{"operation":"document","citation":"76 FR 73570","title":"Pipeline Safety: Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"proposed","official":true,"published_on":"2011-11-29","effective_on":null,"summary":"PHMSA is proposing to make miscellaneous changes to the pipeline safety regulations. The proposed changes would correct errors, address inconsistencies, and respond to rulemaking petitions. The requirements in several subject matter areas would be affected, including the performance of post-construction inspections; leak surveys of Type B onshore gas gathering lines; the requirements for qualifying plastic pipe joiners; the regulation of ethanol; the transportation of pipe; the filing of offshore pipeline condition reports; the calculation of pressure reductions for hazardous liquid pipeline anomalies; and the odorization of gas transmission lateral lines. The proposed changes are addressed on an individual basis and, where appropriate, would be made applicable to the safety standards for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Editorial changes are also included.","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2011-29852.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2011-29852.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2011-29852","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/11/29/2011-29852/pipeline-safety-miscellaneous-changes-to-pipeline-safety-regulations","body":"Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011) [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 73570-73581] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2011-29852] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 191, 192, 195 and 198 [Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0026] RIN 2137-AE59 Pipeline Safety: Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA is proposing to make miscellaneous changes to the pipeline safety regulations. The proposed changes would correct errors, address inconsistencies, and respond to rulemaking petitions. The requirements in several subject matter areas would be affected, including the performance of post-construction inspections; leak surveys of Type B onshore gas gathering lines; the requirements for qualifying plastic pipe joiners; the regulation of ethanol; the transportation of pipe; the filing of offshore pipeline condition reports; the calculation of pressure reductions for hazardous liquid pipeline anomalies; and the odorization of gas transmission lateral lines. The proposed changes are addressed on an individual basis and, where appropriate, would be made applicable to the safety standards for both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Editorial changes are also included. DATES: Submit comments by February 3, 2012. ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0026 and may be submitted in the following ways: E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov . This Web site allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251. Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Instructions: If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided. There is a privacy statement published on http://www.regulations.gov . Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (70 FR 19477), or visit http://dms.dot.gov . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Gale, Director of Standards and Rulemaking by telephone at (202) 366-4046 or by Email at [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background PHMSA is proposing to make miscellaneous changes to the pipeline safety regulations. The proposed changes would be relatively minor, would impose minimal (if any) burden, and would clarify the existing regulations. The following issues are addressed below: [cir] Responsibility to Conduct Construction Inspections [cir] Leak Surveys for Type B Gathering Lines [cir] Qualifying Plastic Pipe Joiners [cir] Mill Hydrostatic Tests for Pipe to Operate at Alternative MAOP [cir] Regulating the Transportation of Ethanol by Pipeline [cir] Limitation of Indirect Costs in State Grants [cir] Transportation of Pipe [cir] Threading Copper Pipe [cir] Offshore Pipeline Condition Reports [cir] Calculating Pressure Reductions for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Integrity Anomalies [cir] Testing Components other than Pipe Installed in Low- Pressure Gas Pipelines [cir] Alternative MAOP Notifications [cir] National Pipeline Mapping System [cir] Welders vs. Welding Operators [cir] Components Fabricated by Welding [cir] Odorization of Gas [cir] Editorial Amendments Responsibility To Conduct Construction Inspections--NAPSR-CR-1-02 Section 192.305 states that each gas transmission line or main must be inspected to ensure that it is constructed in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR part 192. These inspections are important because transmission pipelines and mains are generally buried after construction. Subsequent examinations often involve a difficult excavation process. The National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) \\1\\ has suggested that the current regulation should be changed to require a greater degree of independence. Specifically, NAPSR believes that contractors who install a transmission line or main should be prohibited from inspecting their own work for compliance purposes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ NAPSR is a non-profit organization of state pipeline safety personnel who serve to promote pipeline safety in the United States and its territories. Its membership includes the staff manager responsible for regulating pipeline safety from each state that is certified to do so or conducts inspections under an agreement with DOT in lieu of certification. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHMSA agrees with NAPSR. Section 192.305 does not prohibit a contractor who installs a transmission line or main from inspecting their own work; that lack of independence raises public safety concerns. PHMSA believes the same concerns apply to non-contractor pipeline personnel as well. Accordingly, PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec. 192.305 to specify that a transmission pipeline or main cannot be inspected by someone who participated in its construction. Section 195.204 imposes a similar construction inspection requirement for hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA has proposed to make the same rule change applicable to Sec. 195.204. Leak Surveys for Type B Gathering Lines In March 2006 (71 FR 13289), PHMSA established a new method for determining whether a gas pipeline is an ``onshore gathering line.'' PHMSA also imposed new safety standards for ``regulated onshore gathering lines,'' which divided regulated onshore gathering lines into two risk-based categories. Type A gathering lines are metallic lines with a MAOP of 20% or more of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS), as well as nonmetallic lines with an MAOP of more than 125 psig, in a Class 2, 3, or 4 location. These lines are subject to all of the requirements in Part 192 that apply to transmission lines, except for the regulation that requires the accommodation of in-line inspection tools in the design and construction of certain new and replaced pipelines (49 CFR 192.150) and [[Page 73571]] the integrity management requirements of Part 192, Subpart O. Operators of Type A gathering lines are also permitted to use an alternative process for demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Part 192, Subpart N, Qualification of Pipeline Personnel. Type B gathering lines includes metallic lines with a MAOP of less than 20% of SMYS, as well as nonmetallic lines with a MAOP of 125 psig or less, in a Class 2 location (as determined under one of three formulas) or in a Class 3 or Class 4 location. These lines are subject to less stringent requirements than Type A gathering lines. Specifically, any new or substantially changed Type B line must comply with the design, installation, construction, and initial testing and inspection requirements for transmission lines and, if of metallic construction, the corrosion control requirements for transmission lines. Operators must also include Type B gathering lines in their damage prevention and public education programs, establish the MAOP of those lines under 49 CFR 192.619, and comply with the requirements for maintaining and installing line markers that apply to transmission lines. NAPSR notes that the current regulations do not require leak surveys of Type B gathering lines. NAPSR states that gas leaks are the primary hazard from low-stress pipelines, including Type B gathering lines, and that leak detection is a necessary risk-management measure. NAPSR further notes that 49 CFR 192.706 requires leak surveys of transmission lines at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, and more frequently in densely populated areas. NAPSR believes that operators of Type B gathering lines should be subject to the same requirements. NAPSR notes that operators had to perform leak surveys of non-rural gas gathering lines prior to the March 2006 final rule. NAPSR also states that some Type B gathering lines are located under broad paved areas where electrical surveys (another means of detecting pipe damage) may be difficult to perform and leaking gas could migrate under the pavement and accumulate in surrounding structures. NAPSR believes that leak detection surveys should be required to ensure the safety of these lines. PHMSA agrees. Leak surveys are an effective means of ensuring the integrity of low-stress pipelines. Accordingly, this proposed rule would require operators of Type B gathering lines to perform leak surveys in accordance with Sec. 192.706. III. Qualifying Plastic Pipe Joiners Section 192.285 contains requirements for qualifying persons to make joints in plastic pipe. Under Sec. 192.285(c), ``[a] person must be re-qualified under an applicable procedure, if during any 12-month period that person: (1) Does not make any joints under that procedure; or (2) Has three joints or three percent of the joints made, whichever is greater, under that procedure that are found unacceptable by testing under Sec. 192.513.'' NAPSR (2008-03-AC-1) has two concerns with the current requirements. First, NAPSR states that many operators are required to perform requalification on a less than 12-month period to ensure that joiners are not disqualified. According to NAPSR, this leads to a regressing requalification schedule (i.e., scheduling requalification for a period less than 12 months) and occasionally requires tests at times that are not advantageous from a cost and quality standpoint. NAPSR notes that most of the periodic requirements in 49 CFR part 192 avoid this problem by providing flexibility in the performance interval, such as requiring actions annually not to exceed 15 months. NAPSR suggests that the same flexibility be applied to plastic pipe joiner qualification. NAPSR's second concern is with the number of unacceptable joints permitted under the current regulation. NAPSR notes that the installation of proper joints is important to ensuring the safety of plastic pipelines, and that allowing a joiner with a demonstrated inability to join pipe to