{"operation":"document","citation":"82 FR 7972","title":"Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Changes","source_type":"rulemaking","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"historical","official":true,"published_on":"2017-01-23","effective_on":"2017-03-24","summary":"PHMSA is amending 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 adding a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents and incidents and adding provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of certain new projects, for the renewal of expiring special permits, and setting out the process for requesting protection of confidential commercial information. PHMSA is also amending the 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-2016-31461.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2016-31461.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/federal-register-2016-31461","source_url":"https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/23/2016-31461/pipeline-safety-operator-qualification-cost-recovery-accident-and-incident-notification-and-other","body":"Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017) [Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 7972-8002] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] [FR Doc No: 2016-31461] [[Page 7971]] Vol. 82 Monday, No. 13 January 23, 2017 Part III Department of Transportation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199 Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Changes; Final Rule Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Rules and Regulations [[Page 7972]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199 [Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0163; Amdt. Nos. 190-19; 191-25; 192-123; 195- 101; 199-27] RIN 2137-AE94 Pipeline Safety: Operator Qualification, Cost Recovery, Accident and Incident Notification, and Other Pipeline Safety Changes AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: PHMSA is amending 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 adding a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents and incidents and adding provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of certain new projects, for the renewal of expiring special permits, and setting out the process for requesting protection of confidential commercial information. PHMSA is also amending the drug and alcohol testing requirements, and incorporating consensus standards by reference for in-line inspection (ILI) and Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA). DATES: This final rule is effective March 24, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 24, 2017. ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tewabe Asebe by telephone at 202-366- 5523, by email at [email protected] , or by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action and Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question B. Costs and Benefits II. Background A. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking B. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 and the National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations C. Summary of Each Topic Under Consideration III. Pipeline Advisory Committee IV. Analysis of Comments and PHMSA Response A. Accident and Incident Notification B. Cost Recovery for Design Reviews C. Operator Qualification Requirements and NTSB Recommendations Related to Control Room Staff Training D. Special Permit Renewal E. Farm Taps F. Reversal of Flow or Change in Product G. Pipeline Assessment Tools H. Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing I. Information Made Available to the Public and Request for Protection of Confidential Commercial Information J. In Service Welding K. Availability of Standards Incorporated by Reference V. Regulatory Notices VI. Amendments to Parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199 I. Executive Summary A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action and Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question The purpose of this 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). Public Law 112-90. The amendment associated with section 9 of the 2011 Act limits the timeframe within which the operator must electronically or telephonically report notice of an accident or incident to within one hour of confirmed discovery of the event. PHMSA expects that quicker accident and incident reporting will lead to a safety benefit to the public, the environment, and limit property damage. The amendment associated with section 13 of the 2011 Act allows PHMSA to recover its costs for design review work PHMSA conducts on behalf of the operators, which will allow PHMSA to use its limited resources in protecting public safety. PHMSA is also providing a renewal procedure for expiring special permits, and is making other minor and administrative changes. This final rule does not include the Operator Qualification (OQ) requirements proposed under subpart N for natural gas pipelines and subpart G for hazardous liquid pipelines; however, PHMSA is proceeding with amendments to control room staff training requirements. PHMSA is delaying final action on the OQ proposals until a later date and fully expects to consider all the comments received and the recommendations of the Pipeline Advisory Committees related to those specific issues in a subsequent final rule published in the near future. The specific amendments codified by this final rule 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; Addressing the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) recommendation to clarify training requirements for control room personnel; 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 a change in product (e.g., from liquid to gas, from crude oil to highly volatile liquids (HVL)) or a permanent reversal of flow that lasts more than 30 days; 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 3 years a record of the reason why post-accident drug and alcohol tests were not conducted; Including the procedure to request protection for confidential commercial information submitted to PHMSA; Adding reference to appendix B of API 1104 related to in- service welding in parts 192 and 195; and [[Page 7973]] Amending minor editorial corrections. B. Costs and Benefits PHMSA has estimated annual compliance costs at $0.6 million less savings to be realized from the removal of farm taps from the Distribution Integrity Management Program requirements. PHMSA could not quantify annual benefits as readily due to data limitations. However, the improvements to and the clarification of regulations, including those for post-incident investigations along with other provisions, are designed to reduce pipeline incidents and the associated consequences, including the potential to prevent a future high-consequence event, such as those that have occurred on gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines in the past. II. Background A. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On July 10, 2015, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to address requirements in the 2011 Act pertaining to accident and incident reporting (section 9) and cost recovery (section 13); to address certain National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations made in response to the pipeline incidents in San Bruno CA,\\1\\ and Marshall, MI; \\2\\ and to update and clarify certain regulatory requirements. 80 FR 39916. Among other provisions, PHMSA proposed to add a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic notifications of accidents and incidents and to add provisions for cost recovery for design reviews of certain new projects, to add provisions for the renewal of expiring special permits, and to include the procedure for submitters of information to request PHMSA treat the information as confidential. Also, PHMSA proposed changes to the operator qualification (OQ) requirements and drug and alcohol testing requirements and proposed to incorporate consensus standards by reference for inline inspection (ILI) and Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment (SCCDA). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\1\\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1101.pdf . \\2\\ https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1201.pdf . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 and the National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 was signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 3, 2012. The 2011 Act was enacted in part to enhance safety and protect the environment during the transportation of products by pipeline. H. Rept. 112-297. As discussed above, this rulemaking addresses two provisions from the 2011 Act: Section 9 requires PHMSA to specify a time limit for telephonic or electronic reporting of pipeline accidents and incidents Section 13, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 60117(n), allows PHMSA to prescribe a fee structure and assessment methodology to recover costs associated with design and construction reviews This rule also addresses certain National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations arising out of the September 9, 2010, San Bruno, CA, pipeline rupture of a natural gas line that killed eight people, and the July 25, 2010, pipeline rupture in Marshall, MI, that resulted in the release of an estimated 843,444 gallons of crude oil in a wetland. The specific NTSB recommendations addressed in this rulemaking action are: P-11-12 on drug and alcohol testing of employees whose performance either contributed to the accident or cannot be completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident P-12-3 on assessment tools incorporation by reference in part 195 P-12-7 on team training of control center staff P-12-8 on extending operator qualification training requirements for all hazardous liquid and gas transmission control center staff involved in pipeline operational decisions C. Summary of Each Topic Under Consideration Accident and Incident Notification Section 9 of the 2011 Act directs PHMSA to require pipeline operators to provide notification at the earliest practicable moment following confirmed discovery of an accident or incident, not to exceed 1 hour following the time of such confirmed discovery. PHMSA is amending 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. Cost Recovery for Design Reviews On cost recovery for design reviews, 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 is amending 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. NTSB Recommendations on Control Room Center Staff PHMSA is addressing the NTSB recommendation to extend operator qualification requirements to control center staff involved in pipeline operational decisions (P-12-8) and to require team training for control center staff involved in pipeline operations similar to those used in other transportation modes (P-12-7). Special Permit Renewal On special permit renewal, PHMSA is amending Sec. 190.341 of the Federal pipeline safety regulations to add procedures for renewing a special permit. Farm Taps On farm taps, PHMSA is amending the Federal pipeline safety regulations in 49 CFR part 192 to add a new section, 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). Reversal of Flow or Change in Product On reversal of flow or change in product, PHMSA is expanding 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. PHMSA is requiring operators to notify PHMSA electronically no later than 60 days before there is a reversal of the flow of product through a pipeline or when there is a change in the product flowing through a pipeline. In addition, PHMSA is amending Sec. Sec. 192.14 and 195.5 to reflect the 60-day notification and to require operators to notify PHMSA when over 10 miles of pipeline is replaced. [[Page 7974]] Pipeline Assessment Tools On pipeline assessment tools, PHMSA is incorporating by reference the following consensus standards into 49 CFR part 195: API STD 1163, ``In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification'' (April 2013); NACE SP0102- 2010 ``Standard Practice, Inline Inspection of Pipelines'' (revised March 13, 2010); NACE SP0204-2008 ``Standard Practice, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment Methodology'' (reaffirmed September 18, 2008); and ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ-2005, ``In-line Inspection Personnel Qualification and Certification'' (reapproved October 11, 2010). Also, PHMSA is allowing pipeline operators to conduct assessments using tethered or remote control tools not explicitly discussed in NACE SP0102-2010, provided the operators comply with applicable sections of NACE SP0102-2010. Incorporation of these consensus standards will assure better consistency, accuracy and quality in pipeline assessments conducted using ILI and SCCDA. Standards for ILI When the part 195 IM requirements were issued, there were no consensus industry standards that addressed ILI. Since then the following standards have been published: 1. In 2002, NACE International published the first consensus industry standard that specifically addressed ILI (NACE Recommended Practice RP0102, ``Inline Inspection of Pipelines''). NACE International revised this document in 2010 and republished it as a Standard Practice, SP0102. PHMSA expects that the consistency, accuracy, and quality of pipeline ILI will be improved by incorporating the NACE International 2010 standard into the regulations. PHMSA asked the Standards Developing Organizations to develop this and the other standards and PHMSA is now adopting them to bring consistency throughout the industry. These standards provide tables to improve tool selection. PHMSA is providing hazardous liquids pipeline operators choices of tools to assess their pipelines and; therefore, PHMSA does not believe that these tool selections incur additional costs to the pipeline operators. The NACE International standard applies to ``free swimming'' inspection tools that are carried down the pipeline by the transported fluid. It does not apply to tethered or remotely controlled ILI tools. While the usage of tethered or remotely controlled ILI tools is less prevalent than the usage of free swimming tools, some pipeline IM assessments have been conducted using these tools. PHMSA believes many of the provisions in the NACE International standard can be applied to tethered or remotely controlled ILI tools and; therefore, PHMSA is allowing the use of these tools provided they generally comply with applicable sections of the NACE standard. The NACE standards were reviewed by PHMSA experts, and they agree with the provisions in the standards. Many operators are already following those guidelines. Our inspection guides will provide further instructions when this final rule is implemented. 2. In 2005, the ASNT published ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ, ``In-line Inspection Personnel Qualification and Certification.'' The ASNT standard provides for qualification and certification requirements that are not addressed in part 195. In 2010 ASNT published ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ with editorial changes. The incorporation of this standard into the Federal pipeline safety regulations will promote a higher level of safety by establishing consistent standards to qualify the equipment, people, processes, and software utilized by the ILI industry. This and the other standards are being used by many operators but not all. This rule will ensure that all operators use these standards. Overall cost will not change, because these consensus standards will help operators eliminate problems before they arise. SCCDA 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. This rulemaking action will allow HL operators to use the SCCDA technique and ASNT is one of them. The ASNT standard addresses in detail each of the following aspects, which are not currently addressed in the regulations: Requirements for written procedures. Personnel qualification levels. Education, training, and experience requirements. Training programs. Examinations (testing of personnel). Personnel certification and recertification. Personnel technical performance evaluations. 3. In 2005, API published API STD 1163, ``In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard.'' PHMSA proposed to incorporate the 2005 API 1163 because at the time the notice of the rulemaking action was developed, the latest version of API 1163 was under development. PHMSA has evaluated the revisions made to the latest version of API 1163 and determined that the changes are not significant. Therefore, PHMSA is adopting API STD 2013 into part 195. This Standard serves as an umbrella document that is to be used with and complements the NACE International and ASNT standards that are incorporated by reference in API STD 1163. The API standard is more comprehensive than the requirements currently in part 195. The incorporation of this standard into the Federal pipeline safety regulations will promote a higher level of safety by establishing a consistent methodology to qualify the equipment, people, processes, and software utilized by the ILI industry. The API standard addresses, in detail, each of the following aspects of ILI inspections: Systems qualification process. Personnel qualification. ILI system selection. Qualification of performance specifications. System operational validation. System results qualification. Reporting requirements. Quality management system. Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Direct Assessment 4. NACE SP0204-2008 ``Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment.'' SCC is a degradation mechanism in which steel pipe develops closely spaced tight cracks through the combined action of corrosion and tensile stress (circumferential, residual, or applied). These cracks can grow or coalesce to affect the integrity of the pipeline. SCC is one of several threats that can impact pipeline integrity. IM regulations in part 195 require that pipeline operators assess covered pipe segments periodically to detect degradation from threats that their analyses have indicated could affect the segment. Not all covered segments are subject to an SCC threat, but for those that are, SCCDA is an assessment technique that can be used to address this threat. Part 195 presently includes no requirements applicable to the use of SCCDA. Experience has shown that pipelines can go through SCC degradation in areas where the surrounding