[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39915-39939]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16264]

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     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_ADDRESS>
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.

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

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

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

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

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 defects, including
environmentally assisted cracks, must be performed; (2) the
acceptable methods for performing these engineering assessments,
including the assessment of cracks coinciding with corrosion with a
safety factor that considers the uncertainties associated with
sizing of crack defects; (3) criteria for determining when a
probable crack defect in a pipeline segment must be excavated and
time limits for completing those excavations; (4) pressure
restriction limits for crack defects that are not excavated by the
required date; and (5) acceptable methods for determining crack
growth for any cracks allowed to remain in the pipe, including
growth caused by fatigue, corrosion fatigue, or stress corrosion
cracking as applicable.

    This proposed rule would incorporate by reference consensus
standards for assessing the physical condition of in-service hazardous
liquids pipelines using ILI and SCCDA. Incorporation of the consensus
standards would assure better consistency, accuracy and quality in
pipeline assessments conducted using these techniques. This proposal
addresses those parts of NTSB Recommendation P-12-3--identifying crack
defects and seam corrosion by using crack tools and circumferential
tools--by incorporating the above cited industry standards. The
remainder of NTSB Recommendation P-12-3 will be addressed in PHMSA's
rulemaking titled ``Pipeline Safety--Safety of On-Shore Hazardous
Liquid Pipelines.'' Therefore, PHMSA proposes to incorporate by
reference the following consensus standards 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). Also, PHMSA proposes to allow
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.
    Note that this proposed rulemaking action addresses only part 195,
but PHMSA is considering a similar proposed requirement in 49 CFR part
192.

Justification for the Recommended Incorporation

    Incorporation of the consensus standards would 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 considers that the consistency, accuracy, and quality of
pipeline ILI would 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 proposing to
adopt 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, is proposing that use of these
tools continue to be allowed 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 would provide further instructions when 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 would 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 would ensure that all operators use these
standards. Overall cost would not change, because these consensus
standards would 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 would 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.''
    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 would 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.
    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 would 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 (https://

primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/PrjHome.rdm?prj=199). 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 this proposed
rule (proposed Sec.  195.588) that an operator must consider if the
operator uses direct assessment to assess SCC.
    SCC was also a topic in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) published by PHMSA on October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63774). The ANPRM
addressed several potential changes to the regulations governing the
safety of hazardous liquids pipelines. Among other topics, it posed a
number of questions concerning SCC, including whether the NACE standard
addresses the full life cycle concerns associated with SCC, NACE's
efficacy, and whether the NACE standard or any other standards should
be adopted to govern the conduct of SCC assessments. PHMSA received a
limited number of comments to the ANPRM that addressed the SCC
questions. Joint comments from the American Petroleum Institute and the
Association of Oil Pipelines (API-AOPL) noted that NACE SP0204-2008 is
a reasonable standard but does not address all aspects of SCC control.
API-AOPL noted that forthcoming updates of API Standard 1160,
``Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines,'' and API
Standard 1163, ``In-Line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard,''
would be better references to address SCC management. The Texas
Pipeline Association recommended against adopting the NACE standard,
contending that it is too new for operators to have significant
experience with it. The National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives suggested that PHMSA should require an assessment for
SCC any time there is a credible threat of its occurrence; however,
API-AOPL suggested that requiring assessment for ``any credible
threat'' was too extreme and that some significance threshold should be
used. The National Resources Defense Council suggested the need for
special attention to sulfide-assisted SCC in pipelines carrying diluted
bitumen (i.e., tar sands oil). No commenters indicated knowledge of
statistics supporting the efficacy of any current SCC standard or
guideline.
    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
would adopt them.
    As for NAPSR's comment on assessing any credible SCC threat, PHMSA
believes that any proposed requirements for SCC would need to be
considered in a separate rulemaking effort. States always have option
to make requirements more stringent. PHMSA will consider incorporating
updates to API 1160 once that standard is published. PHMSA will also
continue to consider the comments received in response to its ANPRM.
    PHMSA is proposing to revise 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 proposal would not require that SCCDA
assessments be conducted, but it would 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.

VIII. Electronic Reporting of Drug and Alcohol Testing Results

    PHMSA's pipeline safety regulations at Sec. Sec.  191.7 and 195.58
require electronic reporting of most pipeline safety reports through
the PHMSA Portal. PHMSA proposes to also require electronic reporting
for anti-drug testing results required at Sec.  199.119 and alcohol
testing results required at Sec.  199.229. Pipeline operators with
fewer than 50 covered employees are required to submit these reports
only when PHMSA provides written notice. PHMSA proposes to modify these
regulations to specify that PHMSA will provide notice to operators in
the PHMSA Portal.

IX. Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing

    The NTSB issued the following safety recommendation to PHMSA
(September 26, 2011, NTSB Recommendation P-11-12):

    Amend Sec. Sec.  199.105 and 199.225 to eliminate operator
discretion with regard to testing of covered employees. The revised
language should require drug and alcohol testing of each employee
whose performance either contributed to the accident or cannot be
completely discounted as a contributing factor to the accident.

    PHMSA proposes to 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.
    PHMSA's regulations require the documentation of decisions not to
administer a post-accident alcohol test but the requirement to document
decisions not to administer a post-accident drug test is only implied
in the regulation, and the implied requirement is generally followed.
PHMSA proposes to add a section to the post-accident drug testing
regulation to require documentation of the decision and to keep the
documentation for at least three years.

X. Information Made Available to the Public and Request for
Confidential Treatment

    When any information is submitted to PHMSA during a rulemaking
proceeding, as part of an application for a special permit, or for any
other reason, PHMSA may make that information publicly available. PHMSA
does not currently have a procedure in the pipeline safety regulations
by which a request can be made for confidential treatment of
information. PHMSA has such a procedure in its hazardous materials
safety regulations. Therefore, for consistency in the way we treat
submitted information, PHMSA proposes a procedure where anyone who
submits information may request for confidential treatment of that
information. As part of the procedure, if PHMSA receives a request for
the record(s), PHMSA would conduct a

review of the records under the Freedom of Information Act.
    In accordance with Departmental FOIA regulations, if a request is
received for information that has been designated by the submitter as
confidential, we would notify the submitter and provide an opportunity
to the submitter to submit any written objections. Whenever a decision
is made to disclose such information over the objections of a
submitter, we would notify the submitter in writing at least five days
before the date the information is publicly disclosed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Note--the Departmental FOIA regulations say that a written
notice of intent to disclose will be forwarded a reasonable number
of days prior to the specified date upon which disclosure is
intended. See 49 CFR 7.17. See also the Hazmat regulations in 49 CFR
105.30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. In Service Welding