continue to engage in that activity is inconsistent with pipeline safety. NAPSR suggests that the current requirement should be revised to require requalification of a joiner if any production joint is found unacceptable by the required testing. PHMSA agrees with NAPSR in both respects. Accordingly, the proposed rule would revise Sec. 192.285 to provide greater scheduling flexibility and require requalification of a joiner if any production joint is found unacceptable. Mill Hydrostatic Tests for Pipe To Operate at Alternative MAOP Section 192.112 specifies additional design requirements for new or existing pipeline segments to qualify for the alternative MAOP permitted under 49 CFR 192.620. PHMSA is proposing to revise paragraph (e)(1) of Sec. 192.112 by eliminating the allowance for combining loading stresses imposed by pipe mill hydrostatic testing equipment for the required mill hydrostatic test. Mill hydrostatic testing is used to ensure that new pipe has adequate strength. Section 192.112 applies to pipe that will operate at the higher stresses allowed under the alternate MAOP. Therefore, it is important that adequate strength be assured. During the 2008 construction season, PHMSA identified a number of cases where new pipe did not meet its specified strength requirements. Eliminating the allowance to combine equipment loading stresses will have the effect of increasing the internal test pressure for mill hydrostatic tests for new pipe to be operated at alternate MAOP. When combined with pipe mill dimensional checks for expansion, that change will help assure that all new pipes for this service receive an adequate mill test and have adequate strength. Regulating the Transportation of Ethanol by Pipeline On August 10, 2007, (72 FR 45002; Docket number PHMSA-2007-28136) PHMSA published a policy statement and request for comment on the transportation of ethanol, ethanol blends, and other biofuels by pipeline. PHMSA noted in the policy statement that the demand for biofuels was projected to increase in the future as a result of several Federal energy policy initiatives, and that the predominant modes for transporting such commodities (i.e., truck, rail, or barge) would expand over time to include greater use of pipelines. PHMSA also stated that ethanol and other biofuels are substances that ``may pose an unreasonable risk to life or property'' within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 60101(a)(4)(B) and accordingly these materials constitute ``hazardous liquids for purposes of the pipeline safety laws and regulations. PHMSA went on to say that the agency was considering a possible modification to Sec. 195.2 to include ethanol and biofuels in the definition of hazardous liquid. PHMSA invited comment on that proposal and other issues related to the transportation of biofuels by pipeline. Nine organizations submitted comments. Two trade associations concerned with hazardous liquid pipeline issues (American Petroleum Institute and Association of Oil Pipelines) submitted joint comments. Two associations dedicated to the use of bio-fuels (National Biodiesel Board and Renewable Fuels Association) submitted separate comments. Two standards developing organizations (American Society of Mechanical Engineers and National Fire Protection Association), one state pipeline safety regulator (Iowa Utilities Board), NAPSR, and one [[Page 73572]] biofuels producer (Imperium Renewables, Inc.) also submitted comments. All of the commenters agreed that the transportation of biofuels by pipeline is likely to increase in the future, and that pure ethanol should be classified as a hazardous liquid under the Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). However, several commenters stated that a similar classification was not warranted for pure biodiesel, which has chemical properties that are different from ethanol. Most of the comments on the transportation of biodiesel focused on biodiesel- petroleum blends. As explained in the August 2007 policy statement, the transportation of biodiesel-petroleum blends is already subject to the Pipeline Safety Laws and Regulations, because petroleum and petroleum products are both defined as hazardous liquids. PHMSA is proposing to modify its definition of hazardous liquid to include ethanol. Such a change would make clear that the transportation of pure ethanol by pipeline is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR part 195. Operators are reminded that biodiesel-petroleum and ethanol- petroleum blends are already subject to those regulations. Though PHMSA is not revising its August 10, 2007 policy statement, PHMSA is deferring a final decision on whether the definition of a hazardous liquid in 49 CFR 195.2 should be revised to include pure biodiesel. In its August 2007 policy statement, PHMSA also requested comment on whether research and development would be appropriate to support the transportation of biofuels by pipeline and for efforts to assure appropriate emergency response to pipeline accidents involving biofuels. PHMSA will consider comments in these areas in a separate proceeding. Limitation of Indirect Costs in State Grants PHMSA reimburses the states for a portion of the costs accrued in administering their pipeline safety programs, and Congress appropriates the funds used to make these reimbursements on a regular basis. The Pipeline Inspection Protection Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES Act) removed a provision that imposed a 20% cap on indirect expenses allocated to the pipeline safety program grants. PHMSA believes that the amount of state pipeline safety grants which may be allocated to indirect expenses should be limited. Such a limitation ensures that grant funds are used principally for functions that serve directly to support implementing a pipeline safety oversight program. Accordingly, PHMSA proposes to incorporate the 20% limitation on indirect expenses into the regulations governing grants to state pipeline safety programs. Transportation of Pipe Section 192.65 states that pipe having a diameter-to-wall-thickness ratio of 70 to 1, or more, must be transported in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practices 5L1. An exception is provided for certain pipe transported before November 12, 1970. That exception allows operators to use pipe stockpiled prior to the effective date of the original pipeline safety regulations, the transportation of which cannot be verified under API standards. During its investigation of a July 2002 pipeline incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the growth of a fatigue crack, introduced to the pipe due to inadequate loading during transportation, was a causal factor in the pipe failure. NTSB recommended that PHMSA revise its regulations to require that the transportation of all pipe be subject to the referenced API standards. PHMSA agrees with NTSB's recommendation and proposes to delete the exclusion in Sec. 192.65(a)(2). The amount, if any, of pipe transported prior to November 12, 1970, which remains in operator stockpiles is likely to be very small. Therefore, this change will have minimal impact on pipeline operators. Threading Copper Pipe Section 192.279 specifies when copper pipe may be threaded and refers to Table C1 of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) ASME/ANSI B16.5. In a letter dated June 11, 2009, the Gas Piping Technology Committee (GPTC) advised PHMSA that Table C1 was deleted in the most recent version of the ASME/ANSI B16.5, which is incorporated into 49 CFR part 192 by reference. GPTC stated that the information in Table C1 was taken from a different ASME standard, ASME B36.10M, ``Standard for Welded and Seamless Wrought Steel Pipe,'' and that this standard should be substituted as a more appropriate reference. PHMSA agrees with GPTC and is proposing to incorporate the suggested reference to ASME B36.10M in Sec. 192.279. Offshore Pipeline Condition Reports In a December 1991 final rule (56 FR 637770-637771), PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), complied with a statutory mandate in Public Law 101-599 (Nov. 16, 1990) by establishing new requirements for pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) and its inlets. Specifically, RSPA promulgated Sec. Sec. 192.612(a) and 195.413(a), which required each operator to conduct an underwater inspection of all of those lines after October 3, 1989, and before November 16, 1992. RSPA also issued Sec. Sec. 191.27 and 195.57, which required operators to submit a report to RSPA within 60 days of completing those inspections. In an August 2004 final rule (69 FR 48400), RSPA amended Sec. Sec. 192.612(a) and 195.413(a) to require each operator to prepare and follow written procedures for identifying any shallow-water pipelines in the Gulf and its inlets that could be exposed or present a hazard to navigation. RSPA also amended the other provisions in Sec. Sec. 192.612 and 195.413 to require operators to conduct appropriate periodic inspections of those pipelines, and to take steps to promptly report, mark, and rebury any line found to be exposed or a hazard to navigation. RSPA did not repeal or modify the reporting requirements in Sec. Sec. 191.27 or 195.57. Sections 192.612(a) and 195.413(a) no longer require operators to perform an underwater inspection of all pipelines in the Gulf and its inlets. See also Public Law 102-508 (Oct. 24, 1992) (modifying statutory mandate for underwater inspection, reporting, and reburial of pipelines in the Gulf and its inlets). Rather, those regulations only call for periodic, risk-based inspections of shallow-water pipelines. The filing of a written report within 60 days of completing all of those inspections is not consistent with such a regime. Sections 192.612(c) and 195.413(c) also require operators to file a written report with the National Response Center within 24 hours of discovering that a pipeline in those areas is exposed or a hazard to navigation. That reporting requirement is sufficient to meet PHMSA's current information collection needs. Accordingly, PHMSA is proposing to repeal Sec. Sec. 191.27 and 195.57. Calculating Pressure Reductions for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Integrity Anomalies Section 195.452(h)(4)(i) specifies the actions that an operator of hazardous liquid pipelines must take after discovering an immediate repair condition. One of those actions is a temporary reduction in operating pressure as determined under the formula provided in section 451.6.2.2(b) of ASME/ANSI B31.4. The particular focus of that pressure reduction formula [[Page 73573]] is corrosion. However, corrosion is only one of the threats that could cause an immediate repair condition under Sec. 195.452(h)(i). PHMSA sought to modify Sec. 195.452(h)(4)(i) in a July 17, 2007, final rule (72 FR 39017) to provide for alternative methods of calculating a pressure reduction for immediate repair conditions caused by threats other than corrosion. The Office of the Federal Register was unable to incorporate that change due to inaccurate amendatory instructions. PHMSA is again revising Sec. 195.452(h)(4)(i) as part of this rule to make the same change as published in the July 17, 2007, final rule with corrected amendatory instructions. Testing Components Other Than Pipe Installed in Low-Pressure Gas Pipelines Section 192.505 specifies strength test requirements for steel pipe to operate at a hoop stress of 30 percent or more of SMYS. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 192.505 provides an exception if a component other than pipe is the only item being replaced or added. It states that a post- installation strength test is not required if the manufacturer certifies that the component was tested to at least the pressure required for the pipeline to which it is being added, manufactured under a quality control system that assures adequate strength, or carries a pressure rating established through applicable ASME/ANSI, MSS specifications or by unit strength calculations. A similar exception is not provided if a component other than pipe is the only item being replaced or added to steel pipeline systems that operate at less than 30 percent of SMYS (Sec. Sec. 192.507 and 192.509), service lines (Sec. 192.511), or plastic pipelines (CFR 192.513). In a letter dated March 25, 2010, GPTC petitioned PHMSA to create such an exception by repealing paragraph (d) of Sec. 192.505 and adding that provision to Sec. 192.503, which imposes general requirements applicable to testing all gas pipelines. GPTC argued that the primary purpose of a post-installation strength test is to prove the integrity of the entire pipeline system. GPTC further noted that the most important parts of a single-component replacement to be checked are the joints that connect the component to the pipeline, and that these joints are currently exempted from testing for all gas pipelines by paragraph (d) of Sec. 192.503. These joints are also required to be leak tested at operating pressure, a requirement that would not be changed by GPTC's petition. If a component other than pipe is the only item being replaced or added to a low-stress steel line, a service line, or a plastic pipeline and the manufacturer of the component provides the certification required under Sec. 192.505(d), PHMSA agrees that a strength test after installation is not necessary to ensure public safety. Such testing must necessarily be performed prior to installation and not as part of a test of the overall pipeline system. PHMSA proposes to grant the GPTC petition as part of this rulemaking by deleting paragraph (d) of Sec. 192.505 and adding that provision as a new paragraph (e) to Sec. 192.503. Alternative MAOP Notifications Section 192.620(c)(1) requires an operator to notify PHMSA, and in some instances the appropriate State authority, upon electing to establish a higher alternative MAOP. Such notification must be provided at least 180 days prior to commencing operations at the alternative MAOP. The 180-day allowance provides PHMSA and state regulators with sufficient time to conduct any needed inspections, including checks of the manufacturing process, visits to the pipeline construction sites, analysis of operating history of existing pipelines, and review of test records, plans, and procedures. Operators are expected to provide PHMSA's regional offices with notice of planned alternative MAOP design and operations as early as practical, and prior to the start of pipe manufacturing and/or construction activities. Such notification avoids unnecessary delays in PHMSA's review of applicable procedures, specifications, manufacturing of pipe and external coating, field construction activities, operations & maintenance plans, and all other required documentation. Consistent with that practice, PHMSA is proposing to revise Sec. 192.620 to require that operators notify PHMSA field offices 180 days prior to pipe manufacturing and/or construction activities. PHMSA is also proposing to revise Sec. 192.620(c)(8) to correct a typographical error related to the reference to Sec. 192.611(a). National Pipeline Mapping System The National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) is a geospatial dataset that contains information about PHMSA-regulated gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines, and hazardous liquid low-stress gathering lines. The NPMS also contains data layers for all liquefied natural gas plants and a partial dataset of PHMSA-regulated breakout tanks. The NPMS project began in 1998 and data submission became mandatory as a result of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. Operators are currently required to make a submission to the NPMS once every 12 months, or to notify NPMS staff if there were no changes during that time. An NPMS submission consists of geospatial data, attribute data and metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter. These requirements and acceptable formats are explained in full in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual ( http://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Operator_Standards.pdf ). PHMSA is seeking to improve its ability to compare Annual Report statistics with NPMS data. This will aid PHMSA in accurately portraying our nation's pipeline transportation network, allocating its resources, achieving the goal of becoming a data-driven organization, and conducting operator compliance efforts. The ability to accurately identify and track operators' physical assets is beneficial to PHMSA, pipeline operators, and all stakeholders who utilize such data, and ultimately helps promote pipeline safety. Section 60132 of the Pipeline Safety Laws requires pipeline operators to make a submission to the NPMS once every 12 months, or to notify the NPMS if there were no changes from the previous submission. To ensure that all operators are complying