# Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** 80 FR 39916
- **title:** Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes
- **source type:** rulemaking
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** proposed
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2015-07-10
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** PHMSA is proposing amendments to the pipeline safety regulations to address requirements of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Act), and to update and clarify certain regulatory requirements. Among other provisions, PHMSA is proposing to add a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents and incidents and add provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of certain new projects, for the renewal of expiring special permits, and for submitters of information to request PHMSA keep the information confidential. We are also proposing changes to the operator qualification (OQ) requirements and drug and alcohol testing requirements and incorporating consensus standards by reference for in-line inspection (ILI) and Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2015-16264.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2015-16264.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2015-16264
- **source url:** https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/07/10/2015-16264/pipeline-safety-operator-qualification-cost-recovery-accident-and-incident-notification-and-other
**body:**

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015) [Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 39916-39939] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2015-16264] [[Page 39915]] Vol. 80 Friday, No. 132 July 10, 2015 Part III Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, et al. Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes; Proposed Rule Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 132 / Friday, July 10, 2015 / Proposed Rules [[Page 39916]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199 [Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0163] RIN 2137-AE94 Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Proposed Changes AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA is proposing amendments to the pipeline safety regulations to address requirements of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Act), and to update and clarify certain regulatory requirements. Among other provisions, PHMSA is proposing to add a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents and incidents and add provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of certain new projects, for the renewal of expiring special permits, and for submitters of information to request PHMSA keep the information confidential. We are also proposing changes to the operator qualification (OQ) requirements and drug and alcohol testing requirements and incorporating consensus standards by reference for in-line inspection (ILI) and Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA). DATES: Submit comments by September 8, 2015. ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0163 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: 202-493-2251. Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 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 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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: Tewabe Asebe by telephone at 202-366- 5523 or by email at [email protected] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action (Statement of Need) The purpose of this proposed rulemaking action is to strengthen the Federal pipeline safety regulations, and to address sections 9 and 13 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (2011 Act). The proposal associated with section 9 would limit the accident and incident reporting requirements to within one hour. PHMSA expects that quicker accident and incident reporting would lead to a safety benefit to the public, the environment, and limit property damage. The proposal associated with section 13 would allow PHMSA to recover its costs for design review work PHMSA would conduct on behalf of the operators, which would allow PHMSA to use its limited resources in protecting the public safety. PHMSA is also proposing to expand the existing Operator Qualification (OQ) scope to cover new construction and certain other currently uncovered tasks, require operators use trained and qualified individuals when performing new construction work, and add program effectiveness requirements for operators to gauge the effectiveness of the OQ programs. PHMSA believes that requiring operators to use trained and qualified individuals would decrease human errors. PHMSA is also proposing to provide a renewal procedure for expiring special permits and proposing other minor and administrative changes. The proposed changes are listed in detail below: Specifying an operator's accident and incident reporting time to not later than one hour after confirmed discovery and requiring revision or confirmation of initial notification within 48 hours of the confirmed discovery of the accident or incident; Setting up a cost recovery fee structure for design review of new gas and hazardous liquid pipelines with either overall design and construction costs totaling at least $2,500,000,000 or that contain new and novel technologies; Expanding the existing Operator Qualification (OQ) scope to cover new construction and previously excluded operation and maintenance tasks, addressing the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) recommendation to clarify OQ requirements