28770 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations (c) The authorized bandwidth for emission type F3E transmitted by a FRS unit is 12.5 kHz. 10. Newly redesignated § 95.633 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 95.633 Unwanted radiation. * * * * * (b) The power of each unwanted emission shall be less than TP as specified in the applicable paragraph: Applicable paragraphs Transmitter Emission type GMRS ........................
of 17
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  28770 Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 110/Thursday, June 6, 1996/Rules and Regulations (c) The authorized bandwidth foremission type F3E transmitted by a FRSunit is 12.5 kHz.10. Newly redesignated §95.633 isamended by revising paragraph (b) toread as follows: §95.633Unwanted radiation. * * * * *(b) The power of each unwantedemission shall be less than TP asspecified in the applicable paragraph: TransmitterEmission typeApplicableparagraphsGMRS....................................................A1D, A3E, F1D, G1D, F3E, G3E with filtering....................................................(1), (3), (7)A1D, A3E, F1D, G1D, F3E, G3E without filtering...............................................(5), (6), (7)H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E.........................................................................(2), (4), (7)FRS.......................................................F3E with filtering..................................................................................................(1), (3), (7)Note: Filtering refers to the requirement in §95.635(b) R/C:27 MHz band.........................................As specified in §95.629(b)..................................................................................(1), (3), (7)72–76 MHz band...................................As specified in §95.629(b)..................................................................................(1), (3), (7), (10), (11),(12)CB..........................................................A1D, A3E.............................................................................................................(1), (3), (8), (9)H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E.........................................................................(2), (4), (8), (9)A1D, A3E type accepted before September 10, 1976........................................(1), (3), (7)H1D, J1D, R1D, H3E, J3E, R3E type accepted before September 10, 1986....(2), (4), (7) * * * * *11. Newly redesignated §95.635 isamended by revising paragraph (a) toread as follows: §95.635Modulation standards. (a) A GMRS transmitter that transmitsemission types F1D, G1D, or G3E mustnot exceed a peak frequency deviationof plus or minus 5 kHz. A GMRStransmitter that transmits emission typeF3E must not exceed a peak frequencydeviation of plus or minus 5 kHz. A FRSunit that transmits emission type F3Emust not exceed a peak frequencydeviation of plus or minus 2.5 kHz, andthe audio frequency response must notexceed 3.125 kHz .* * * * *12. Newly redesignated §95.637 isamended by adding a new paragraph (d)to read as follows: §95.637Maximum transmitter power. * * * * *(d) No FRS unit, under any conditionof modulation, shall exceed 0.500 Weffective radiated power (ERP).13. Newly redesignated §95.645 isrevised to read as follows: §95.645FRS unit and R/C transmitterantennas.  The antenna of each FRS unit, and theantenna of each R/C station transmittingin the 72–76 MHz band, must be anintegral part of the transmitter. Theantenna must have no gain (ascompared to a half-wave dipole) andmust be vertically polarized.14. Newly redesignated §95.647 isrevised to read as follows: §95.647Power capability. No CB or R/C station transmitter orFRS unit shall incorporate provisionsfor increasing its transmitter power toany level in excess of the limit specifiedin §95.637.15. Newly redesignated §95.649 isrevised to read as follows: §95.649Crystal control required. All transmitters used in the PersonalRadio Services must be crystalcontrolled, except an R/C station thattransmits in the 26–27 MHz frequencyband, and a FRS unit.16. Appendix 1 to Subpart E isamended by adding the definition for‘‘FRS’’, in alphabetical order, to read asfollows: Appendix 1 To Subpart E-Glossary of Terms * * * * * FRS. Family Radio Service. * * * * * [FR Doc. 96–14140 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONResearch and Special ProgramsAdministration49 CFR Part 192 [Docket PS–124; Amdt. 192–76]RIN 2137–AC25 Regulatory Review; Gas PipelineSafety Standards AGENCY : Research and Special ProgramsAdministration (RSPA), DOT. ACTION : Final rule. SUMMARY :  This final rule changesmiscellaneous gas pipeline safetyregulations to provide clarity, eliminateunnecessary or burdensomerequirements, and foster economicgrowth. The changes result from acomprehensive review of the regulationsRSPA has completed under PresidentClinton’s Regulatory ReinventionInitiative to reduce the burden of government regulations. The changesare intended to reduce the costs of compliance without compromisingsafety. EFFECTIVE DATE :  This final rule iseffective July 8, 1996. The incorporationby reference of certain publicationslisted in the regulations is approved bythe Director of the Federal Register as of  July 8, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : A.C. Garnett, (202) 366–2036, or L. M.Furrow, (202) 366–4559, regarding thesubject matter of this amendment, or theDockets Unit, (202) 366–5046 regardingcopies of this amendment or othermaterial in the docket. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Background Early in 1992, RSPA began anextensive review of the federal gaspipeline safety regulations (49 CFR part192) and invited the public toparticipate (57 FR 4745, Feb. 7, 1992). The review was to see what changeswere necessary to provide clarity,eliminate unnecessary or overlyburdensome requirements, and fostereconomic growth. As a result of thereview, RSPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM),proposing changes to 38 regulations inpart 192 (Notice 1; 57 FR 39572, Aug.31, 1992). Then the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives(NAPSR) reported on a separate butrelated review of part 192. RSPA hadasked NAPSR to identify regulations inpart 192 that may not assure safety or  28771 Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 110/Thursday, June 6, 1996/Rules and Regulations that may be hard to enforce. Because theNAPSR report concerned a few of theregulations covered by the NPRM andhad similar goals, we published thereport and requested public commenton its various recommended rulechanges (Notice 2; 58 FR 59431, Nov. 9,1993). At the same time, we announcedthat in developing final rules under theNPRM, we would consider commentson any NAPSR recommendations thataddressed the same issues as the NPRM. The period for public comment on theNAPSR recommendations was extended90 days until April 11, 1994 (Notice 3;58 FR 68382, Dec. 27, 1993).Later on, President Clinton launchedthe Regulatory Reinvention Initiative(memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies; March 4,1995), which, among other things,directed DOT and other Federalagencies to review and revise existingregulations to remove unnecessary orburdensome requirements. Today’spublication of this Final Rule is a majorstep in carrying out that directive withrespect to DOT’s pipeline safetyregulations. Advisory Committee  The Technical Pipeline SafetyStandards Committee (TPSSC),consisting of 15 members, wasestablished by statute to consider thefeasibility, reasonableness, andpracticability of proposed pipelinesafety regulations. In developing thefinal regulations, RSPA considered allfinal TPSSC votes and comments on theNPRM, including minority positions. Amore detailed consideration of the TPSSC action is contained in thefollowing section-by-section discussionof comments. A record of the TPSSCdeliberation is available in the docket. Discussion of Comments RSPA received comments on theNPRM from 36 pipeline operators, 9pipeline-related associations, 1 stateagency, and 8 other commenters. Morecommenters submitted views on theNAPSR recommendations: 58 pipelineoperators, 10 pipeline-relatedassociations, 4 state agencies, and 5other commenters. The following discussion ondevelopment of the final rules explainshow we treated TPSSC positions,comments on the NPRM, and commentson NAPSR recommendations related toNPRM proposals (§§192.3, 192.475,192.485, and 192.607). We appreciatethe comments on NAPSRrecommendations that were not relatedto NPRM proposals. They will help usdecide appropriate responses to thoserecommendations in an action separatefrom this rulemaking. Small Gas Systems.  