    In 1987, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline
Safety issued Alert Notice ALN-87-01 which advised pipeline owners and
operators of a pipeline incident involving the welding of a full
encirclement repair sleeve on a 14'' API 5L X52 pipeline near King of
Prussia, PA. The pipeline failure released thousands of barrels of
gasoline and was directly related to cracks developed in a fillet weld
of a Type B full encirclement repair sleeve. The metallurgical analysis
conducted by Battelle Laboratories concluded hydrogen and stress caused
cracking of the excessively hard heat affected material in the carrier
pipe. Contributing factors included poor weldability of the carrier
pipe due to its high carbon equivalent, a very high cooling rate of the
weld due to liquid product being present inside the pipeline during
welding, the presence of hydrogen in the welding environment due to the
use of cellulosic coated electrodes, residual stresses, and high
restraint inherent in the geometry of the sleeve weldment. The alert
notice strongly recommended that the use of welding procedures similar
to the one that failed (use of cellulosic electrodes) be discontinued
and that magnetic particle inspection has been proven to be an accurate
method for detecting cracked in-service fillet welds.
    In response to this failure and advancements in pipeline and
welding engineering, the American Petroleum Institute (API) developed,
improved, and now includes Appendix B In-service Welding to the API
Standard 1104 Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities. API 1104
Appendix B contains provisions for the development of welding
procedures and welder qualifications that address the safety concerns
of welding to an in-service pipeline. Welding procedures developed to
API 1104 Appendix B consider the risks associated with hydrogen in the
weld metal, type of welding electrode, sleeve/fitting and carrier pipe
materials, accelerated cooling, and stresses across the fillet welds.
At the present time, typical industry developed in-service welding
procedures utilize all or some combinations of low hydrogen electrodes,
preheat, temper bead deposition sequence, heat input control, cooling
rate analysis, analysis based on pipe/sleeve/fitting material carbon
equivalence, and address wall thickness/burn-through concerns. The
Office of Pipeline Safety alert notice encouraged the development and
use of welding procedures that address improvements in pipeline safety
and many operators have developed in-service welding procedures.
    Unfortunately, parts 192 and 195 were not modified to include the
addition of API 1104 Appendix B as an acceptable section for the
development of welding procedures and welder qualification. At the
present time, parts 192 and 195 only adopt into Federal Regulation
Sections 5, 6, 9 and Appendix A. This proposed rule seeks to rectify
this oversight and state the acceptability of developing procedures and
qualifying welders to Appendix B of API 1104. Currently, PHMSA does not
allow in service welding, but this proposal would allow the operators
to follow Appendix B of API 1104 for in service welding. Therefore,
PHMSA proposes to revise 49 CFR 192.225, 192.227, 195.214, and 195.222
to add reference to API 1104, Appendix B.

XII. Editorial Amendments

    In this NPRM, PHMSA is also proposing to make the following
editorial amendments to the pipeline safety regulations:

Summary of Correction to Sec.  192.175(b)

    PHMSA's predecessor agency, the Research and Special Programs
Administration, issued a final rule on July 13, 1998; 63 FR 37500 to
provide metric equivalents to the English units for informational
purposes only. Operators were required to continue using the English
units for purposes of compliance and enforcement. The metric equivalent
provided in Sec.  192.175(b) ``C=(DxPxF/48.33) (C=(3DxPxF/1,000)''--is
incorrect. The correct formula is: ``C = (3D*P*F)/1000) (C = (3D*P*F*)/
6,895)'', where, ``C = (3D*P*F)/1000)'' is in inches (English unit),
and ``(C = (3D*P*F*)/6,895)'' is in millimeters (metric conversion).

Summary of Correction to Sec.  195.64(a) and Sec.  195.64(c)(1)(ii)

    PHMSA published a final rule on November 26, 2010; 75 FR 72878,
which established the National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators.
In the rule, PHMSA inadvertently omitted the inclusion of carbon
dioxide in the operating commodity types. To maintain consistency with
the rest of part 195, this proposed rule would amend the language in
Sec. Sec.  195.64(a) and 195.64(c)(1)(ii) to correct the term
``hazardous liquid'' to read ``hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide.''
    In Sec.  195.248, the conversion to 100 feet is mistakenly stated
as 30 millimeters. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to replace the phrase
``100 feet (30 millimeters)'' to correctly read ``100 feet (30.5
meters).''
    In addition, low stress pipelines are not specified in Sec.
195.452. Section 195.452 applies to each hazardous liquid pipeline and
carbon dioxide pipeline that could affect a high consequence area,
including any pipeline located in a high consequence area unless the
operator effectively demonstrates by risk assessment that the pipeline
could not affect the area. Therefore, PHMSA proposes to add a new
paragraph (a)(4) to clarify the applicability of Sec.  195.452 to low
stress pipelines as described in Sec.  195.12.

XIII. Availability of Standards Incorporated by Reference

    PHMSA currently incorporates by reference into 49 CFR parts 192,
193, and 195 all or parts of more than 60 standards and specifications
developed and published by standard developing organizations (SDOs). In
general, SDOs update and revise their published standards every 3 to 5
years to reflect modern technology and best technical practices. The
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113) directs Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in
lieu of government-written standards whenever possible. Voluntary
consensus standards are standards developed or adopted by voluntary
bodies that develop, establish, or coordinate technical standards using
agreed-upon procedures. In addition, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) issued OMB Circular A-119 to implement Section 12(d) of Public
Law 104-113 relative to the utilization of consensus technical
standards by Federal agencies. This circular provides guidance for
agencies participating in voluntary consensus standards bodies and
describes procedures for satisfying

the reporting requirements in Public Law 104-113.
    In accordance with the preceding provisions, PHMSA has the
responsibility for determining, via petitions or otherwise, which
currently referenced standards should be updated, revised, or removed,
and which standards should be added to 49 CFR parts 192, 193, and 195.
Revisions to incorporate by reference materials in 49 CFR parts 192,
193, and 195 are handled via the rulemaking process, which allows for
the public and regulated entities to provide input. During the
rulemaking process, PHMSA must also obtain approval from the Office of
the Federal Register to incorporate by reference any new materials.
    On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Public Law 112-90.
Section 24 requires the Secretary not to issue guidance or a regulation
to incorporate by reference any documents or portions thereof unless
the documents or portions thereof are made available to the public,
free of charge, on an Internet Web site. 49 U.S.C. 60102(p).
    On August 9, 2013, Public Law 113-30 revised 49 U.S.C. 60102(p) to
replace ``1 year'' with ``3 years'' and remove the phrases ``guidance
or'' and, ``on an Internet Web site.''
    Further, the Office of the Federal Register issued a November 7,
2014, rulemaking (79 FR 66278) that revised 1 CFR 51.5 to require that
agencies detail in the preamble of a proposed rulemaking the ways the
materials it proposes to incorporate by reference are reasonably
available to interested parties, or how the agency worked to make those
materials reasonably available to interested parties. In relation to
this proposed rulemaking, PHMSA has contacted each SDO and has
requested free public access of each standard that has been proposed
for incorporation by reference. Access to these standards will be
granted until the end of the comment period for this proposed
rulemaking. Access to these documents can be found on the PHMSA Web
site at the following URL: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs under
``Standards Incorporated by Reference.''