with this requirement, PHMSA proposes to add an NPMS submission requirement to the Code of Federal Regulations. In an Advisory Bulletin issued on July 31, 2008, PHMSA requested that operators submit their NPMS data concurrently with hazardous liquid and gas transmission annual report submissions. Annual reports are due on March 15 each year for gas transmission operators and on June 15 for LNG plant operators. Annual reports represent assets as of December 31 of the previous year. In an advisory bulletin issued on May 17, 2011, PHMSA temporarily extended those timelines for the 2010 calendar year for the owners and operators of gas transmission and gathering lines, hazardous liquid lines, and LNG facilities to account for recent revisions to the agency's reporting forms. Toward these ends, PHMSA proposes to: 1. Require operators to follow the submission rules and dates set forth in the July 31, 2008, Advisory Bulletin. Gas transmission operators and LNG plant operators will make their NPMS submissions on or before March 15, representing assets as of December 31 of the previous year. Hazardous liquid operators will make their NPMS [[Page 73574]] submissions on or before June 15, representing assets as of December 31, of the previous year. To expedite processing, PHMSA urges operators to submit their NPMS data as early in the year as possible. A rulemaking published on November 26, 2010, requires operators to use the same Operator ID number (OPID) for the same asset for all PHMSA reporting requirements. Therefore, an OPID used in an annual report submission must match the same asset described in an NPMS submission. 2. Codify the statutory requirement for submission of NPMS data in 49 CFR parts 192, 193, and 195. An NPMS submission consists of geospatial data, attribute data and metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter. For information about acceptable submission formats and the components of each element, refer to the latest edition of the NPMS Operator Standards Manual. Incomplete submissions, or submissions in unacceptable formats, will be deemed noncompliant with this regulation. Welders vs. Welding Operators The use of mechanized and automatic welding has become more common in pipeline construction, and the operators of such equipment must be qualified to ensure their work meets pipeline safety standards. The requirements for welders and welding operations are prescribed in subpart D, Construction, of 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. Welding operators of mechanized and automatic welding equipment have never been specifically addressed in those regulations. The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) Section IX defines a welder as ``[o]ne who performs manual or semi-automatic welding.'' and a welding operator as ``[o]ne who operates machine or automatic welding equipment.'' Moreover, both the ASME BPVC Section IX and API 1104 have specific processes for the qualification of welding operators and automatic welding equipment. PHMSA's expectations of qualified personnel are consistent with the requirements in these two standards. PHMSA is proposing to add a reference to these requirements in the applicable sections of subpart D in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 to clarify the qualification standards for welding operators. This change will not affect the current industry practice; rather, it addresses the distinction between welders and welding operators and the specific qualification requirements under the current standards incorporated by reference in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. Those standards are designed to ensure that qualified personnel are used for welding processes whether they are performed by welders or welding operators. Components Fabricated by Welding Pressure vessels can be found in meter stations, compressor stations, and other pipeline facilities to facilitate the removal of liquids and other materials from the gas stream. These vessels are designed, fabricated, and tested in accordance with the requirements of ASME BPVC Section VIII, as required by Sec. 192.153 and Sec. 192.165(b)(3), and the additional test requirements of Sec. 192.505(b). However, the pressure test requirements in ASME BPVC Section VIII were lowered from a test factor of 1.5 to 1.3 by an earlier edition of the ASME BPVC than the edition which is currently incorporated by reference. This revision created a difference in pressure testing requirements of the ASME BPVC from the test requirements of Sec. 192.505(b), which requires a test factor of 1.5 times MAOP for meter and compressor stations, as well as any other Class 3 location. PHMSA has not reduced the testing requirements of these vessels and they must be tested to at least the pressure required for the pipeline to which they are being added. Because the standard ASME pressure vessel test in ASME BPVC Section VIII is 1.3 times MAOP, an operator must specify the correct test pressure when placing an order for an ASME vessel to ensure it is designed and tested to the requirements of 49 CFR part 192. Unless a vessel is special ordered with a test pressure of 1.5 times MAOP prescribed by the purchaser, the vessel will be tested in accordance with the standard test factor of 1.3. If the vessel is not tested to 1.5 times MAOP, it cannot be used in a compressor or meter station, or other Class 3 location. The failure to meet this requirement can potentially lead to exceeding the design parameters of the vessel during subsequent testing of the pipeline system. A clarification is being added to Sec. 192.153 as a new paragraph (e) to clearly specify the design and test requirements for pressure vessels in meter stations, compressor stations, and other locations that are tested to Class 3 requirements. All ASME pressure vessels subject to Sec. 192.153 and Sec. 192.165(b)(3) must be designed and tested at a pressure that is 1.5 times MAOP, in lieu of the standard ASME BPVC Section VIII test pressure of 1.3 times MAOP. Additionally, Sec. 192.165(b)(3) is being revised to refer the reader to this requirement. This is not a change to the pressure testing requirements, as the requirements found in part 192 have not changed. This clarification is made to ensure a clear understanding of PHMSA's pressure testing requirements for certain ASME BPVC vessels in compressor and meter stations, and other Class 3 locations. Odorization of Gas Transmission Lateral Lines Section 192.625 contains requirements for operators to odorize combustible gas in a transmission line in Class 3 or Class 4 locations, ``so that at a concentration in air of one-fifth of the lower explosive limit, the gas is readily detectable by a person with a normal sense of smell.'' Certain exceptions are recognized by regulation, including for a lateral line ``which transports gas to a distribution center, [if] at least 50 percent of the length of that line is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location.'' Section 192.625 does not specify a clear method for calculating the length of a lateral line, and that has led to inconsistency in applying the odorization requirement. To address that concern, PHMSA proposes to amend Sec. 192.625(b)(3) to state that the length of a lateral line for purposes of calculating whether at least 50 percent is in a Class 1 or Class 2 location is measured between the distribution center and the first upstream connection to the transmission line. Editorial Amendments In this NPRM, PHMSA is also proposing to make the following editorial amendments to the pipeline safety regulations: (1) In Sec. 195.571, to revise the reference to NACE Standard on Cathodic Protection as Incorporated by Reference in Sec. 195.3. (2) In Sec. 195.3B(9), to amend ANSI/API Recommended Practice 651 to show the correct source and reference material as Sec. Sec. 195.565 and 195.573(d). (3) In Sec. 195.2, to amend the definition of ``Alarm'' to correct an error in the codification of the new control room management regulations (74 FR 63310). (4) In Sec. Sec. 192.925(b) and (b)(2), to replace ``indirect examination'' with ``indirect inspection'' to maintain consistency with Sec. 192.925(a) and the applicable NACE standard. (5) In Sec. 195.428(c), to replace ``Sec. 5.1.2'' with ``Sec. 7.1.2'' to correctly reference the overfill protection requirements for aboveground breakout tanks in the 2010 edition of API Standard 2510, which is now incorporated by reference (see Sec. 195.3). [[Page 73575]] Regulatory Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This proposed rule 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 rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' In this notice, PHMSA is proposing to amend miscellaneous provisions to clarify and eliminate unduly burdensome requirements. PHMSA is also responding to requests from industry and State pipeline safety representatives to revise its regulations. PHMSA anticipates the proposals contained in this rule will have economic benefits to the regulated community by increasing the clarity of its regulations and reducing compliance costs. 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 is proposing to make miscellaneous changes to the pipeline safety regulations. Description of the Reasons That Action by PHMSA Is Being Considered PHMSA, pipeline operators, and others have identified certain errors, inconsistencies, and deficiencies in the Pipeline Safety Regulations concerning the following subjects: (1) Performance of post- construction inspections; (2) leak surveys of Type B onshore gas gathering lines; (3) the requirements for qualifying plastic pipe joiners; (4) the transportation of ethanol by pipeline; (5) the transportation of pipe; (6) the filing of offshore pipeline condition reports; (7) the calculation of pressure reductions for hazardous pipeline anomalies; and (8) the odorization of gas transmission lateral lines. PHMSA wishes to address these issues. Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule Under the pipeline safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., the Secretary of Transportation must prescribe minimum safety standards for pipeline transportation and for pipeline facilities. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the PHMSA Administrator. 49 CFR 1.53(a). The proposed rule would effect changes in the regulations consistent with the protection of persons and property, while changing unduly burdensome or nonsensical requirements. Description of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply In general, the proposed rule will apply to pipeline operators, some of which may qualify as a small business as defined in Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Some pipelines are operated by jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000 people, and thus qualifying as small governmental jurisdictions. Some portions of the rule apply to manufacturers of pipeline components, as well as the contractors constructing or repairing a pipeline. Many of these concerns may qualify as a small business concern. Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Rule, and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report or Record The propose","truncated":true,"body_characters":78311}