The NPRMinvited comments on the idea of whether RSPA should develop separate,more appropriate safety standards forsmall gas distribution systems. Suchsystems include master meter systemsand petroleum gas systems servingmobile home or apartment complexes.Although TPSSC did not address thismatter, RSPA received comments fromtwo pipeline operators, one stateagency, and one mobile homeassociation. The state agency said that itis not clear that separate regulations arerequired. This commenter suggestedthat a less complicated remedy might beto excerpt those portions of theregulations specifically applicable tosmall operators (deleting, for example,sections applicable to transmissionlines) and publish the result as a guideor as instructional material. Three commenters supported theneed for more appropriate standards forsmall gas distribution systems. A mobilehome association endorsed the idea of developing standards for small gasdistribution systems, such as master-meter systems serving mobile homeparks, and publishing the standards asa new part of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The mobile homeassociation commented that if it werenot for the Guidance Manual forOperators of Small Gas Systemspublished by RSPA, the average mobilehome park operator would havedifficulty determining whichregulations in part 192 apply to master-meter systems.RSPA believes that each of thesuggestions has merit and will be usefulin developing future pipeline safetyagendas. Section 192.1, Scope of Part  Section 192.1(b)(1) excepts from thescope of part 192 certain gathering lineson the outer continental shelf (OCS), butdoes not except similar gathering lineslocated in State offshore waters. Section192.1(b)(1) reads as follows: ‘‘This partdoes not apply to * * * (o)ffshoregathering of gas upstream from theoutlet flange of each facility on the outercontinental shelf where hydrocarbonsare produced or where producedhydrocarbons are first separated,dehydrated, or otherwise processed,whichever facility is fartherdownstream.’’ Because RSPA treats OCSand State offshore gathering alike underpart 192, we proposed to delete thephrase ‘‘on the outer continental shelf’’so the exception would cover offshoregathering no matter where located. Wealso proposed to replace ‘‘offshoregathering of gas’’ with ‘‘offshorepipelines,’’ recognizing that theexcepted pipelines may be eitherproduction or gathering lines. Twelve TPSSC members voted for theproposal, two supported it butrecommended a change, one memberopposed it, and one abstained. Therecommended change was that‘‘gathering of gas’’ should be retained in§192.1(b)(1), since proposed §192.9refers to gathering under §192.1.We did not adopt the TPSSCminority’s recommended changebecause the excepted pipelines locatedupstream from the referenced offshorefacilities may be either production linesor gathering lines. Also, the term‘‘offshore pipelines’’ was used in asimilar revision of 49 CFR 195.1(b)(5)that we made to clarify the jurisdictionof the hazardous liquid pipelineregulations over offshore pipelines(Docket PS–127; 59 FR 33388; June 28,1994). As discussed below under the§192.9 heading, §192.9 has alreadybeen revised to cross-reference §192.1.Since the cross- reference does not referspecifically to gathering lines, deletingthe words ‘‘gathering of gas’’ from§192.1(b)(1) should not hinder theunderstanding of §192.9.RSPA received 14 comments on theproposed rule change, nine fromoperators, four from pipeline-relatedassociations, and one from a stateagency. None of these commentsopposed the proposal to change§192.1(b)(1). Section 192.3, Definitions  1. Petroleum Gas. A revised definitionof ‘‘petroleum gas’’ is discussed belowunder the §192.11 heading.2. Secretary.  The proposed revision of the definition of ‘‘Secretary’’ is nolonger needed. Because the term‘‘Secretary’’ is not used in part 192, thedefinition of ‘‘Secretary’’ was removedfrom §192.3 in an earlier rulemaking(59 FR 17281; April 12, 1994).3. Transmission Line. A longstandingRSPA interpretation holds that thedefinition of ‘‘transmission line’’ in§192.3 encompasses lines that linkgathering lines or transmission lines tolarge volume customers, such asfactories or power plants. Thisinterpretation was founded on thedefinition of ‘‘transmission line’’ in the1968 edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers [ASME] B31.8Code. This code, which was thecornerstone of part 192, definedtransmission to end at large volumecustomers. RSPA proposed to codify theinterpretation by restating the definitionof ‘‘transmission line’’ under part 192 to  28772 Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 110/Thursday, June 6, 1996/Rules and Regulations include a ‘‘large volume customer’’ asan end point of transmission.Eleven TPSSC members voted for theproposal, three supported it with arecommended change, and oneabstained. The members whorecommended a change thought thatRSPA should define ‘‘large volumecustomer.’’ As discussed further below,the final definition includes anexplanation of this term. Twenty-six entities commented on theNPRM proposal, including 19 pipelineoperators, five pipeline-relatedassociations, one state agency, and oneindustrial consumer. Of thesecommenters, only eight expressedunqualified support. Three commenterscompletely opposed the proposal,saying it was not needed or wouldcreate confusion.RSPA continues to believe that theproposed change is needed. The presentdefinition does not reflect RSPA’sinterpretation that the term‘‘transmission line’’ includes pipelinesthat connect large volume customers togathering or transmission lines.Nine commenters thought theproposed definition would reclassify astransmission those pipelines thatconnect large volume customers to highpressure distribution lines. RSPA didnot intend for the proposed change toalter the classification of distributionlines that supply large volumecustomers. To avoid this unintendedoutcome, the definition explicitly doesnot include lines serving large volumecustomers downstream from adistribution center.Four commenters said that thevolume of gas transported is not anappropriate indicator of transmission. This group suggested that engineeringcharacteristics, such as high pressure,stress level, or connection to a pressurelimiting station are more indicative of transmission than the volume of gastransported. However, the purpose of the transmission proposal was not toopen discussion on whether volume isan appropriate indicator of transmission. The purpose was torecognize that, by interpretation of thepresent definition, volume already is anestablished indicator of transmission,and that the interpretation should becodified. None of the commenterschallenged the correctness of theinterpretation. Moreover, beforepublishing the proposed definition, wereferred to the 1992 edition of the ASMEB31.8 Code, a widely recognized code of voluntary standards for gas piping.Section 803.21 of the ASME B31.8 Code(1992 edition) defined ‘‘transmissionline’’ as ‘‘pipe installed for the purposeof transmitting gas from a source orsources of supply to one or moredistribution centers or to one or more large volume customers ***’’(emphasis added). And this definition isthe same in the current 1995 edition of the code. Given our longstandinginterpretation and the ASME B31.8Code definition, we find it reasonable toadd ‘‘large volume customer’’ to thedefinition of transmission line asproposed. Three commenters wanted RSPA todefine ‘‘large volume customer.’’ Weagree that an explanation of ‘‘largevolume customer’’ would make the finaldefinition more precise. Thus, we addeda statement to the final definition toexplain that ‘‘large volume customer’’includes factories, power plants, andinstitutional users of gas.We did not specify a minimumvolume of gas a pipeline must transportto a customer to qualify as transmission.Volumes vary, and setting an arbitrarythreshold might unfairly reclassify someexisting lines. However, since ‘‘largevolume customer’’ and ‘‘distributioncenter’’ each mark the end of transmission under the definition,operators may use the volume of gassupplied to distribution centers as aguide to identifying large volumecustomers. The NAPSR report recommendedchanging the part 192 definition of ‘‘transmission line’’ so that pipelinesbeginning at gathering or transmissionlines and ending at ‘‘distributionsystems and other load centers’’ wouldbe classified as transmission lines.Under this alternative wording, loadcenters conceivably would include largevolume customers.Most of the persons who commenteddirectly on this NAPSRrecommendation opposed it. A primaryobjection was that the recommendeddefinition would needlessly reclassifyas transmission low stress pipelinesbetween communities or betweendistribution systems and high pressuretransmission lines. In this regard, manycommenters felt transmission should belimited to pipelines that operate at 20percent or more of specified minimumyield strength (SMYS) of pipe, one of the characteristics under the presentdefinition. The lack of definition of theterm ‘‘load center’’ was anotherfrequently stated reason for opposingthe NAPSR recommendation.Commenters argued that introducingthis term into the definition would leadto more, not less, confusion. Alsoseveral commenters thought thedefinition of transmission line shouldremain unchanged until RSPAcompletes its project to redefine theterm ‘‘gathering line,’’ which appears inthe transmission line definition. Afterconsidering these concerns, we agreethat the NAPSR recommendation wouldnot strengthen the present definitionand could cause reclassification of manylines. Therefore, we did not adopt therecommendation in the final definition. Section 192.5, Class Locations  RSPA proposed to clarify §192.5 tominimize the possibility that a pipelineis classified