XIV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    This proposed rule is a non-significant regulatory action under
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), and therefore is
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This proposed rule is
non-significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034) because of substantial
congressional, State, industry, and public interest in pipeline safety.
    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies regulate in the
most cost-effective manner, make a reasoned determination that the
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs, and develop
regulations that impose the least burden on society. In this notice,
PHMSA is proposing to:
     Add a specific time frame for telephonic or electronic
notifications of accidents and incidents;
     Establish PHMSA's cost recovery procedures for new
projects that cost over $2,500,000,000 or use new and novel
technologies;
     Modify operator qualification requirements including
addressing a NTSB recommendation to clarify OQ requirements for control
rooms;
     Add provisions for the renewal of expiring special
permits;
     Exclude farm taps from the requirements of the DIMP
requirements while proposing safety requirements for the farm taps
     To address NTSB recommendations for control room team
training and other recommendations;
     Require pipeline operators to report to PHMSA permanent
reversal of flow that lasts more than 30 days or to a change in
product;
     Provide methods for assessment tools by incorporating
consensus standards by reference in part 195 for ILI and SCCDA;
     Require electronic reporting of drug and alcohol testing
results in part 199;
     Modify the criteria used to make decisions about
conducting post-accident drug and alcohol tests and require operators
to keep for at least three years a record of the reason why post-
accident drug and alcohol test was not conducted;
     Add a procedure to ensure PHMSA keeps submitted
information confidential.
     Adding reference to Appendix B of API 1104 related to in-
service welding in parts 192 and 195; and
     Making minor editorial corrections.
    As a summary of the costs/benefits the annual compliance costs were
estimated at approximately $3.1 million, less savings to be realized
from the removal of farm taps from the DIMP requirements. Annual safety
benefits could not be quantified as readily due to data limitations but
were estimated in the range of $1.6 million per year in avoided
incident costs, plus numerous intangible benefits from the improved
clarity and consistency of regulations and improved abilities to
conduct post-incident investigations. Although the quantified benefits
do not exceed the quantified costs, PHMSA believes that these non-
quantified benefits are significant enough to outweigh the costs of
compliance. In particular, improvements to Operator Qualification and
post-incident investigation may prevent a future high-consequence
event. At an annual compliance cost of $3.1 million, the proposed new
Operator Qualification and post-accident testing requirements would be
cost-effective if they prevented a single fatal incident over a 3-year
period.

                         Costs vs Benefits Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Costs..............................  $3.1 million.
Annual Benefits...........................  $1.6 million plus
                                             unquantified safety
                                             benefits and farm tap
                                             savings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A regulatory evaluation containing a statement of the purpose and
need for this rulemaking and an analysis of the costs and benefits is
available in Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0163.

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 add new requirements and make changes to the existing
pipeline safety regulations.
    Description of the reasons why action by PHMSA is being considered.
    PHMSA is proposing to amend the regulations to address the 2011
Act's Section 9 (Accident and Incident reporting requirements) to
within one hour so that timely actions can be taken to pipeline
accidents and incidents, and Section 13 (Cost Recovery) so that PHMSA's
limited resources for enforcement and other safety activities are not
used for operators design reviews. NTSB recommendations for control
room training and drug and alcohol reporting requirements are addressed
under this proposed rule. A special permit renewal procedure is
proposed so that pipeline operators would have a renewal procedure to
follow to renew their expiring special permits. The OQ requirements
scope is expanded for new constructions and a program effectiveness
review is required so that Operators can review their OQ programs for
effectiveness. In addition, other non-substantive changes are

proposed to correct language and provide methods for assessment tools
as recommended by incorporating consensus standards (this addresses
parts of NTSB recommendations P-12-3 and the NACE recommendations).
Specifically, these amendments address: Farm tap requirements to
address the NAPSR and INGAA concerns in including farm taps under the
DIMP requirements; notification for reversal of flow or change in
product for more than 60 days so that PHMSA is aware of the transported
product; incorporation by reference of standards to address ILI and
SCCDA; and additional testing of drug and alcohol tests, electronic
reporting of drug and alcohol testing results, modifying the criteria
used to make decisions about conducting post-accident drug and alcohol
tests and post-accident drug and alcohol testing recordkeeping to
address a NTSB recommendation; process to request submitted information
be kept confidential similar to the current Hazmat process in 49 CFR
105.30; and, editorial amendments to correct some errors or outdated
deadlines.
    Succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
    Under the Federal 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
1.97(a)). The proposed rule would create changes in the regulations
consistent with the protection of persons and property.
    Description of small entities to which the proposed rule will
apply.
    The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis finds that the proposed
rule could affect a substantial number of small entities because of the
market structure of the gas and hazardous liquids pipeline industry,
which includes many small entities. However, these impacts would not be
significant. The OQ provision would entail new costs for small entities
in the range of $160.00 per employee per year, or about 0.3% of salary
for a typical pipeline employee. The provision to document the reason
for not drug testing post-accident would add $74.00 in documentation
costs per reportable incident. The other provisions would not add
appreciable costs, and at least one provision (Farm Taps) would yield
compliance cost savings, though those savings are not expected to be
significant.
    Description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, including alternatives considered.
    PHMSA is unaware of any alternatives which would produce smaller
economic impacts on small entities while at the same time meeting the
objectives of the relevant statutes.

Questions for Comment on Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    PHMSA is requesting public comments for the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis as follows:
    1. Provide any data concerning the number of small entities that
may be affected.
    2. Provide comments on any or all of the provisions in the proposed
rule with regard to (a) the impact of the provisions, if any, and (b)
any alternatives PHMSA should consider, paying specific attention to
the effect of the rule on small entities.
    3. Describe ways in which the rule could be modified to reduce any
costs or burdens for small entities.
    4. Identify all relevant Federal, state, local, or industry rules
or policies that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed
rule and have not already been incorporated by reference.

Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA has analyzed this proposed rule according to the principles
and criteria in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.'' The funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply because this
proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance
costs.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), PHMSA is required to provide
interested members of the public and affected agencies with an
opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping
requests. PHMSA estimates that the proposals in this rulemaking will
impact the following information collections:
    ``Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Record keeping
and Accident Reporting'' identified under Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Control Number 2137-0047; ``Incident and Annual Reports
for Gas Pipeline Operators'' identified under Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Control Number 2137-0522; ``Qualification of Pipeline
Safety Training'' identified under Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Control Number 2137-0600; and ``National Registry of Pipeline and
LNG Operators'' identified under Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Control Number 2137-0627.
    PHMSA also proposes to create a new information collection to cover
the recordkeeping requirement for post-accident drug testing: ``Post-
Accident Drug Testing for Pipeline Operators.'' PHMSA will request a
new Control Number from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
this information collection.
    PHMSA will submit an information collection revision request to OMB
for approval based on the requirements that need information collection
in this proposed rule. The information collection is contained in the
pipeline safety regulations, 49 CFR parts 190 through 199. The
following information is provided for each information collection: (1)
Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3)
Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the
information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public;
(7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and
(8) Frequency of collection. The information collection burdens are
estimated to be revised as follows:
    1. Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline:
Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0047.
    Current Expiration Date: July 31, 2015.
    Abstract: This information collection covers recordkeeping and
accident reporting by hazardous liquid pipeline operators who are
subject to 49 CFR part 195. Section 195.50 specifies the definition of
an ``accident'' and the reporting criteria for submitting a Hazardous
Liquid Accident Report (form PHMSA F7000-1) is detailed in Sec.
195.54. PHMSA is proposing to revise the form PHMSA F7000-1
instructions for editorial and clarification purposes. This proposal
would result in a modification to the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
form (Form PHMSA F 7000-1) to include the concept of ``confirmed
discovery'' as proposed in this rule.
    Affected Public: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 847.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 52,429.
    Frequency of collection: On Occasion.
    2. Title: Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0522.

    Current Expiration Date: October 31, 2017.
    Abstract: This proposal would result in a modification to the Gas
Distribution Incident Report form (Form PHMSA F 7100.1) to include the
concept of ``confirmed discovery'' as proposed in this rule.
    Affected Public: Gas pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 12,164.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 92,321.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    3. Title: Qualification of Pipeline Safety Training''
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0600.
    Current Expiration Date: July 31, 2018.
    Abstract: All individuals responsible for the operation and
maintenance of pipeline facilities are required to be properly
qualified to safely perform their tasks and keep proper documentation
as required by PHMSA regulations. As a result of the changes proposed
in this NPRM, PHMSA estimates a total of 16,008 new employees will be
subject to participate in an OQ plan either as a result of new
gathering line requirements or because of newly covered tasks.
Participation in an OQ plan necessitates the retention of records
associated with those plans. This proposal will impose a recordkeeping
requirement for Operator Qualifications on the estimated 16,008 newly
covered employees that will be affected by this rule. As a result,
16,008 responses and 42,668 annual burden hours will be added to the
existing information collection burden.
    Affected Public: Operators of PHMSA-Regulated Pipelines.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 31,835
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 509,360.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    4. Title: ``National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators''
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0627.
    Current Expiration Date: May 31, 2018.
    Abstract: The National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators
serves as the storehouse of data on regulated operators or those
subject to reporting requirements under 49 CFR parts 192, 193, or 195.
This registry incorporates the use of two forms: (1) The Operator
Assignment Request Form (PHMSA F 1000.1) and, (2) the Operator Registry
Notification Form (PHMSA F 1000.2). This proposed rule would amend
Sec.  191.22 to require operators to notify PHMSA upon the occurrence
of the following: Construction of 10 or more miles of a new or
replacement pipeline; construction of a new LNG plant or LNG facility;
reversal of product flow direction when the reversal is expected to
last more than 30 days; if a pipeline is converted for service under
Sec.  192.14, or has a change in commodity as reported on the annual
report as required by Sec.  191.17.
    These notifications are estimated to be rare but would fall under
the scope of Operator Notifications required by PHMSA as a result of
this proposed rule. PHMSA estimates that this new reporting requirement
will add .10 new responses and 10 annual burden hours to the currently
approved information collection.
    Affected Public: Operators of PHMSA-Regulated Pipelines
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 640.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 640.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    5. Title: ``Post-Accident Drug Testing for Pipeline Operators''
    OMB Control Number: Will request one from OMB.
    Current Expiration Date: New Collection--To be determined.
    Abstract: This NPRM proposes to amend 49 CFR 199.227 to require
operators to retain records for three years if they decide not to
administer post-accident/incident drug testing on affected employees).
As a result, operators who choose not to perform post-accident drug and
alcohol tests on affected employees are required to keep records
explaining their decision not to do so. PHMSA estimates this
recordkeeping requirement will result in 609 responses and 609 burden
hours for recordkeeping. PHMSA does not currently have an information
collection which covers this requirement and will request the approval
of this new collection, along with a new OMB Control Number, from the
Office of Management and Budget.
    Affected Public: Operators of PHMSA-Regulated Pipelines
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 609
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,218.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Requests for copies of these information collections should be
directed to Angela Dow, Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP-30), Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 2nd Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
revised collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    Send comments directly to the Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for
the Department of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503. Comments should be submitted on or prior to September 8, 2015.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    PHMSA has determined that the proposed rule would not impose annual
expenditures on State, local, or tribal governments of the private
sector in excess of $153 million, and thus, does not require an
Unfunded Mandates Act analysis.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Unfunded Mandates Act threshold was $100 million in
1995. Using the non-seasonally adjusted CPI-U (Index series
CUUR000SA0), that number is $153 million in 2013 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 through 4375)
requires that Federal agencies analyze proposed actions to determine
whether those actions will have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations require
Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering: (1)
The need for the proposed action, (2) alternatives to the proposed
action, (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and
alternatives, and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the
consideration process (40 CFR 1508.9(b)).
1. Purpose and Need
    PHMSA's mission is to protect people and the environment from the
risks of hazardous materials transportation. The purpose of this
proposed rule is to enhance pipeline integrity and safety to lessen the
frequency and consequences of pipeline incidents that cause
environmental degradation, personal injury, and loss of life.

    The need for this action stems from the statutory mandates in
Sections 9 and 13 of the 2011 Act, NTSB recommendations, and the need
to add new reference material and make non substantive edits. Section 9
of the 2011 Act directs PHMSA to require a specific time limit for
telephonic or electronic reporting of pipeline accidents and incidents,
and Section 13 of the 2011 Act allows PHMSA to recover costs associated
with pipeline design reviews. NTSB has made recommendations regarding
the clarification of OQ requirements in control rooms, and to eliminate
operator discretion with regard to post-accident drug and alcohol
testing of covered employees. In addition, PHMSA's safety regulations
require periodic updates and clarifications to enhance compliance and
overall safety.
2. Alternatives
    In developing the proposed rule, PHMSA considered two alternatives:
    (1) No action, or
    (2) Propose revisions to the pipeline safety regulations to
incorporate the proposed amendments as described in this document.
    Alternative 1:
    PHMSA has an obligation to ensure the safe and effective
transportation of hazardous liquids and gases by pipeline. The changes
proposed in this proposed rule serve that purpose by clarifying the
pipeline safety regulations and addressing Congressional mandates and
NTSB safety recommendations. A failure to undertake these actions would
be non-responsive to the Congressional mandates and the NTSB
recommendations. Accordingly, PHMSA rejected the ``no action''
alternative.
    Alternative 2:
    PHMSA is proposing to make certain amendments and non-substantive
changes to the pipeline safety regulations 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 to request
PHMSA keep submitted information confidential. We are also proposing
changes to the OQ requirements and drug and alcohol testing
requirements and proposing methods for assessment tools by
incorporating consensus standards by reference for in-line inspection
and stress corrosion cracking direct assessment.
3. Analysis of Environmental Impacts
    The Nation's pipelines are located throughout the United States in
a variety of diverse environments; from offshore locations, to highly
populated urban sites, to unpopulated rural areas. The pipeline
infrastructure is a network of over 2.6 million miles of pipelines that
move millions of gallons of hazardous liquids and over 55 billion cubic
feet of natural gas daily. The biggest source of energy is petroleum,
including oil and natural gas. Together, these commodities supply 65
percent of the energy in the United States.
    The physical environments potentially affected by the proposed rule
includes the airspace, water resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes),
cultural and historical resources (e.g., properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological
resources (e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and
their habitats, forests, grasslands, offshore marine ecosystems), and
special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and
animal species and their habitats, national and State parklands,
biological reserves, wild and scenic rivers) that exist directly
adjacent to and within the vicinity of pipelines.
    Because the pipelines subject to the proposed rule contain
hazardous materials, resources within the physically affected
environments, as well as public health and safety, may be affected by
pipeline incidents such as spills and leaks. Incidents on pipelines can
result in fires and explosions, resulting in damage to the local
environment. In addition, since pipelines often contain gas streams
laden with condensates and natural gas liquids, failures also result in
spills of these liquids, which can cause environmental harm. Depending
on the size of a spill or gas leak and the nature of the impact zone,
the impacts could vary from property damage and environmental damage to
injuries or, on rare occasions, fatalities.
    The proposed amendments are improvements to the existing pipeline
safety requirements and would have little or no impact on the human
environment. On a national scale, the cumulative environmental damage
from pipelines would most likely be reduced slightly.
    For these reasons, PHMSA has concluded that neither of the
alternatives discussed above would result in any significant impacts on
the environment.
    Preparers: This Environmental Assessment was prepared by DOT staff
from PHMSA and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Office of
the Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R)).
4. Finding of No Significant Impact
    PHMSA has preliminarily determined that the selected alternative
would have a positive, non-significant, impact on the human environment
and welcomes comments on PHMSA's conclusion. The preliminary
environmental assessment is available in Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0163.

Executive Order 13132

    PHMSA has analyzed this proposed rule according to Executive Order
13132 (``Federalism''). The proposed rule does not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposed
rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. This proposed rule does not preempt State law for
intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Executive Order 13211

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''). It is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or
energy use. Further, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated this proposed rule as a significant energy action.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 190

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Cost recovery,
Special permits.

49 CFR Part 191

    Incident, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Reversal of flow.

49 CFR Part192

    Control room, Distribution integrity management program, Gathering
lines, Incorporation by reference, Operator qualification, Pipeline
safety, Safety devices, Security measures.

49 CFR Part 195

    Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Control room, Corrosion control, Direct
and indirect costs, Gathering lines, Incident,

Incorporation by reference, Operator qualification, Petroleum, Pipeline
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Reversal of flow,
Safety devices.

49 CFR Part 199

    Alcohol testing, Drug testing, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR parts 190, 191, 192, 195, and 199 as follows:

PART 190--PIPELINE SAFETY ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATORY PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 190 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(b); 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.; 49 CFR
1.97(a).

0
2. In Sec.  190.3, add the definition ``New and novel technologies'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  190.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    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.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  190.341 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(8) and removing, paragraph (c)(9);
0
b. Re-designating paragraphs (e) through (j) as paragraphs (g) through
(l) and adding new paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  190.341  Special permits.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) Any other information PHMSA may need to process the application
including environmental analysis where necessary.
    (d) * * *
    (2) Grants, renewals, and denials. If the Associate Administrator
determines that the application complies with the requirements of this
section and that the waiver of the relevant regulation or standard is
not inconsistent with pipeline safety, the Associate Administrator may
grant the application, in whole or in part, for a period of time from
the date granted. Conditions may be imposed on the grant if the
Associate Administrator concludes they are necessary to assure safety,
environmental protection, or are otherwise in the public interest. If
the Associate Administrator determines that the application does not
comply with the requirements of this section or that a waiver is not
justified, the application will be denied. Whenever the Associate
Administrator grants or denies an application, notice of the decision
will be provided to the applicant. PHMSA will post all special permits
on its Web site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/.
    (e) How does PHMSA handle special permit renewals? (1) To continue
using a special permit after the expiration date, the grantee of the
special permit must apply for a renewal of the permit.
    (2) If, at least 180 days before an existing special permit expires
the holder files an application for renewal that is complete and
conforms to the requirements of this section, the special permit will
not expire until final administrative action on the application for
renewal has been taken:
    (i) Direct fax to PHMSA at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    (ii) Express mail, or overnight courier to the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., East Building,
Washington, DC 20590.
    (f) What information must be included in the renewal application?
(1) The renewal application must include a copy of the original special
permit, the docket number on the special permit, and the following
information:
    (i) A summary report in accordance with the requirements of the
original special permit including verification that the grantee's
operations and maintenance plan (O&M Plan) is consistent with the
conditions of the special permit;
    (ii) Name, mailing address and telephone number of the special
permit grantee;
    (iii) Location of special permit--areas on the pipeline where the
special permit is applicable including: diameter, mile posts, county,
and state;
    (iv) Applicable usage of the special permit--original and future;
and
    (v) Data for the special permit segment and area identified in the
special permit as needing additional inspections to include:
    (A) Pipe attributes: Pipe diameter, wall thickness, grade, and seam
type; pipe coating including girth weld coating;
    (B) Operating Pressure: Maximum allowable operating pressure
(MAOP); class location (including boundaries on aerial photography);
    (C) High Consequence Areas (HCAs): HCA boundaries on aerial
photography;
    (D) Material Properties: Pipeline material documentation for all
pipe, fittings, flanges, and any other facilities included in the
special permit. Material documentation must include: yield strength,
tensile strength, chemical composition, wall thickness, and seam type;
    (E) Test Pressure: Hydrostatic test pressure and date including
pressure and temperature charts and logs and any known test failures;
    (F) In-line inspection (ILI): ILI survey results from all ILI tools
used on the special permit segments during the previous five years;
    (G) Integrity Data and Integration: The following information, as
applicable, for the past five (5) years: Hydrostatic test pressure
including any known test failures; casings(any shorts); any in-service
ruptures or leaks; close interval survey (CIS) surveys; depth of cover
surveys; rectifier readings; test point survey readings; AC/DC
interference surveys; pipe coating surveys; pipe coating and anomaly
evaluations from pipe excavations; SCC, selective seam corrosion and
hard spot excavations and findings; and pipe exposures from
encroachments;
    (H) In-service: Any in-service ruptures or leaks including repair
type and failure investigation findings; and
    (I) Aerial Photography: Special permit segment and special permit
inspection area, if applicable.
    (2) PHMSA may request additional operational, integrity or
environmental assessment information prior to granting any request for
special permit renewal.
    (3) The existing special permit will remain in effect until PHMSA
acts on the application for renewal by granting or denying the request.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 190.343 is added to subpart D to read as follows:

Sec.  190.343.  Information made available to the public and request
for confidential treatment.

    When you submit information to PHMSA during a rulemaking
proceeding, as part of your application for special permit or renewal,
or for any other reason, we may make that information publicly
available unless you ask that we keep the information confidential.
    (a) Asking for confidential treatment. You may ask us to give
confidential treatment to information you give to the agency by taking
the following steps:
    (1) Mark ``confidential'' on each page of the original document you
would like to keep confidential.
    (2) Send us, along with the original document, a second copy of the
original document with the confidential information deleted.

    (3) Explain why the information you are submitting is confidential.
    (b) PHMSA Decision. PHMSA will decide whether to treat your
information as confidential. We will notify you, in writing, of a
decision to grant or deny confidentiality at least five days before the
information is publicly disclosed, and give you an opportunity to
respond
0
5. In part 190, subpart E is added to read asfollows:

Subpart E--Cost Recovery for Design Reviews

Sec.
190.401 Scope.
190.403 Applicability.
190.405 Notification.
190.407 Master Agreement.
190.409 Fee structure.
190.411 Procedures for billing and payment of fee.

Sec.  190.401 Scope.

    If PHMSA conducts a facility design and/or construction safety
review or inspection in connection with a proposal to construct,
expand, or operate a gas, hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline
facility, or a liquefied natural gas facility that meets the
applicability requirements in Sec.  190.403, PHMSA may require the
applicant proposing the project to pay the costs incurred by PHMSA
relating to such review, including the cost of design and construction
safety reviews or inspections.

Sec.  190.403 Applicability.

    The following paragraph specifies which projects will be subject to
the cost recovery requirements of this section.
    (a) This section applies to any project that--
    (1) Has design and construction costs totaling at least
$2,500,000,000, as periodically adjusted by PHMSA, to take into account
increases in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers published
by the Department of Labor, based on--
    (i) The cost estimate provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission in an application for a certificate of public convenience
and necessity for a gas pipeline facility or an application for
authorization for a liquefied natural gas pipeline facility; or
    (ii) A good faith estimate developed by the applicant proposing a
hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide pipeline facility and submitted to
the Associate Administrator. The good faith estimate for design and
construction costs must include all of the applicable cost items
contained in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission application
referenced in Sec.  190.403(a)(1)(i) for a gas or LNG facility. In
addition, an applicant must take into account all survey, design,
material, permitting, right-of way acquisition, construction, testing,
commissioning, start-up, construction financing, environmental
protection, inspection, material transportation, sales tax, project
contingency, and all other applicable costs, including all segments,
facilities, and multi-year phases of the project;
    (2) Uses new or novel technologies or design, as defined in Sec.
190.3.
    (b) The Associate Administrator may not collect design safety
review fees under this section and 49 U.S.C. 60301 for the same design
safety review.
    (c) The Associate Administrator, after receipt of the design
specifications, construction plans and procedures, and related
materials, determines if cost recovery is necessary. The Associate
Administrator's determination is based on the amount of PHMSA resources
needed to ensure safety and environmental protection.

Sec.  190.405  Notification.

    For any new pipeline facility construction project in which PHMSA
will conduct a design review, the applicant proposing the project must
notify PHMSA and provide the design specifications, construction plans
and procedures, project schedule and related materials at least 120
days prior to the commencement of any of the following activities:
Construction route surveys, permitting activities, material purchasing
and manufacturing, right of way acquisition, offsite facility
fabrications, construction equipment move-in activities, onsite or
offsite fabrications, personnel support facility construction, and any
offsite or onsite facility construction. To the maximum extent
practicable, but not later than 90 days after receiving such design
specifications, construction plans and procedures, and related
materials, PHMSA will provide written comments, feedback, and guidance
on the project.

Sec.  190.407  Master Agreement.

    PHMSA and the applicant will enter into an agreement within 60 days
after PHMSA received notification from the applicant provided in Sec.
190.405, outlining PHMSA's recovery of the costs associated with the
facility design safety review.
    (a) A Master Agreement, at a minimum, includes:
    (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;
and
    (7) Provisions for terminating the agreement.
    (8) A project reimbursement cost schedule based upon the project
timing and scope.
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  190.409  Fee structure.

    The fee charged is based on the direct costs that PHMSA incurs in
conducting the facility design safety review (including construction
review and inspections), and will be based only on costs necessary for
conducting the facility design safety review. ``Necessary for'' means
that but for the facility design safety review, the costs would not
have been incurred and that the costs cover only those activities and
items without which the facility design safety review cannot be
completed.
    (a) Costs qualifying for cost recovery include, but are not limited
to--
    (1) Personnel costs based upon total cost to PHMSA;
    (2) Travel, lodging and subsistence;
    (3) Vehicle mileage;
    (4) Other direct services, materials and supplies;
    (5) Other direct costs as may be specified in the Master Agreement.
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  190.411  Procedures for billing and payment of fee.

    All PHMSA cost calculations for billing purposes are determined
from the best available PHMSA records.
    (a) PHMSA bills an applicant for cost recovery fees as specified in
the Master Agreement, but the applicant will not be billed more
frequently than quarterly.
    (1) PHMSA will itemize cost recovery bills in sufficient detail to
allow independent verification of calculations.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) PHMSA will monitor the applicant's account balance. Should the
account balance fall below the required minimum balance specified in
the Master Agreement, PHMSA may request at any time the applicant
submit

payment within 30 days to maintain the minimum balance.
    (c) PHMSA will provide an updated estimate of costs to the
applicant on or near October 1st of each calendar year.
    (d) Payment of cost recovery fees is due within 30 days of issuance
of a bill for the fees. If payment is not made within 30 days, PHMSA
may charge an annual rate of interest (as set by the Department of
Treasury's Statutory Debt Collection Authorities) on any outstanding
debt, as specified in the Master Agreement.
    (e) Payment of the cost recovery fee by the applicant does not
obligate or prevent PHMSA from taking any particular action during
safety inspections on the project.

PART 191--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE;
ANNUAL REPORTS, INCIDENT REPORTS, AND SAFETY-RELATED CONDITION
REPORTS

0
6. The authority citation for part 191, as revised in 80 FR12762 (March
11, 2015), effective October 1, 2015, continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60117,
60118, and 60124, and 49 CFR 1.97.

0
7. In Sec.  191.3, add the definition ``Confirmed discovery'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  191.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Confirmed discovery means there is sufficient information to
determine that a reportable event may have occurred even if an
evaluation has not been completed.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  191.5, paragraph (a) is revised, paragraph (b)(5) is re-
designated as paragraph (b)(6) and new paragraph (b)(5) and paragraph
(c) are added to read as follows:

Sec.  191.5  Immediate notice of certain incidents.

    (a) At the earliest practicable moment following discovery, but no
later than one hour after confirmed discovery, each operator must give
notice in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section of each
incident as defined in Sec.  191.3.
    (b) * * *
    (5) The amount of product loss.
* * * * *
    (c) Within 48 hours after the confirmed discovery of an incident,
to the extent practicable, an operator must revise or confirm its
initial telephonic notice required in paragraph (b) of this section
with a revised estimate of the amount of product released, an estimate
of the number of fatalities and injuries, and all other significant
facts that are known by the operator that are relevant to the cause of
the incident or extent of the damages. If there are no changes or
revisions to the initial report, the operator must confirm the
estimates in its initial report.
0
9. In Sec.  191.22, paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is revised and paragraphs
(c)(1)(iv) and (c)(1)(v) are added to read as follows:

Sec.  191.22  National Registry of Pipeline and LNG operators.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Construction of 10 or more miles of a new or replacement
pipeline;
* * * * *
    (iv) Reversal of product flow direction when the reversal is
expected to last more than 30 days. This notification is not required
for pipeline systems already designed for bi-directional flow; or
    (v) A pipeline converted for service under Sec.  192.14 of this
chapter, or a change in commodity as reported on the annual report as
required by Sec.  191.17.
* * * * *

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
10. The authority citation for part 192, as revised in 80 FR 12762
(March 11, 2015), effective October 1, 2015, continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60118, and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.97.

0
11. In Sec.  192.9, paragraph (c) is revised, paragraph (d)(8) is
added, and the table in paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.9  What requirements apply to gathering lines?

* * * * *
    (c) Type A lines. An operator of a Type A regulated onshore
gathering line must comply with the requirements of this part
applicable to transmission lines, except the requirements in Sec.
192.150 and in subpart O of this part. An operator must establish and
implement an operator qualification program in accordance with Subpart
N of this part.
    (d) * * *
    (8) Establish and implement an operator qualification program in
accordance with Subpart N of this part.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) If a regulated onshore gathering line existing on April 14,
2006 was not previously subject to this part, an operator has until the
date stated in the second column to comply with the applicable
requirement for the line listed in the first column, unless the
Administrator finds a later deadline is justified in a particular case:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Requirement                      Compliance deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control corrosion according to Subpart I    April 15, 2009.
 requirements for transmission lines.
Carry out a damage prevention program       October 15, 2007.
 under Sec.   192.614.
Establish MAOP under Sec.   192.619.......  October 15, 2007.
Install and maintain line markers under     April 15, 2008.
 Sec.   192.707.
Establish a public education program under  April 15, 2008.
 Sec.   192.616.
Establish an operator qualification         [date one year after
 program according to Subpart N              publication of a final
 requirements if an operator of a Type A     rule].
 or Type B regulated onshore gathering
 line.
Other provisions of this part as required   April 15, 2009.
 by paragraph (c) of this section for Type
 A lines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
12. In Sec.  192.14, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows

Sec.  192.14  Conversion to service subject to this part.

* * * * *
    (c) An operator converting a pipeline from service not previously
covered by this part must notify PHMSA 60 days before the conversion
occurs as required by Sec.  191.22 of this chapter.

0
13. In Section 192.175, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.175  Pipe-type and bottle-type holders.

* * * * *
    (b) Each pipe-type or bottle-type holder must have minimum
clearance from other holders in accordance with the following formula:

C = (3D*P*F)/1000) in inches; (C = (3D*P*F*)/6,895) in millimeters in
which:

C = Minimum clearance between pipe containers or bottles in inches
(millimeters).
D = Outside diameter of pipe containers or bottles in inches
(millimeters).
P = Maximum allowable operating pressure, psi (kPa) gauge.
F = Design factor as set forth in Sec.  192.111 of this part.

0
14. In Sec.  192.225, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.225  Welding procedures.

    (a) Welding must be performed by a qualified welder or welding
operator in accordance with welding procedures qualified under section
5, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
192.7) to produce welds meeting the requirements of this subpart. The
quality of the test welds used to qualify welding procedures must be
determined by destructive testing in accordance with the applicable
welding standard(s).
* * * * *
0
15. In Sec.  192.227, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.227  Qualification of welders.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each
welder or welding operator must be qualified in accordance with section
6, section 12, Appendix A or Appendix B of API Std 1104 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  192.7) or section IX of the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
192.7). However, a welder or welding operator qualified under an
earlier edition than the listed in Sec.  192.7 of this part may weld
but may not requalify under that earlier edition.
* * * * *
0
16. In Sec.  192.631, paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (h)(4) and (h)(5) are
revised and paragraphs (b)(5) and (h)(6) are added to read as follows:

Sec.  192.631  Control room management.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) A controller's role during an emergency, even if the controller
is not the first to detect the emergency, including the controller's
responsibility to take specific actions and to communicate with others;
    (4) A method of recording controller shift-changes and any hand-
over of responsibility between controllers; and
    (5) The roles, responsibilities and qualifications of others with
the authority to direct or supersede the specific technical actions of
a controller.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Training that will provide a controller a working knowledge of
the pipeline system, especially during the development of abnormal
operating conditions;
    (5) For pipeline operating setups that are periodically, but
infrequently used, providing an opportunity for controllers to review
relevant procedures in advance of their application; and
    (6) Control room team training and exercises that include both
controllers and other individuals who would reasonably be expected to
interact with controllers (control room personnel) during normal,
abnormal or emergency situations.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 192.740 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  192.740  Pressure regulating, limiting, and overpressure
protection--Individual service lines originating on production,
gathering, or transmission pipelines.

    (a) This section applies, except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section, to any service line that originates from a production,
gathering, or transmission pipeline that is not operated as part of a
distribution system.
    (b) Each pressure regulating/limiting device, relief device,
automatic shutoff device, and associated equipment must be inspected
and tested at least once every 3 calendar years, not exceeding 39
months, to determine that it is:
    (1) In good mechanical condition;
    (2) Adequate from the standpoint of capacity and reliability of
operation for the service in which it is employed;
    (3) Set to control or relieve at the correct pressure consistent
with the pressure limits of Sec.  192.197; and to limit the pressure on
the inlet of the service regulator to 60 psi (414 kPa) gage or less in
case the upstream regulator fails to function properly; and
    (4) Properly installed and protected from dirt, liquids, or other
conditions that might prevent proper operation.
    (c) This section does not apply to equipment installed on service
lines that only serve engines that power irrigation pumps.
0
18. Section 192.801 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.801  Scope.

    This subpart prescribes the minimum requirements for operator
qualification of individuals performing covered tasks as defined in
Sec.  192.803 on a pipeline facility.
0
19. Section 192.803 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.803  Definitions.

    For purposes of the subpart the following definitions apply:
    Abnormal operating condition means a condition identified by the
operator that may indicate a malfunction of a component or deviation
from normal operations that may:
    (1) Indicate a condition exceeding design limits; or
    (2) Result in a hazard(s) to persons, property, or the environment.
    Adversely affects means a negative impact on the safety or
integrity of the pipeline facilities.
    Covered task means an activity identified by the operator that
affects the safety or integrity of the pipeline facility. A covered
task includes, but is not limited to, the performance of any
operations, maintenance, construction or emergency response task.
    Direct and observe means the process where a qualified individual
personally observes the work activities of an individual not qualified
to perform a single covered task, and is able to take immediate
corrective action when necessary.
    Emergency response tasks are those identified operations and
maintenance covered tasks that could reasonably be expected to be
performed during an emergency to return the pipeline facilities to a
safe operating condition.
    Evaluation means a process, established and documented by the
operator, to determine an individual's ability to perform a covered
task by any of the following:
    (1) Written examination;
    (2) Oral examination;
    (3) Work performance history review;
    (4) Observation during;
    (i) Performance on the job;
    (ii) On the job training; or
    (iii) Simulations; and
    (5) Other forms of assessment
    Knowledge, skills and abilities, as it applies to individuals
performing a covered task, means that an individual can apply
information to the performance of a covered task, has the ability to
perform mental and physical activities developed or acquired through
training, and has the mental and physical capacity to perform the
covered task.
    Qualified as it applies to an individual performing a covered task,
means that an individual has been evaluated and can:
    (1) Perform assigned covered tasks;
    (2) Recognize and react to abnormal operating conditions that may
be encountered while performing a particular covered task;
    (3) Demonstrate technical knowledge required to perform the covered
task, such as: equipment selection, maintenance of equipment,
calibration and proper operation of equipment, including variations
that may be encountered in the covered task performance due to
equipment and environmental differences;

    (4) Demonstrate the technical skills required to perform the
covered task, for example:
    (i) Variations required in the covered task performance due to
equipment and/or new operations differences or changes;
    (ii) Variations required in covered task performance due to
conditions or context differences (e.g., hot work versus work on
evacuated pipeline); and
    (5) Meet the physical abilities required to perform the specific
covered task (e.g., color vision or hearing).
    Safety or integrity means the reliable condition of a pipeline
facility (operationally sound or having the ability to withstand
stresses imposed) affected by any operation, maintenance or
construction task, and/or an emergency response.
    Significant changes means the following as it relates to operator
qualification:
    (1) Wholesale changes to the program;
    (2) Change in evaluation methods (i.e. performance and written to
written only);
    (3) Increases in evaluation intervals (i.e. from 1 to 5 years); or
    (4) Removal of covered tasks (not including combining covered
tasks).
    Span of control means the ratio of nonqualified to qualified
individuals where the nonqualified individual may be directed and
observed by a qualified individual when performing a covered task, with
consideration to complexity of the covered task and the operational
conditions when performing the covered task.
0
20. Section 192.805 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.805  Qualification program.

    (a) General. An operator must have and follow a written operator
qualification program that meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section for all pipelines regulated under part 192. The written
program must be available for review by the Administrator or by a state
agency participating under 49 U.S.C. chapter 601 if the program is
under the authority of that state agency.
    (b) Program Requirements. The operator qualification program must,
at a minimum, include provisions to:
    (1) Identify covered tasks;
    (2) Complete the qualification of each individual performing a
covered task prior to the individual performing the covered task;
    (3) Ensure through evaluation that each individual performing a
covered task is qualified to perform the covered task provided that:
    (i) Review of work performance history is not used as a sole
evaluation method.
    (ii) Observation of on-the-job performance is not used as a sole
method of evaluation. However, when on-the-job performance is used to
complete an individual's competency for a covered task, the operator
qualification procedure must define the measures used to determine
successful completion of the on-the-job performance evaluation.
    (4) Allow any individual who is not qualified to perform a covered
task to perform the covered task if directed and observed by a
qualified individual within the limitations of the established span of
control for the particular covered task.
    (5) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual's performance of a covered task contributed to an
incident as defined in part 191 of this chapter;
    (6) Evaluate an individual if the operator has reason to believe
that the individual is no longer qualified to perform a covered task;
    (7) Establish and maintain a Management of Change program that will
communicate changes that affect covered tasks to individuals performing
those covered tasks;
    (8) Identify all covered tasks and the intervals at which
evaluation of an individual's qualifications is needed;
    (9) Provide training to ensure that any individual performing a
covered task has the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to
perform the task in a manner that ensures the safety and integrity of
the operator's pipeline facilities;
    (10) Provide supplemental training for the individual when
procedures and specifications are changed for the covered task;
    (11) Establish the requirements to be an Evaluator, including the
necessary training; and
    (12) Develop and implement a process to measure the program's
effectiveness in accordance with Sec.  192.805
    (c) Changes. An operator must notify the Administrator or a State
agency participating under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 if the operator
significantly modifies the program after the Administrator or state
agency has verified that it complies with this section. Notifications
to PHMSA may be submitted by electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to ATTN: Information
Resources Manager DOT/PHMSA/OPS, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
0
21. Section 192.807 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.807  Program effectiveness.

    (a) General. The qualification program must include a written
process to measure the program's effectiveness. An effective program
minimizes human error caused by an individual's lack of knowledge,
skills and abilities (KSAs) to perform covered tasks. An operator must
conduct the program effectiveness review once each calendar year not to
exceed 15 months.
    (b) Process. The process to measure program effectiveness must:
    (1) Evaluate if the qualification program is being implemented and
executed as written; and
    (2) Establish provisions to amend the program to include any
changes necessary to address the findings of the program effectiveness
review.
    (c) Measures. The operator must develop program measures to
determine the effectiveness of the qualification program. The operator
must, at a minimum, include and use the following measures to evaluate
the effectiveness of the program.
    (1) Number of occurrences caused by any individual whose