soil has a pH near neutral (referred to as near-neutral SCC). NACE Standard Practice SP0204-2008 addresses near-neutral SCC. In addition, the NACE International recommended practice provides technical guidelines and process requirements that are both more comprehensive and rigorous for conducting SCCDA than are provided by Sec. 192.929 or ASME/ANSI B31.8S. [[Page 7975]] The NACE standard provides additional guidance as follows: The factors that are important in the formation of SCC on a pipeline and what data should be collected; Additional factors, such as existing corrosion, which could cause SCC to form; Comprehensive data collection guidelines, including the relative importance of each type of data; Requirements to conduct close interval surveys of cathodic protection or other aboveground surveys to supplement the data collected during pre-assessment; Ranking factors to consider for selecting excavation locations for both near-neutral and high pH SCC; Requirements on conducting direct examinations, including procedures for collecting environmental data, preparing the pipe surface for examination, and conducting Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI) examinations of the pipe; and Post assessment analysis of results to determine SCCDA effectiveness and assure continual improvement. In general, NACE SP0204-2008 provides thorough and comprehensive guidelines for conducting SCCDA and is more comprehensive in scope than Appendix A3 of ASME/ANSI B31.8S. PHMSA believes that requiring the use of NACE SP0204-2008 will enhance the quality and consistency of SCCDA conducted under IM requirements. SCC has also been the subject of research and development (R&D) programs that have been funded in whole or in part by PHMSA in recent years. PHMSA reviewed the results of several R&D programs concerning SCC as part of its consideration of whether it was appropriate to incorporate the NACE standard into the regulations. Among the reports PHMSA reviewed was ``Development of Guidelines for Identification of SCC Sites and Estimation of Re-inspection Intervals for SCC Direct Assessment,'' published by Integrity Corrosion Consulting Ltd. in May 2010.\\3\\ This report evaluated the results of numerous studies conducted since the 1960s regarding SCC. The report used the conclusions from the studies to identify a group of 109 guidelines that pipeline operators could use to help identify sites where SCC might occur and determine appropriate re-inspection intervals when SCC is found. The guidelines address both high-pH and near-neutral-pH conditions. This report noted that the information used in developing the NACE standard consisted primarily of empirical data gathered from operators examining pipeline field conditions and failures. In contrast, the studies examined by Integrity Corrosion Consulting were mechanistic studies, and their results serve to complement the information operators have gained through field experience. PHMSA's review of the guidelines in this report identified a number of areas not addressed in detail in the NACE standard. Accordingly, PHMSA has included additional factors in Sec. 195.588 that an operator must consider if the operator uses direct assessment to assess SCC. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\3\\ https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=199 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PHMSA acknowledges that the NACE standard may not address all aspects of SCC management, but PHMSA considers it better to incorporate additional structured guidance that is available now rather than await future standards. There is continual improvement in technology to detect and address various SCC threats. Three different standards organizations are currently working to improve standards on SCC: ASME B31.8, NACE 204 and API 1160. PHMSA participates on these technical committees. As more knowledge is gained on other types of SCC, such as sulfide assisted SCC and when newer standards get published, PHMSA will consider adopting them. PHMSA is revising Sec. 195.588, which specifies requirements for the use of external corrosion direct assessment on hazardous liquid pipelines, to include reference to NACE SP0204-2008 for the conduct of SCCDA. The rule will not require that SCCDA assessments be conducted, but it will require that the NACE standard be followed if an operator elects to perform such assessments. PHMSA has included additional factors that an operator must consider to address these if the operator uses direct pipeline to assess SCC. Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing On electronic reporting of drug and alcohol testing results, PHMSA is requiring operators electronic reporting for anti-drug testing results required in Sec. 199.119 and alcohol testing results required in Sec. 199.229. PHMSA is modifying these regulations to specify that it will provide notice to operators in the PHMSA Portal.\\4\\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\4\\ https://portal.phmsa.dot.gov/ . --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On post-accident drug and alcohol testing, PHMSA is modifying Sec. Sec. 199.105 and 199.225 by requiring drug testing of employees after an accident and to allow exemption from drug testing only when there is sufficient information that establishes the employee(s) had no role in the accident. Therefore, PHMSA is amending the post-accident drug testing regulation to require documentation of the decision and to keep the documentation for at least three years. Information Made Available to the Public and Request for Protection of Confidential Commercial Information On information made available to the public and request for confidential treatment, PHMSA is including the procedure for requesting confidential treatment of confidential commercial information submitted to PHMSA. In-Service Welding On in-service welding, PHMSA is revising Sec. Sec. 192.225, 192.227, 195.214, and 195.222 to add reference to API 1104, Appendix B. III. Advisory Committees Meeting On June 2, 2016, the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee (GPAC) \\5\\ and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee (LPAC) \\6\\ met jointly in Arlington, Virginia. The committees are statutorily mandated advisory committees that advise PHMSA on proposed gas pipeline or hazardous liquid pipeline safety standards and risk management principles. Both committees were established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, and 49 U.S.C. 60115. Each committee consists of 15 members, with membership evenly divided among the Federal and state governments, regulated industry, and general public. The committees advise PHMSA on the technical feasibility, reasonableness, practicability, and cost-effectiveness of each proposed pipeline safety standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \\5\\ Officially designated as the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee. \\6\\ Officially designated as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- During the meeting, the committees considered the NPRM that was proposed to: Address (1) section 9 of the 2011 Act that would require operators to electronically or telephonically report notice of an accident and incident not later than one hour after the confirmed discovery; (2) address section 13 of the 2011 Act that 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; (3) expand the existing Operator Qualification (OQ) scope to cover new construction and certain other currently uncovered tasks; (4) provide a renewal procedure for expiring special permits; (5) exclude [[Page 7976]] farm taps from the DIMP requirements and to amend part 192 to add a new section that prescribes inspection activities for pressure regulators and over-pressurization protection equipment on service lines that originate from transmission, gathering, or production pipelines; (6) incorporate by reference into 49 CFR part 195: API STD 1163, ``In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard'' (August 2005); NACE Standard Practice SP0102-2010 ``Inline Inspection of Pipelines'' NACE SP0204-2008 ``Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment;'' and ANSI/ ASNT ILI-PQ-2010, ``In-line Inspection Personnel Qualification and Certification'' (2010); (7) modify Sec. Sec. 199.105 and 199.225 by requiring drug testing of employees after an accident and allowing exemption from drug testing only when there is sufficient information that establishes the employee(s) had no role in the accident, and requiring documentation of the decision not to perform drug testing and to keep the documentation for at least three years; (8) and include the procedure for requesting confidential treatment of information submitted to PHMSA and PHMSA's decision regarding the request. After discussion, both Committees separately voted unanimously to recommend PHMSA implement the NPRM with certain changes. Specifically, the Committees recommended as follows: A. Accident and Incident Notification Reporting Some of the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee members were concerned about the accuracy of reporting gas leak within one hour of confirmed discovery of the leak. After discussion the issue, the committee agreed to recommend removing the one-hour amount of product lost reporting requirement from where it was proposed in Sec. 191.5(b)(5) and moving the requirement to Sec. 191.5(c). Also, both committees discussed the definition for ``confirmed discovery'' and separately recommended revising the definition as follows: Confirmed Discovery: when it can be reasonably determined, based on information available to the operator at the time, that a reportable event has occurred, even if only based on a preliminary evaluation. Responses to the Advisory Committees' Recommendations The committees' recommendation also addresses the public comments and, therefore, PHMSA accepts the recommended changes. B. Cost Recovery of Design Review Both committees discussed the proposal and agreed to recommend revising the definition for ``new and novel technologies,'' as follows: New and novel technologies means any products, designs, materials, testing, construction, inspection, or operational procedures that are not addressed in 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195, due to technology or design advances and innovation for new construction. Technologies that are addressed in consensus standards that are incorporated by reference into Parts 192, 193, and 195 are not ``new or novel technologies.'' Responses to the Advisory Committees' Recommendations The committees' recommendation also addresses the public comments and, therefore, PHMSA accepts the recommended changes. Also, both committees recommended revising the proposed Sec. 190.405 by removing the phrases ``permitting activities, purchasing, and right of way acquisition.'' This recommendation also addresses the public comments and, therefore, PHMSA accepts the recommended changes. C. Operator Qualification Requirements During the meeting, the committees discussed provisions related to the operator qualification requirements proposed in the NPRM. PHMSA is delaying final action on the OQ proposals under subpart N for natural gas pipelines and subpart G for hazardous liquid pipelines until a later date and fully expects to consider all the comments received and the recommendations of the Pipeline Advisory Committees related to those specific issues in a subsequent final rule. D. Special Permit Renewal Both committees recommended revising Sec. 190.341(d)(1) by replacing the word ``application'' with the phrase ``application or renewal,'' revising Sec. 190.341(f) to limit aerial photography of pipeline segments where special permits affect public safety such as a class location special permit that allows a less stringent design factor in a populated area and allow operators to submit a summary of inline inspection survey results with permit renewals, and revising Sec. 190.341(e) to clarify that special permit renewals must be submitted 180 days prior to the grant expiration. Responses to the Advisory Committees' Recommendations These committees' recommendations also address the public comments and, therefore, PHMSA accepts the recommended changes. E. Farm Tap The Gas Pipeline Technical Committee recommended revising Sec. 192.740 to make the following changes: In (a) change ``originates from'' to ``directly connected to,'' and in (b) to add the phrase ``(except rupture discs) after the phrase ``relief device.'' Also, the Committee recommended revising Sec. 192.1003(b) to make the following change: Replace the phrase ``. . . a service line that originates directly from a transmission'' with ``. . . an individual service line directly connected to a transmission.'' Responses to the Advisory Committee's Recommendations The committee's recommendations also address the public comments and, therefore, PHMSA accepts the recommended changes. F. Pipeline Assessment Tools The Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee recommended adopting the section as published in the NPRM except with the latest API STD 1163, ``In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard'' (April 2013) version. Also, a member of the advisory committee asked whether an operator has the option to run the right tools in assessing for in-line inspection and stress corrosion cracking direct assessment. Responses to the Advisory Committee's Recommendations The committee's recommendations also address the public comments and, therefore, PHMSA accepts the recommended changes. With regard to the comment on right tool selection, the very reason PHMSA is incorporating these consensus industry standards into the Federal pipeline safety regulations is to guide operators to use the right tools. Operators can select the right pipeline assessment tools from the incorporated industry standards. However, if operators decide to choose assessment tools that are not incorporated by reference, the operators must justify, with data, why the selected assessment tools are better suited for their pipelines than the incorporated industry standards. In selecting assessment tools, operators should analyze the goal and objectives of the inspection and match relevant facts known about the pipeline and expected anomalies with the capabilities and performance of an assessment tool. The selected [[Page 7977]] assessment tool should have accuracy and detection capabilities, detection sensitivity, and classification capability. In addition, the sizing accuracy should be sufficient enough to enable prioritization, the location accuracy should enable locating anomalies, and the requirements for defect assessment must be adequate for the expected defect assessment algorithm. G. On Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing Both committees recommended removing existing language at the end of Sec. 199.105(b)(1) that states ``. . .or because of the time between that performance and the accident, it is not likely that a drug test would reveal whether the performance was affected by drug use.'' In addition, some advisory committee members requested for compliance period to address union agreement for the drug testing reporting. Responses to the Advisory Committee's Recommendations The committees' recommendations address the public comments. PHMSA accepts the recommended deletion for Sec. 199.105(b). PHMSA is not requiring new recordkeeping in this rule. The only requirement is to keep records of decisions not to administer post-accident employee drug tests for at least 3 years. H. Information Made Available to the Public and Request for Confidential Treatment Both committees recommended to make editorial changes, including the title of the section, to reflect the agency's goal in providing a procedure for confidential commercial information submitted to PHMSA. Responses to the Advisory Committees' Recommendations The committees' recommendations also address the public comments and, therefore, PHMSA accepts the recommended changes. IV. Summary and Response to Comments PHMSA received 35 comments on the proposed rule from the National Transportation Safety Board, Pipeline Safety Trust, pipeline trade associations, the Distribution Contractors Association, the ASME B31Q Qualification of Pipeline Personnel Technical Committee, the American Medical Review Officers and the Pipeline Testing Consortium, pipeline operators, pipeline safety consultants, and citizens. General Comments Most of the pipeline operators' comments were in support of and similar to their trade associations; therefore, pipeline operators' comments similar to their associations are not summarized again in the specific comments. However, comments that were not addressed by the trade associations are summarized. A. Accident and Incident Notification 1. PHMSA's Proposal PHMSA proposed to 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. PHMSA proposed to define ``confirmed discovery'' as: Confirmed discovery means there is sufficient information to determine that a reportable event may have occurred even if an evaluation has not been completed. 2. Summary of Public Comment Definitions (Sec. Sec. 191.3 and 195.2) PHMSA received comments from trade organizations, safety groups, government entities, and others stating the proposed definition for ``confirmed discovery'' is confusing because it suggests that the operator has sufficient ``confirmed'' information that an event has occurred but also contains the phrase ``may have occurred.'' They believe ``sufficient confirmed information'' is an indication that a reportable or actual event has occurred, and the confirmed information should provide enough evidence of that event. Therefore, they urged PHMSA to revise the definition to remove ``may have'' and read ``. . . a reportable event has occurred.'' Paiute Pipeline Company and Southwest Gas Corporation proposed adding a new term ``provisional discovery'' to mean that the operator has ``sufficient information to determine that an incident has likely occurred even if an evaluation has not been completed.'' They stated that this proposed change would address confusion with the proposed. The American Medical Review Officers and the Pipeline Testing Consortium commented that the definition for confirmed discovery is an incident/accident notification rather than a confirmation, since it is based only on ``sufficient information to determine that a reportable event may have occur","truncated":true,"body_characters":210929}