higher than required.Inasmuch as part 192 regulationsbecome more stringent as pipelineclassification increases, any over-classification results in needlessexpenditures.Fourteen TPSSC members voted forthe proposal and one abstained. Eightoperators and one pipeline-relatedassociation commented on the proposedchange. While these commentersgenerally supported the need to clarify§192.5, two operators suggestedalternative wording. Based on onesuggestion, RSPA has combinedproposed §§192.5 (c)(2) and (c)(3) intofinal §192.5(c)(2).One focus of the NPRM was thecluster exception in existing§§192.5(f)(2) and (f)(3). This exceptionprovides that if a cluster of buildingsintended for human occupancy requiresa Class 2 or 3 location, the classificationends 220 yards from the nearestbuilding in the cluster, rather than at theend of the 1-mile class location unit thatwould otherwise be the basis forclassification. In the NPRM (at 39573),we stated that adding buildings outsidea cluster to those inside the clusterwould result in over-classification of theclass location unit. However, thisstatement was incorrect. The history of §192.5 (35 FR 13251, August 19, 1970)shows that the cluster exception appliesonly when all buildings in a 1-mile classlocation unit are in a single cluster. If aclass location unit contains buildingsoutside a cluster or more than onecluster of buildings, all buildings in theunit must be counted to determine theclassification of the unit. The final ruleclarifies this point. The association that commentedthought we should define the term‘‘cluster.’’ However, the term is used inits ordinary dictionary sense, and, inRSPA’s experience, has not been asignificant source of misunderstanding. Section 192.7, Incorporation by Reference  Section 192.7 describes theincorporation by reference in part 192 of documents or portions of documentsrelevant to gas pipeline safety. RSPAproposed to revise §192.7(a) to clarifythat when a regulation in part 192  28773 Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 110/Thursday, June 6, 1996/Rules and Regulations references a document, the entiredocument is not necessarilyincorporated by reference. Rather, onlythose portions of the document that arespecifically referenced in the regulationor are essential for compliance with theregulation are incorporated by reference.Such portions may or may not comprisethe whole document, depending on thescope of the reference.Fourteen TPSSC members voted forthe proposal and one abstained.Commenters on the proposed change,seven operators and one pipeline-related association, all favored theproposal. However, two of thesecommenters wanted RSPA to change therule in a manner not proposed. Theyadvised changing §192.7 to requireoperators to follow the latest publishededitions of documents, instead of particular editions, which can becomeobsolete before RSPA updates thereferences. RSPA believes thisrecommended action is inappropriatebecause it would hand over anestablished governmental function,rulemaking, to the private organizationswho produce the referenced documents.Each newly published edition wouldautomatically change a pipeline safetyrule and bypass the Federal rulemakingprocess, which ensures fair treatment of all affected parties. Section 192.9, Gathering Lines  When the NPRM was published,§192.9 required gathering lines tocomply with part 192 standardsapplicable to transmission lines withoutindicating that certain gathering linesare excepted from part 192 by §192.1. To highlight this exception and providea clear understanding of whichgathering lines must meet transmissionline standards, we proposed to cross-reference §192.1 in §192.9. Thirteen TPSSC members voted forthe proposal and two abstained. RSPAreceived seven comments on theproposed change, six from operators andone from a pipeline-related association.Only one commenter opposed theproposal, saying it did not see how thechange would clarify the present rule. Then in 1994, in a separate, unrelatedaction concerning the passage of pigs,RSPA revised §192.9 to include a cross-reference to §192.1 (59 FR 17281, April12, 1994). Thus, §192.9 has alreadybeen changed consistent with theproposal in this proceeding, and nofurther action is necessary. Section 192.11, Petroleum Gas Systems (Including Changes to §§192.1 and 192.3)  RSPA proposed several changes to thespecial rules in §192.11 for petroleumgas systems: First, we proposed torequire that peak shaving plantssupplying petroleum gas by pipeline toa natural gas distribution system as wellas pipeline systems transporting onlypetroleum gas or petroleum gas/airmixtures comply with part 192standards and the