for control rooms, and extending the requirements to operators of Type A gathering lines in Class 2 locations and Type B onshore gas gathering lines; Providing a renewal procedure for expiring special permits; Excluding farm taps from the requirements of the Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) requirements while proposing safety requirements for the farm taps; Requiring pipeline operators to report to PHMSA permanent reversal of flow that lasts more than 30 days or a change in product (e.g., from liquid to gas, from crude oil to highly volatile liquids (HVL)); Providing methods for assessment tool selection by incorporating consensus standards by reference in part 195 for stress corrosion cracking direct assessment (SCCDA) that were not developed when the Integrity Management (IM) regulations were issued; Requiring electronic reporting of drug and alcohol testing results in part 199; Modifying the criteria used to make decisions about conducting post-accident drug and alcohol tests and requiring operators to keep for at least three years a record of the reason why post- accident drug and alcohol test was not conducted; Adding a procedure to request PHMSA keep submitted information confidential; Adding reference to Appendix B of API 1104 related to in- service welding in parts 192 and 195; and Aaking minor editorial corrections. [[Page 39917]] B. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 Several of the proposed changes would address sections 9 and 13 of the 2011 Act, which was signed into law on January 3, 2012. (Pub. L. 112-90). Section 9 of the 2011 Act requires PHMSA to specify a time limit for telephonic or electronic reporting of pipeline accidents and incidents. Section 13 of the 2011 Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60117) allows PHMSA to prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology to recover costs associated with design reviews. C. Costs and Benefits PHMSA has estimated annual compliance costs at $3.1 million; less savings to be realized from the removal of farm taps from the DIMP requirements. Annual safety benefits cannot be quantified as readily due to data limitations, but are expected to be $1.6 million per year in avoided incident costs, plus numerous intangible benefits from the improved clarity and consistency of regulations and required post- incident drug and alcohol test decision justification. Although the quantified benefits do not exceed the estimated costs, PHMSA believes that these non-quantified benefits are significant enough to outweigh the costs of compliance. PHMSA believes that updating regulations, providing clarification, and providing methods for assessment tools by incorporating consensus standards all help to improve compliance with pipeline safety regulations and to reduce the likelihood of a serious pipeline incident. In particular, proposed operator qualification provisions ensure that pipeline construction personnel and operations and maintenance personnel have the appropriate skills for the functions they are performing. This would reduce the likelihood of human error- related incidents. At an annual compliance cost of $3.1 million, the proposed changes would be cost effective if they prevented a single fatal incident over a three-year period. I. Accident and Incident Notification Summary This proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal pipeline safety regulations to require operators to provide telephonic or electronic notification of an accident or incident at the earliest practicable moment, including the amount of product loss, following confirmed discovery. Background PHMSA requires pipeline owners and operators to notify the National Response Center (NRC) by telephone or electronically at the earliest practicable moment following discovery of an incident or accident (Sec. Sec. 191.5 and 195.52). In an advisory bulletin published on September 6, 2002; 67 FR 57060, PHMSA advised owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities that reporting at the earliest practicable opportunity usually means one to two hours after discovery of the incident. Justification for the Recommended Change On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed into law the 2011 Act. Section 9 of the 2011 Act directs PHMSA to require pipeline operators to make incident/accident telephonic notifications at the earliest practicable moment following confirmed discovery of an accident or incident and not later than 1 hour following the time of such confirmed discovery. PHMSA proposes to revise the pipeline safety regulations to require operators to provide telephonic or electronic notification of an accident or incident at the earliest practicable moment, including the amount of product loss, following the confirmed discovery of an accident or incident, but not later than one hour following the time of such confirmed discovery. Further, we are proposing to require operators to revise or confirm that initial notification within 48 hours of confirmed discovery of the accident or incident. Prompt reporting of a pipeline incident to the NRC is crucial to Federal investigators' ability to investigate and resolve pipeline safety concerns. Once a report is made, investigators must decide at the outset whether a full Federal investigation is necessary. Failure to report promptly hinders the decision making process and could jeopardize the outcome of any subsequent investigation and threaten public safety. Delays in reporting caused by an operator waiting until the operator definitely determines an event meets the reporting criteria would defeat a fundamental purpose of the 2011 Act, which is to give PHMSA and other agencies the earliest opportunity to assess whether an immediate response to a pipeline incident is needed. As demonstrated by PHMSA's past enforcement actions, ``discovery'' has been evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances. Because the statute requires reporting after ``confirmed discovery,'' PHMSA proposes to define the term in Sec. Sec. 191.3 and 195.2 as ``when there is sufficient information to determine that a reportable event has occurred even if an evaluation has not been completed.'' After a more thorough investigation, the operator can submit more detailed information in the written incident report. This policy of erring on the side of caution ensures that delays in reporting incidents would be avoided. PHMSA seeks comment on the proposed definition of ``confirmed discovery'' and how it would affect operators in their evaluation of an incident or accident. In particular, PHMSA is interested in alternative definitions of ``confirmed discovery'' (e.g., if an operator were to receive two different notifications that validate each other) and the advantages the alternative definitions have over the proposed definition. II. Cost Recovery for Design Reviews Summary This proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal pipeline safety regulations to prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology for recovering costs associated with design reviews of new gas and hazardous liquid pipelines with either overall design and construction costs totaling at least $2,500,000,000 or that contain new and novel technologies. Background Section 13 of the 2011 Act allows PHMSA to prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology to recover costs associated with any project with design review and construction costs totaling at least $2,500,000,000 and for new or novel technologies or design, as determined by the Secretary. PHMSA issued guidance in January 2013, on its Web site to clarify the meaning of the term ``new or novel technologies or design'' as meaning, ``any products, designs, materials, testing, construction, inspection, or operational procedures that are not addressed in title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 192, 193, or 195 due to technology or design advances and innovation.'' PHMSA developed this definition to include any technologies that are developed or have existed and are being adopted widely due to developments other than technology or innovation. Justification for the Recommended Changes PHMSA conducts facility design safety reviews in connection with [[Page 39918]] proposals to construct, expand, or operate gas or hazardous liquid pipelines or liquefied natural gas pipeline facilities. Reviews include design, construction, and operational inspections and oversight. These reviews divert a significant amount of PHMSA's limited resources from the agency's pipeline safety enforcement responsibilities. While PHMSA's pipeline account is funded entirely by user fees on the pipeline industry, PHMSA does not currently recover costs incurred specifically while conducting these reviews for pipeline operators. Section 13 of the 2011 Act permits PHMSA to require the entity or individual proposing the project to pay the costs incurred by PHMSA relating to such reviews. Historically, PHMSA's pipeline safety costs associated with new pipeline design and construction reviews and inspections have been paid for through Pipeline User Fee collections. As major pipeline construction projects increase, PHMSA's inspection hours and costs have increased on major projects, diverting resources away from other Agency priorities. In this NPRM PHMSA is taking the first step in proposing to exercise the cost recovery authority described in Section 13(a) of the 2011 Act by prescribing a fee structure and assessment methodology that is based on the costs of providing these reviews that are initiated by the pipeline operator. However, in terms of budgetary scoring, Section 13 allows for the collection of the fee as a mandatory receipt. However, the Administration would like to use these fees as an offset for discretionary spending, and as such, PHMSA has proposed that appropriations language in the last several Budgets to make this a discretionary offsetting fee. Neither the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 nor the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 enacted language that would make this a discretionary offsetting fee. Hence, PHMSA is proposing this portion of the ANPRM under the assumption that Congress will enact a revision to make this a discretionary offsetting fee before PHMSA would issue a final rule to implement the fee. PHMSA believes that a review of a large project or new technology that has safety benefits in quality control would drain the agency's resources without any cost recovery mechanism. PHMSA has developed a sample master cost recovery agreement that would be used between PHMSA and the applicant for a project proposal meeting the criteria of proposed 49 CFR part 190, subpart D requirements. The sample master cost recovery agreement will be posted on PHMSA's Web site and in Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0163. A master cost recovery agreement would include at a minimum: (1) Itemized list of direct costs to be recovered by PHMSA; (2) Scope of work for conducting the facility design safety review and an estimated total cost; (3) Description of the method of periodic billing, payment, and auditing of cost recovery fees; (4) Minimum account balance which the applicant must maintain with PHMSA at all times; (5) Provisions for reconciling differences between total amount billed and the final cost of the design review, including provisions for returning any excess payments to the applicant at the conclusion of the project; (6) A principal point of contact for both PHMSA and the applicant; (7) Provisions for terminating the agreement; and (8) A project reimbursement cost schedule based upon the project timing and scope. III. Operator Qualification Requirements Summary This proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 relative to operator qualification requirements. The amendments would include: Expanding the scope of OQ requirements to cover new construction and certain previously excluded operation and maintenance tasks, extending the OQ requirements to operators of Type A gas gathering lines in Class 2 locations, Type B onshore gas gathering lines, and regulated rural hazardous liquid gathering lines, requiring a program effectiveness review, and adding new recordkeeping requirements. The proposed changes would enhance the OQ requirements by clarifying existing requirements and addressing NTSB recommendation to extend operator qualification requirements to control center staff involved in pipeline operational decisions (Safety Recommendation P-12-8). Background Sections 101 and 201 of the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-561; October 31, 1988) authorize PHMSA to require all individuals responsible for the operation and maintenance of pipeline facilities to be tested for qualifications and to be certified to perform such functions. PHMSA published a final rule on August 27, 1999; 64 FR 46853 for the qualification of pipeline personnel. 1. Public Meeting Over 650 individuals from various stakeholder groups attended PHMSA's public meeting on OQ History and Milestones in January 2003 in San Antonio, Texas to discuss gaps between the OQ rule and actual operations in the field. 2. ASME Standard ASME standard, ASME B31Q (``Pipeline Personnel Qualification'') was revised in October 2010, to address many OQ issues identified at the public meeting. An OQ team reviewed the standard in detail and determined that while the standard provided detailed guidance in most areas, PHMSA should instead amend the current regulation to address areas that had not been addressed in the revised ASME standard.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The OQ team consists of members from PHMSA and several State pipeline safety agencies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. NTSB Recommendation The NTSB issued the following safety recommendation to PHMSA on July 25, 2012, (P-12-8): Extend operator qualification requirements in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 195 Subpart G to all hazardous liquid and gas transmission control center staff involved in pipeline operational decisions. Although our existing Control Room Frequently Asked Questions (B.01, B.03 & B.05) ( http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/crm/faqs.htm ) all touch on the topic of supervisors or others intervening in control room operations, there are no specific OQ program requirements. Therefore, PHMSA is proposing explicit control room team training requirement for all individuals who would be reasonably expected to interface with controllers during normal, abnormal or emergency situations in Sec. Sec. 192.631(h) and 195.446(h). 4. Gathering Lines PHMSA issued a final rule on March 15, 2006; 71 FR 13289 that revises the methodology used to identify regulated onshore gas gathering lines and implemented a tiered compliance approach to address potential risk. In a final rule issued on June 3, 2008; 73 FR 31634, PHMSA defined the criteria to identify a regulated onshore hazardous liquid gathering line. In both instances, PHMSA allowed a modified approach for recordkeeping, requiring only a description of the processes used to [[Page 39919]] qualify personnel instead of a description of qualification methods for each individual who is allowed to perform tasks on Type A gas gathering lines in Class 2 locations or regulated hazardous liquids gathering lines in rural locations. PHMSA has determined that this approach fails to ensure that individuals possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the actual work. Additionally, in the March 2006 rulemaking, PHMSA subjected operators of Type B onshore gas gathering lines to a very limited set of required compliance activities, excluding and OQ requirements. Having a properly trained and qualified workforce is necessary and paramount to perform work on any category of pipeline and to solidify a consistent application of OQ across all sectors of pipeline transportation. 5. Control Room Team Training NTSB issued the following safety recommendation to PHMSA on July 25, 2012, (P-12-7): Develop requirements for team training of control center staff involved in pipeline operations similar to those used in other transportation modes. Although not an explicit requirement, a number of the sections in the Control Room Management regulations, along with the inspection guidance and related Frequently Asked Questions, already touch on the concept of team training for control room personnel and others who would likely work together as a team during normal, abnormal, and emergency situations. PHMSA believes a requirement for control room team training would better prepare all individuals who would be reasonably expected to interface with controllers (control room personnel) during normal, abnormal or emergency situations. While the CRM regulations call out certain specific individuals such as controllers, supervisors, and field personnel, understanding of the requirements of CRM and appropriate training is essential for other individuals that interact with controllers, particularly those that may affect the ability of a controller to safely monitor and control the pipeline during normal, abnormal, and emergency situations. Other individuals to which team training might pertain likely vary by operator and control room depending on specific procedures and roles in the control room, but they could include individuals such as technical advisors, engineers, leak detection analysts, and on-call support. These individuals are typically already trained in their specific job function and have some awareness of the roles and responsibilities of controllers. In many cases, they are also included in discussions or meetings that involve control room personnel. However, these individuals may not always get together to be trained on how to work together as a team. Therefore, as recommended by NTSB, PHMSA is proposing to require control room team training in Sec. Sec. 192.631(h) and 195.446(h). Justification for the Proposed Changes The industry standard, ASME B31Q, Pipeline Personnel Qualification, defines covered task as ``those tasks that can affect the safety or integrity of the pipeline''. The current rule is not prescriptive and the resulting flexibility built into the performance-based rule makes it difficult to measure operator's compliance with the rule. Under the current regulation, a covered task is an activity, defined by the operator that meets the 4- part test: (1) Is performed on a pipeline facility; (2) Is an operations or maintenance task; (3) Is performed as a requirement of this part; and (4) Affects the operation or integrity of the pipeline. Many of the pipeline safety regulations are performance based, rather than prescriptive requirements. The OQ regulations require operators to identify covered tasks for all of their operations and maintenance activities that are required by parts 192 and 195, regardless of whether such activities arise from performance-based regulations or from more prescriptive requirements. It's the operator's responsibility to identify their unique and specific tasks and terminology in both their operations and maintenance documentation, as well as ensure these tasks are covered tasks in the Operator Qualification Program. Many O&M tasks (part 2 of the 4-part test) that an operator performs are not specifically called out in the regulation (part 3 of the 4-part test). Performance based tasks may include activities, such as those involved in making repairs (while repairs are called out as a requirement of the regulations, specific terminology such as mud plugging, pipefitting, installing Clockspring, etc. associated with making repairs is not). Making pipeline repairs in a safe manner involves myriad tasks that may vary from one job to another and from one operator to another. While the current performance based regulations provide flexibility for each operator to identify those particular repair tasks, the proposed rule to define covered tasks is clearer and helps to eliminate confusion over whether performance based tasks are ``performed as a requirement of this part.'' Most of the proposed OQ changes are not significant because the existing sections are renumbered or combined with other sections. However, this proposed rule includes two new requirements: (1) Includes OQ requirements for new constructions by changing the Scope; and (2) adds a new program effectiveness requirement to ensure that operators complete a review of the effectiveness of their OQ program. PHMSA's proposed changes to the OQ rule at parts 192 and 195 are as follows: 1. Change the scope of the OQ rule in Sec. Sec. 192.801 and 195.501 to revise the method of determining a ``covered task.'' Instead of determining a covered task by the ``4-part test,'' PHMSA is proposing to define a covered task as any maintenance, construction or emergency response task the operator identifies as affecting the safety or integrity of the pipeline facility. The ``4-part test'' omitted important tasks, such as all construction tasks on new pipelines and certain operation and maintenance tasks. 2. Update the ``General'' sections of Sec. Sec. 192.809 and 195.509 to remove the implementation dates that no longer affect the implementation requirements for operators. In addition, after they are updated Sec. Sec. 192.809 and 195.509 are renumbered as Sec. Sec. 192.805 and 195.505. 3. Change the requirements in Sec. Sec. 192.805 and 195.505 by adding new definitions, deleting an obsolete date for training requirements and clarify the need for training individuals performing covered tasks. Additionally, we are adding a new requirement for evaluators of individuals performing covered tasks, including training requirements for new construction tasks as the current OQ requirements do not include new construction tasks. 4. Add a ``Program Effectiveness'' requirement at Sec. Sec. 192.807 and 195.507 to ensure that operators complete a review of the effectiveness of their OQ program. The review would include ensuring that procedures that were amended have been captured in the necessary portions of the OQ program. 5. Add record requirements in Sec. Sec. 192.809 and 195.509 that are normally reviewed during the inspection of OQ programs and are necessary to provide a thorough overview of an OQ program. The additional records would include records that document evaluators' performance and program effectiveness. 6. Add a new paragraph (b)(5) to Sec. Sec. 192.631 and 195.446 to require each [[Page 39920]] operator to define the roles and responsibilities and qualifications of others who have the authority to direct or supersede the specific technical actions of controllers. PHMSA believes this change would reinforce that operators need to declare the roles, responsibilities, and qualifications of all others who, at times, could intervene in control room operations. 7. Add a new subparagraph in the ``Qualification Program'' sections as Sec. Sec. 192.805(b)(7) and 195.505(b)(7) proposing requirements addressing management of change and the communication of those changes. This proposed section would ensure that weaknesses of a program are found and corrections are made with notification to those affected, and 8. Modify Sec. Sec. 192.9 and 195.11 to require operators to establish and administer an OQ program covering personnel who perform work on Type A gas gathering lines in Class 2 locations, regulated Type B onshore gas gathering lines and regulated hazardous liquids gathering lines in rural locations. IV. Special Permit Renewal Summary This proposed rulemaking action would amend Sec. 190.341 of the Federal pipeline safety regulations to add procedures for renewing a special permit. Background and Justification As defined in Sec. 190.341(a), a special permit is an order by which PHMSA waives compliance with one or more of the pipeline safety regulations if it determines that granting the permit would ``not be inconsistent with pipeline safety.'' Special permits are authorized by statute in 49 U.S.C. 60118(c), and the application process is set forth in Sec. 190.341. PHMSA performs extensive technical analysis on special permit applications and typically conditions a grant of a special permit on the performance of alternative measures that would provide an equal or greater level of safety. PHMSA is committed to public involvement and transparency in special permit proceedings and publishes notice of every special permit application received in the Federal Register for comment. In the past, PHMSA has included an expiration date for certain special permits depending on the nature of the permit. By doing so, PHMSA is able to ensure that these special permits will be reviewed again no later than the expiration date. This process ensures that a special permit will not continue to be used if it is no longer in the best interest of public safety. PHMSA is proposing to add a renewal procedure to the pipeline safety regulations for those Special Permits that have expiration dates. This special permit renewal procedure will ensure the permit conditions are still valid for the pipeline and if changes and updates are required to maintain safety and the environment. V. Farm Taps Summary This proposed rulemaking action would amend the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR part 192 to add a new Sec. 192.740 to cover regulators and overpressure protection equipment for an individual service line that originates from a transmission, gathering, or production pipeline (i.e., a farm tap), and to revise Sec. 192.1003 to exclude farm taps from the requirements of the Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP). Background On October 29, 2012, PHMSA received a request from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), asking if PHMSA covers the farm tap issue on the upcoming miscellaneous issue rulemaking. In addition, PHMSA received a February 15, 2013, written letter from the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) requesting an exemption of farm taps from the DIMP requirements as follows: The letter requested PHMSA to take the following actions relative to the applicability of DIMP to ``Farm Taps'': 1. Amend the applicable part 192 sections to exempt those pipelines commonly referred to as ``farm taps'' (a term originating from industry jargon) from the requirements of Subpart P, Gas Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management; and 2. Amend part 192 to include periodic inspection requirements in a new section covering ``pressure regulating and over-pressure-relief equipment'' on a pipeline that originates from a transmission, gathering, or production pipeline that serves a service line. In support of the above, NAPSR offered the following: Farm taps are distribution service lines per Sec. 192.3 ; During the DIMP rulemaking, little consideration was given to the potential impact or appropriateness of subjecting farm taps to DIMP; The risk to the public from a failure on a farm tap is generally lower in Class 1 and Class 2 locations in which farm taps are typically located and operated; Currently the regulator and relief equipment with farm taps are not subject to over pressurization protection requirements associated with pressure limiting stations. This proposal originated with the NAPSR DIMP Implementation Task Force and was subsequently approved by the NAPSR Board in January 2013. As NAPSR described it, ``farm tap'' is industry jargon for a pipeline that branches from a transmission, gathering, or production pipeline to deliver gas to a farmer or other landowner. Historically, PHMSA and its predecessor agencies have held that farm taps are service lines--a subset of distribution pipelines. Rulemaking proceedings and responses to requests for interpretation have recognized this dating as far back as 1971. On December 4, 2009, PHMSA published the DIMP final rule (74 FR 63906) for gas distribution pipelines. That rule applies IM requirements to all distribution pipelines. Unlike the IM requirements for hazardous liquid or gas transmission pipelines, the DIMP requirements do not focus on a subset of pipelines in ``high consequence areas,'' but instead apply to all distribution pipelines, including farm taps. Justification for the Recommended Changes Farm taps are mostly located in less-populated areas (Class 1 and 2 locations). The risk to the public from farm taps is generally low, but the risk is dependent upon the service line in which the farm tap is employed, the environment in which it operates, and the consequence of an overpressurization event. DIMP is written to identify needed risk control practices for threats associated with distribution systems, whereas threats to typical farm taps are limited, and most are already addressed within part 192. Therefore, in response to the INGAA and NAPSR requests, PHMSA is proposing to amend part 192 to exempt farm taps from the requirements of part 192, subpart P--Gas Distribution Pipeline Integrity Management. However, to better protect customers served by these lines, PHMSA is proposing to amend part 192, subpart M--Maintenance by adding a new section that prescribes inspection activities under the existing States and Federal pipeline safety inspection programs for pressure regulators and overpressurization protection equipment on service lines that originate from transmission, gathering, or production pipelines. Currently, Federal pipeline safety requirements do [[Page 39921]] not include overpressurization protection for farm taps. Therefore, this requirement would include inspection of farm-tap pressure regulating/limiting device, relief device, and automatic shutoff device every 3-years to make sure these safety equipment are in good working conditions. VI. Reversal of Flow or Change in Product Summary PHMSA published a final rule on November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72878) that established and required participation in the National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators. The final rule amended the Federal pipeline safety regulations to require operators to notify PHMSA electronically of the occurrence of certain events no later than 60 days before the event occurs. In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), PHMSA proposes to expand the list of events in Sec. Sec. 191.22 and 195.64 that require electronic notification to include the reversal of flow of product or change in product in a mainline pipeline. This notification is not required for pipeline systems already designed for bi-directional flow, or when the reversal is not expected to last for 30 days or less. The proposed rule would require operators to notify PHMSA electronically no later than 60 days before there is a reversal of the flow of product through a pipeline and also when there is a change in the product flowing through a pipeline. Examples include, but may not be limited to, changing a transported product from liquid to gas, from crude oil to HVL, and vice versa. In addition, a modification is proposed to Sec. Sec. 192.14 and 195.5 to reflect the 60-day notification and requiring operators to notify PHMSA when over 10 miles of pipeline is replaced because the replacement would be a major modification with safety impacts. VII. Pipeline Assessment Tools Section 195.452 of the pipeline safety regulations specifies requirements for assuring the integrity of pipeline segments where a hazardous liquid release could affect a high consequence area (referred to in this notice as ``covered segments''). Among other requirements, the regulations require that operators of covered segments conduct assessments, which consist of direct or indirect inspection of the pipelines, to detect evidence of degradation. Section 195.452(d) requires operators to conduct a baseline assessment of all covered segments. Section 195.452(j) requires that operators conduct assessments periodically thereafter. Section 195.452 specifies the techniques that must be used to perform the required periodic IM assessments.\2\ ILI is among the allowed techniques. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system is a technique allowed for gas transmission pipelines but is not specifically addressed in Sec. 195.452 although it is also applicable to hazardous liquid pipelines. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Operators are allowed to use techniques not specifically identified in these sections provided that the techniques provide an equivalent understanding of pipe condition and that operators notify PHMSA in advance of their use of such other techniques. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When the IM regulations were established, consensus standards did not exist in addressing how these techniques should be applied. Since then, the American Petroleum Institute (API), National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE), and the American Society for Non- Destructive Testing (ASNT) published standards for using ILI and SCCDA as assessment techniques. Also, PHMSA received a petition from NACE requesting that PHMSA incorporate ANSI/NACE Standard RP0204, NACE Standard RP0102-2002, and seven other NACE standards into 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. These referenced consensus standards address the selection of in-line inspection tools for assessing the physical condition of in- service hazardous liquids pipelines. Since the NACE petition, two of these standards have been developed from recommended practices into NACE Standard Practice (SP0102-2010 and NACE SP0204-2008.) In addition, NTSB issued the following safety recommendation to PHMSA on July 10, 2012, (P-12-3): Revise Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 195.452 to clearly state (1) when an engineering assessment of crack 
- **truncated:** true
- **body characters:** 163152