe diameters with two conditions. First, the
minimum wall thickness for pipe of a given diameter must be SDR-11 or
thicker. Second, the rapid crack propagation (RCP) characteristics of
each new pipe diameter or thicker wall for an already tested diameter
must be measured using accepted industry standard test methods. Arkema
subsequently notes that since its original petition, industry test
methods, including RCP testing, now have been completed to qualify new
4-inch pipe, which had not been tested at the time of the original
petition. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to update the regulation to allow
the revised design factor for new PA-11 up to 4-inch diameter pipe and
appurtenances.
Arkema's second amended petition requested a revision to Sec.
192.123 to allow the use of PA-11 pipe at a maximum allowable operating
pressure of up to 200 psig (1378 KPa) for SDR-11 pipe at diameters of
up to 4-inch IPS. This request is based on the availability of complete
PA-11 piping systems, results from a three-year research program by the
Gas Technology Institute (GTI) and the successful testing of exhumed
samples from field installations of PA-11. Therefore, PHMSA is
proposing to allow the use of PA-11 pipe at a maximum of 200 psig (1378
kPa). Arkema also supported the ICC recommendation to require warning
tape and included proposed draft rule language in its amended petition
to address this issue.
Polyamide-11 (PA-11) Plastic Piping Research and Evaluation
The GTI sponsored laboratory and field research on PA-11 pipe and
piping systems beginning in the late 1990s. The research was
accomplished by Nicor Technologies (Nicor). Final reports on this
laboratory and field research are in the docket for this rulemaking.
In 1997, Nicor began with laboratory research on the physical,
mechanical, and chemical properties of PA-11 pipe materials. Nicor used
comprehensive laboratory testing and evaluation protocols to examine
PA-11 pipe materials from three individual production samples and
concluded that overall ``the results of the comprehensive short term
and long term testing * * * indicate that PA-11 pipe is a suitable
plastic alternative to steel systems operating at higher pressure and
under exposure to high temperatures for a short period of time.''
Nicor followed up the laboratory research on the properties of PA-
11 pipe materials with additional laboratory and field research on the
economic feasibility of using PA-11 gas distribution piping systems at
higher operating pressures and temperatures than currently permitted
for plastic materials. Nicor performed laboratory tests on numerous PA-
11 fittings and appurtenances. This was followed by the field testing
of a PA-11 trial piping system installed at a Nicor private test site
in Illinois, where Nicor installed approximately 400 feet of PA-11 pipe
using three different installation techniques: Plowing, directional
boring and open trenching. Nicor concluded that the ``results of the
trial installation of PA-11 piping system have successfully
demonstrated that PA-11 piping systems can be safely and effectively
installed at higher operating pressures.''
Nicor used the results of the research on the PA-11 trial system to
petition the ICC and PHMSA for a waiver to install and operate a PA-11
pipeline system at pressures above 100 psig (689 kPa) in Woodstock,
Illinois. The ICC and PHMSA approved the waiver. The pipeline was
installed in December 1999. This has allowed GTI and Nicor to continue
the research on PA-11 piping systems. This final phase allowed the
researchers to evaluate the effects of high operating pressures (150
psig), moisture, aging and other factors on an actual operating natural
gas pipeline system. The study concluded, ``PA-11 has met or exceeded
all of the provisions contained within ASTM D2513-99 [American Society
of Testing Materials, Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Gas
Pressure Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings, D2513-99] Appendix XI for the use
of new materials in underground natural gas distribution
application[s].''
To continue and expand the research on PA-11, GTI solicited several
utilities to participate in field trials across the United States. The
utilities sought and received both Federal and State waivers to allow
some of the PA-11 trial systems to be designed using a 0.40 design
factor in the plastic pipe design formula in Sec. 192.121 and to
operate at pressures above the plastic pipe design limitations in Sec.
192.123. The PA-11 trial systems were installed from December 1999 to
November 2004 in Arizona, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, Tennessee
and Utah in various geographic, climatic and operating temperature and
pressure environments. Three of the trial systems were designed using a
design factor of 0.40. One system was designed using an HDB of 1600
psig at a temperature of 140[deg] F. All the trial systems operate
between 60 psig (413 kPa) and 200 psig (1378 kPa) with half operating
above 175 psig (1206 kPa). The GTI final report on this research,
Utility Participation in PA-11 Evaluation Project, March 2005, is in
the docket for this rulemaking.
The Proposed Rule
Proposed Regulations
PHMSA is proposing to change the design pressure limits in
Sec. Sec. 192.121 and 192.123 for certain PA-11 pipes. The changes
would allow new 4-inch IPS or less, SDR-11, PA-11 pipelines to be
designed using a design factor of 0.40 (in lieu of 0.32) in the plastic
pipe design formulas in Sec. 192.121. The design pressure limit in
Sec. 192.123 would be raised from 100 psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1378
kPa) for new 4-inch IPS or less, SDR-11, PA-11 plastic pipe used in
distribution system pipelines and in pipelines in class 3 and 4
[[Page 1310]]
locations. This would allow design pressures up to the design pressure
calculated in Sec. 192.121 but not greater than 200 psig (1378 kPa).
All other design pressure limitations would remain unchanged.
Basis for Increasing the Design Factor for PA-11 Plastic Pipe
When 49 CFR Part 192 was first promulgated in 1970 there were
multiple design factors for plastic pipe based on the class location in
which the pipeline was installed. They ranged from 0.20 in class 4
locations to 0.32 in class 1 locations. In 1977, the Materials
Transportation Board (MTB) [now PHMSA] proposed a single design factor
within the range of 0.32 to 0.50 to be used in the plastic pipe design
formula in Sec. 192.121 (see 42 FR 8386). This single factor would
allow operators to use the same pipe for identical design pressures
throughout their systems, thus saving the cost of keeping various pipes
and matching components in inventory for different class locations. At
the time of that proposal, some commenters, including the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) suggested that a design
factor of 0.40 be adopted, based on its many years of satisfactory use
prior to adoption of the more conservative factor in Sec. 192.121.
Other commenters favored a single design factor equal to 0.50. This
view was stated for several reasons, but it was based primarily on the
fact that plastic pipe did not have a history of pressure failures.
After considering the several arguments favoring either 0.40 or 0.50, a
0.32 design factor was adopted. The more conservative increment was
chosen to protect against unforeseeable events and has remained in
effect since May 1978.
The 0.32 design factor was accepted as a conservative value based
on the state of plastic pipe technology in 1978. Advances in plastic
pipe technology coupled with the extensive laboratory and field
research on PA-11 by Nicor under the sponsorship of the GTI, provide
sufficient evidence that the design factor can be increased to 0.40 for
certain PA-11 pipes without compromising safety. This evidence includes
the history of the PA-11 trial systems, which have been operating
safely for several years at increased operating pressures. Moreover,
increasing the design factor may allow PA-11 pipe to be used in lieu of
steel pipe in some locations, thereby reducing corrosion, a primary
factor in pipeline failures.
Basis for Increasing the Design Pressure Limit for PA-11 Plastic Pipe
When 49 CFR Part 192 was first promulgated in 1970 the design
pressure limit for plastic pipe used in distribution systems and class
3 or 4 locations was set at 100 psig (689 kPa), which was the design
pressure limit in ANSI B31.8 Standard, Gas Transmission Distribution
and Piping Systems. The design pressure was raised in 2004 for PE 2406
and 3408 thermoplastic pipe because of new developments in polyethylene
materials and better technology for detecting the rate of crack growth,
i.e., slow crack growth.
When PHMSA was considering the pressure limit increase for PE 2406
and PE 3408 thermoplastic pipes, eleven of the commenters on the
proposed new rule agreed the proposed increase in the design pressure
limit was warranted. AGA, for example, noted that modern polyethylene
pipe was already being reliably operated at pressures greater than 100
psig (689 kPa) under waivers granted by State pipeline safety
regulators. AGA further contended that the reliability of newer
polyethylene pipe was supported by laboratory and field analysis of the
long-term hydrostatic strength of the polyethylene materials.
Bay State and Northern Natural Gas, two natural gas distribution
system operators, suggested that the design pressure limit be
established per International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
standards, which allow any design pressure permitted by the measured
HDB. UGI Utilities suggested an even higher maximum allowable pressure.
However, because there was insufficient data to conclude that pipelines
operating at such pressures would operate safely, PHMSA concluded that
prescribing a maximum pressure higher than 125 psig was unsupported at
that time. The design pressure limit for existing pipe and new pipes
other than PE 2406 and PE 3408, such as PA-11, remains at 100 psig (689
kPa).
As explained above, the design pressure of thermoplastic pipe is a
function of the physical dimensions and HDB of the pipe. Therefore, for
plastic pipes of the same physical dimensions, or SDR, the calculated
design pressure is directly proportional to the HDB. PA-11 has an HDB
twice that of PE 2406. Therefore, the design pressure of PA-11
calculated using the plastic pipe design formula in Sec. 192.121 is
twice the design pressure of PE 2406. For SDR-11 pipe, the calculated
design pressure of PA-11 is 160 psig, while the design pressure of PE
2406 is 80 psig. With the current design pressure limit of 100 psig in
Sec. 192.123 for distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations,
however, PA-11 is limited to a design pressure of only 4 percent of its
HDB while the PE 2406 can operate up to 6.4 percent of its HDB. If PE
2406 can safely operate at 6.4 percent of its HDB, 80 psig, then it
stands to reason that PA-11 should also be allowed to operate at 6.4
percent of its HDB, 160 psig, all else being equal.
But all else is not equal. Existing regulations allow certain sizes
of PE 2406 pipes to operate up to 125 psig (10 percent of HDB) in
distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations. For example, a PE
2406, SDR-7 pipeline with a calculated design pressure of 133 psig
could operate up to 125 psig (10 percent of HDB), but a PA-11, SDR-7
pipeline would be limited to 100 psig (4 percent of HDB) in the exact
same application. If the design limits were applied equally based on
the long-term pressure carrying capability of each pipe, the PA-11,
SDR-7 pipeline would be allowed to operate up to 250 psig (10 percent
of HDB).
The proposed regulation would only allow pipelines constructed from
4-inch IPS or less, PA-11, SDR-11 pipe to be operated up to 200 psig (8
percent of HDB). This requires two actions. First, the design factor in
Sec. 192.121 would have to be raised to 0.40, as explained above, so
the calculated design pressure will equal 200 psig (1378 kPa). Second,
the design pressure limit in Sec. 192.123 would have to be raised to
200 psig (1378 kPa) to allow PA-11 pipelines to operate at 200 psig
(1378 kPa) in distribution systems and class 3 or 4 locations. PHMSA
believes these changes would not be inconsistent with pipeline safety
because the HDB of PA-11 is twice that of PE 2406. Moreover, the
extensive laboratory and field research, coupled with the successful
field trial systems, validate that PA-11 pipelines can safely operate
up to 200 psig (1378 kPa).
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Privacy Act Statement
Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received in
response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting
the comment (or signing the comment if submitted for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's (DOT) complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
[[Page 1311]]
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures
This proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and,
therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rulemaking is not significant under the Regulatory
Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11034).
Installing PA-11 is not mandated; it is optional. PHMSA believes
operators may choose to install PA-11 pipe, rather than some other type
of pipe, only if it is the most cost-effective alternative available.
Consequently, PHMSA anticipates that the benefits of this proposal will
equal or exceed its costs. Any gas transmission operators with (or
installing) pipelines in class 3 or 4 locations could potentially be
affected by the proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, all gas distribution
operators could potentially be affected by the proposed rule. In total,
PHMSA estimates that the proposed rule could potentially affect 900 gas
transmission operators and 1,450 gas distribution system operators. The
draft economic evaluation is available for review and comment in the
docket.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA
must consider whether rulemaking actions would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA
estimates that the proposed rulemaking could potentially affect as many
as 479 transmission system operators that are small entities, as well
as 1,131 gas distribution systems that are small entities.
The proposed rule mandates no action by gas pipeline operators.
Rather, it provides operators with an option to use PA-11 pipe in
certain pipeline systems based on economic, operations or other
considerations. Consequently, the proposal imposes no economic burden
on these potentially affected gas pipeline operators. PHMSA concludes
this proposed rulemaking would not have a significant negative economic
impact on any small entity.
Executive Order 13175
PHMSA has analyzed this rulemaking according to Executive Order
13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Because the proposed rule would not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or
impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal does not impose any new information collection
requirements.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rulemaking does not impose unfunded mandates under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the proposed rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking for purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
preliminarily determined the proposed rulemaking may provide minor
beneficial impacts on the quality of the human environment due
primarily to a potential reduction in corrosion leaks if PA-11 pipe is
used to replace steel pipe. The draft environmental assessment is
available for review and comment in the docket. PHMSA will make a final
determination on environmental impact after reviewing the comments on
this proposal.
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA has analyzed the proposed rulemaking according to Executive
Order 13132 (``Federalism''). The proposal does not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. The proposed
rulemaking does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State
and local governments. This proposed regulation would not preempt state
law for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
Executive Order 13211
Transporting gas impacts the nation's available energy supply.
However, this proposed rulemaking is not a ``significant energy
action'' under Executive Order 13211 and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not identified this proposal as a significant
energy action.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192
Gas, Natural gas, Pipelines, Pipeline safety.
For the reasons provided in the preamble, PHMSA proposes to amend
49 CFR Part 192 as follows:
PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60116, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Revise Sec. 192.121 to read as follows:
Sec. 192.121 Design of plastic pipe.
Subject to the limitations of Sec. 192.123, the design pressure
for plastic pipe is determined by either of the following formulas:
P = 2 S t (DF) / (D-t)
P = 2S (DF) / (SDR-1)
Where:
P = Design pressure, gauge, psig (kPa).
S = For thermoplastic pipe, the HDB is determined in accordance
with the listed specification at a temperature equal to 73[deg] F
(23[deg] C), 100[deg] F (38[deg] C), 120[deg] F (49[deg] C), or
140[deg] F (60[deg] C). In the absence of an HDB established at the
specified temperature, the HDB of a higher temperature may be used
in determining a design pressure rating at the specified temperature
by arithmetic interpolation using the procedure in Part D.2 of PPI
TR-3/2004, HDB/PDB/SDB/MRS Policies (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 192.7). For reinforced thermosetting plastic pipe, 11,000 psig
(75,842 kPa).
t = Specified wall thickness, inches (mm).
D = Specified outside diameter, inches (mm).
SDR = Standard dimension ratio, the ratio of the average
specified outside diameter to the minimum specified wall thickness,
corresponding to a value from a common numbering system that was
derived from the American National Standards Institute preferred
number series 10.
D F = 0.32, or = 0.40 for nominal pipe size (IPS) 4 or less,
SDR-11, polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe produced after February 7, 2008
only.
3. Amend Sec. 192.123 to revise paragraph (a) introductory text
and to add a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 192.123 Design limitations for plastic pipe.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) and paragraph (f) of this
section, the design pressure may not exceed a gauge pressure of 100
psig (689 kPa) for plastic pipe used in:
* * * * *
[[Page 1312]]
(f) The design pressure for polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe produced
after February 7, 2008 may exceed a gauge pressure of 100 psig (689
kPa) provided that:
(1) The design pressure does not exceed 200 psig (1378 kPa);
(2) The pipe size is nominal pipe size (IPS) 4-inch or less;
(3) The pipe has a standard dimension ratio of SDR-11 only; and
(4) Pipes with design pressures above 100 psig (689 kPa) shall be
buried with a warning tape or other device sufficient to warn an
excavator of the presence of a high pressure gas line near the tape or
other device before reaching the burial depth of the pipeline.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2007.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-33 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P