National FireProtection Association (NFPA)Standards 58 and 59. Downstream fromthe point where a peak shaving plantinjects petroleum gas into a natural gasdistribution system, only part 192would apply. Next, we proposed thatthe NFPA Standards prevail in the eventof a conflict between part 192 and NFPAStandards 58 or 59. At the same time,we said that a conflict does not existwhen NFPA Standards 58 and 59 aresilent or nonspecific on a subject (suchas for corrosion protection or leakdetection). In this case, the operatorwould have to comply with anyapplicable part 192 rule. Finally, weproposed to add a definition of ‘‘petroleum gas’’ to §192.3, and toclarify under §192.1(b)(4) whichpetroleum gas systems are exceptedfrom part 192. Ten TPSSC members voted for theproposal, one member supported it witha recommended change, three membersopposed it, and one abstained. Two TPSSC members disagreed with theproposal that NFPA standards shouldprevail in the event of a conflict withpart 192. One TPSSC member voted yes,but recommended that in the event of conflict the most stringent requirementshould prevail.We explained in the NPRM why webelieve the NFPA standards should havepriority in direct conflict situations. Themain reason is that in contrast to part192, the NFPA Standards specificallycover petroleum gas transportation.Also, NFPA Standards 58 and 59 reflectcurrent petroleum gas technology andsafety practices. Given this specialattention to petroleum gas, we do notthink there is sufficient reason torequire operators to follow part 192instead of the NFPA Standards in theevent of conflict, even if part 192 ismore stringent.RSPA received eight comments infavor and three comments in oppositionto the proposed changes to §192.11. Those commenters who opposed theproposal were concerned thatcompliance with NFPA Standards 58and 59 would involve significant capitalexpenditures. However, §192.11 alreadyrequires petroleum gas systems to meetNFPA Standards 58 and 59. And, inaccordance with 49 U.S.C. §60104(b),none of the design, installation,construction, initial testing, or initialinspection requirements of NFPAStandards 58 and 59 would apply underpart 192 to peak shaving plants now inexistence. So, retrofitting existing plantswould not be required. Although allplants would have to comply with theoperation and maintenancerequirements of NFPA Standards 58 and59, overall compliance costs should besmall because, as NFPA stated in itspetition, most, if not all, existing plantsalready comply with NFPA Standards58 and 59 to qualify for insurancecoverage. Thus, §192.11 is revised asproposed in the NPRM.Proposed §192.1(b)(4)(i) wouldexclude from part 192 pipeline systemsthat transport only petroleum gas orpetroleum gas/air mixtures to fewerthan 10 customers, if no portion of thesystem is located in a public place. Thisexclusion is in the present §192.11(a),but in proposing to relocate it to§192.1(b)(4)(i), we omitted theparenthetical phrase ‘‘(such as ahighway).’’ One commenter objected tothe omission, saying it would leave themeaning of ‘‘public place’’ open tointerpretation. However, our experiencehas been that the parenthetical phrasehas hindered more than helped theunderstanding of public place. We haveconsistently interpreted ‘‘public place’’to mean a place which is generally opento all persons in a community asopposed to being restricted to specificpersons. We consider churches, schools,and commercial property as well as anypublicly owned right-of-way or propertywhich is frequented by persons to bepublic places. Although §192.11(a)refers to a highway as an example of apublic place, many operators haveincorrectly considered the example torestrict, rather than define, the coverageof petroleum gas systems with fewerthan 10 customers.Proposed §192.1(b)(4)(ii) wouldclarify that part 192 does not apply tosingle-tank, single-customer petroleumgas systems located entirely on thecustomer’s premises, but partially in apublic place. These systems exist, forexample, at churches or restaurants,where the gas is used for heating orcooking. The proposal was based on the jurisdiction of part 192 over thedistribution of gas. As indicated by thedefinition of ‘‘service line’’ (§192.3),part 192 does not apply to gasdistribution beyond the point wheremetered gas enters customer piping. Forsingle-tank, single-customer systems onthe customer’s premises, this pointnormally occurs at the tank. Three commenters protested that part192 would still apply to single-customer, multi-tank systems on thecustomer’s premises, regardless of tanksize. For example, the proposed rule
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks