Pipeline Safety: Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety Regulations: Response to Petitions for Reconsideration, 58633-58635 [2015-24763]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
removing ‘‘FAR 32.617(a)(2)’’ and
adding ‘‘FAR 32.611(a)(2)’’ in its place.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 232
Government procurement.
[FR Doc. 2015–24786 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am]
Jennifer L. Hawes,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations
System.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Therefore, 48 CFR part 232 is
amended as follows:
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
PART 232—CONTRACT FINANCING
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 232 continues to read as follows:
49 CFR Part 192
■
[Docket No. PHMSA–2010–0026; Amdt. Nos.
191–23; 192–120; 195–100]
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR
chapter 1.
232.605
RIN 2137–AE59
[Redesignated as 232.602]
Pipeline Safety: Miscellaneous
Changes to Pipeline Safety
Regulations: Response to Petitions for
Reconsideration
2. Redesignate section 232.605 as
232.602.
■ 3. In the newly redesignated section
232.602, revise the heading to read as
follows:
■
232.602
*
*
232.606
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), Department of Transportation
(DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions
for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
Responsibilities.
*
*
*
[Redesignated as 232.603]
4. Redesignate section 232.606 as
232.603.
■ 5. Revise the newly redesignated
section 232.603 to read as follows:
■
232.603
Debt determination.
When transferring a case to the
contract financing office, follow the
procedures at PGI 232.603.
232.610
[Redesignated as 232.604]
6. Redesignate section 232.610 as
232.604.
■ 7. Revise the newly redesignated
section 232.604 to read as follows:
■
232.604
Demand for payment.
When issuing a demand for payment
of a contract debt, follow the procedures
at PGI 232.604.
232.616
[Redesignated as 232.610]
8. Redesignate section 232.616 as
232.610.
■ 9. Revise the newly redesignated
section 232.610 to read as follows:
■
232.610
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
[Redesignated as 232.611]
10. Redesignate section 232.617 as
232.611.
■
232.611
[Amended]
11. In the newly redesignated section
232.611, amend paragraph (a) by
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 235001
Kay
McIver, Transportation Specialist, by
telephone at 202–366–0113, or by
electronic mail at kay.mciver@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Compromising debts.
Only the department/agency contract
financing offices (see PGI 232.070(c)) are
authorized to compromise debts covered
by this subpart.
232.617
On March 11, 2015, PHMSA
published a final rule amending the
pipeline safety regulations to make
miscellaneous changes that updated and
clarified certain regulatory
requirements. These amendments
addressed several subject matter areas,
including the performance of postconstruction inspections, Type B
onshore gas gathering line leak surveys,
qualifying plastic pipe joiners, ethanol
regulation, pipe transportation, offshore
pipeline condition report filing,
pressure reduction calculations for
hazardous liquid pipeline anomalies,
and components fabricated by welding.
This final rule responds to petitions for
reconsideration of the final rule.
DATES: The effective date of the
amendment to 49 CFR 192.305,
published at 80 FR 12779, March 11,
2015, is delayed indefinitely. PHMSA
will publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing a new effective
date.
SUMMARY:
I. Background
On March 11, 2015, PHMSA
published a final rule amending the
pipeline safety regulations to make
miscellaneous changes that update and
clarify certain regulatory requirements
(80 FR 12762). These amendments
address several subject matter areas,
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58633
including the performance of postconstruction inspections, Type B
onshore gas gathering line leak surveys,
qualifying plastic pipe joiners, ethanol
regulation, pipe transportation, offshore
pipeline condition report filing,
pressure reduction calculations for
hazardous liquid pipeline anomalies,
and components fabricated by welding.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
Collectively, PHMSA received four
petitions for reconsideration of the final
rule from the American Public Gas
Association (APGA), the American Gas
Association (AGA), the Interstate
Natural Gas Association (INGAA), and
the National Association of Pipeline
Safety Representatives (NAPSR). The
APGA, the AGA, and NAPSR expressed
concerns about the provisions of the
final rule applicable to construction
inspection in § 192.305. INGAA and the
AGA expressed concerns applicable to
provisions in the final rule applicable to
components fabricated by welding.
Components Fabricated by Welding; 49
CFR 192.153 and 192.165(b)(3)
In the final rule published on March
11, 2015, PHMSA added paragraph (e)
to § 192.153 requiring that ‘‘a
component having a design pressure
established under paragraph (a) or
paragraph (b) of this section and subject
to the strength testing requirements of
§ 192.505(b) must be tested to at least
1.5 times the MAOP.’’ PHMSA also
modified § 192.165(b)(3) to crossreference this new subsection. In the
preamble to the final rule, PHMSA
noted ‘‘this proposal is not a change to
the current pressure testing
requirements found in Part 192, but [is]
simply a clarification to ensure a clearer
understanding of PHMSA’s pressure
testing requirements for certain ASME
BPVC vessels located in compressor
stations, meter stations and other Class
3 or Class 4 locations’’ (80 FR 12772,
March 11, 2015).
On April 10, 2015, INGAA and AGA
filed separate petitions for
reconsideration with PHMSA regarding
this change (Docket No. PHMSA–2010–
0026). INGAA stated that PHMSA’s
modifications to these code sections
were not merely a clarification, but a
departure from industry and agency
understanding and practice, and require
additional review. Specifically, INGAA
claimed that PHMSA changed the
acceptable test factor for a pressure
vessel built under the American Society
or Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) from
the ASME requirements of 1.3 times the
Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
58634
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(MAWP) to 1.5 times the Maximum
Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP).
INGAA and AGA requested that
PHMSA reconsider this change due to a
lack of technical justification and
regulatory support, asking PHMSA to, at
a minimum, conduct a study to validate
the future use of 1.5 times MAOP for
ASME pressure vessels and create an
exception for ASME pressure vessels
that were put into operation between
July 14, 2004 (when the 1.3 factor was
adopted by ASME) and October 1, 2015
(the final rule’s effective date).
After reviewing INGAA’s and AGA’s
petitions for reconsideration, the
language in the final rule, and the
Pipeline Safety Regulations (PSR),
PHMSA disagrees with the petitioners’
claim that the change, as written, was a
departure from industry and agency
understanding. The pressure testing
requirements in the PSR for pipelines in
Class 3 and 4 areas, as well as facilities
located in Class 1 and 2 areas, are
subject to the requirements of
§ 192.505(b) and require a pressure test
equal to a minimum of 1.5 times the
MAOP. The testing requirements of
§ 192.505(b), which were not revised in
the final rule, state that in a Class 1 or
Class 2 location, each compressor
station, regulator station, and measuring
station must be tested to at least Class
3 location test requirements. PHMSA
believes the amendment to § 192.153
and the corresponding cross-reference
with § 192.165(b)(3) simply clarify the
regulations, is consistent with existing
agency understanding and practice, and
ensures regulated parties do not
incorrectly use the newer ASME BPVC
design factor of 1.3 for pressure testing
in instances where pipelines must be
tested at 1.5 times MAOP.
Regarding INGAA’s request to create
an exception for ASME pressure vessels
put into operation between July 14,
2004, and October 1, 2015, from the
requirements found at § 192.153(e),
PHMSA is considering INGAA’s request
and will be evaluating the potential
costs and environmental implications to
operators to retest the non-compliant
pressure vessels.
Responsibility To Conduct Construction
Inspections; 49 CFR 192.305
Prior to the issuance of the final rule
on March 11, 2015, § 192.305 stated that
‘‘each transmission pipeline or main
must be inspected to ensure that it is
constructed in accordance with this
part,’’ and § 195.204 stated ‘‘inspection
must be provided to ensure the
installation of pipe or pipeline systems
in accordance with the requirements of
this subpart.’’ In the final rule issued on
March 11, 2015, PHMSA amended
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 192.305 to specify that a pipeline
operator must not use operator
personnel to perform a required
inspection if the operator personnel also
performed the construction task that
required inspection. This amendment
was based, in part, on a petition (Docket
No. PHMSA–2010–0026) from the
National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR),1 which
suggested that contractors who install
transmission lines or mains should be
prohibited from inspecting their own
work for compliance purposes. On
Wednesday, July 11, 2012, the Gas
Pipeline Advisory Committee
recommended that PHMSA adopt the
amendment.
On April 10, 2015, the APGA
petitioned for a clarification, or in the
alternative, a reconsideration of the final
rule. The APGA stated that the
amendment to § 192.305 has the
potential to impose significant costs on
publicly-owned gas distribution systems
with little, if any, corresponding safety
benefit. The APGA stated that if a utility
has only one qualified crew that works
together to construct distribution mains,
there would not be anyone working for
the utility available and qualified to
perform the inspection. According to
the APGA, 585 municipal gas utilities
have 5 or fewer employees. The APGA
went on to say that prohibiting small
utilities from having their own
employees inspect pipeline construction
work performed by employees of the
municipal utility would significantly
increase the costs for those utilities by
requiring small utilities to contract with
third parties for such inspections. The
APGA stated that its concerns would be
alleviated by a clarification stating a
two-man utility crew may inspect each
other’s work and comply with the
amendment to § 192.305.
On April 10, 2015, the AGA
petitioned PHMSA to extend the
compliance date for the amendments in
§ 192.305 and § 195.204 from October 1,
2015, to January 1, 2016. The AGA
asked for this additional time to allow
pipeline operators to modify their
construction inspection procedures,
align associated documentation, and
ensure proper training is in place for
both company employees and
contractors.
On July 28, 2015, NAPSR petitioned
PHMSA to reconsider the revision of
1 NAPSR is a non-profit organization of state
pipeline safety personnel who serve to promote
pipeline safety in the United States and its
territories. Its membership includes the staff
manager responsible for regulating pipeline safety
from each state that is certified to do so or conducts
inspections under an agreement with DOT in lieu
of certification.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 192.305, as it undermines the 2002
NAPSR CR–1–02 resolution. NAPSR
asked for a delay in the effective date of
the final rule relative to § 192.305 until
PHMSA has reviewed the rule and
worked with NAPSR to address its
concerns. According to NAPSR,
allowing contractor personnel to inspect
the work performed by their own
company does not remove the inherent
conflict of interest that is present and
defeats the safety benefits that NAPSR
intended. NAPSR stated that its original
resolution would have prohibited
contractors from self-inspecting their
own work. NAPSR noted that,
unfortunately, the final rule’s
amendment specifically allows contract
personnel to inspect the work of their
own crews so long as the inspector did
not directly perform the task being
inspected. Additionally, the amendment
appears to apply to operator
construction personnel as well, which
was not NAPSR’s original intent since,
in its experience, operator personnel
have less of an incentive to accept poorquality work. Further, the final rule
mistakenly decreases the scope of the
inspection by changing the inspection
requirements to only those found in
Subpart G for the construction of mains
and transmission lines,, rather than in
all of Part 192 as it was prior to the
amendment.
As stated in the final rule, PHMSA
believes that these construction
inspections are important safety
requirements because transmission
pipelines and distribution mains are
usually buried after construction, and
subsequent examinations of these
pipelines often involve a difficult
excavation process. Upon further
examination of the impacts of this
amendment, in particular the issues
raised by the petitioners, PHMSA
believes that further examination and
analysis of this safety issue is warranted
prior to this change going into effect.
Therefore, PHMSA is delaying the
effective date of the amendment to 49
CFR 192.305 indefinitely. During this
delay, PHMSA will be evaluating the
ways operators are currently complying
with § 192.305, developing guidance
(based on input from industry and other
regulatory bodies) and hosting a series
of workshops on the guidance. Upon
completion of this evaluation, PHMSA
will determine the efficacy of the
amendment and decide if any additional
amendments to the current regulations
are warranted and to propose any
necessary amendments to § 192.305.
Please note, the effective date for all the
other amendments contained in the
final rule remains October 1, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
This final rule is a non-significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735)
and therefore was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. This
final rule is not significant under the
Regulatory Policies and Procedures of
the Department of Transportation (44 FR
11034).
This final rule will not impose
increased compliance costs on the
regulated industry. The amendments to
the March 11, 2015 final rule provide
regulatory relief to pipeline operators
involved in construction inspection and
do not alter the cost benefit analysis and
conclusions.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule does not impose
unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995. It would not result in costs of
$100 million, adjusted for inflation, or
more in any one year to either State,
local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, and
is the least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objective of the final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321–4375) requires that
Federal agencies analyze final actions to
determine whether those actions will
have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Council on
Environmental Quality regulations
requires Federal agencies to conduct an
environmental review considering (1)
the need for the final action, (2)
alternatives to the final action, (3)
probable environmental impacts of the
final action and alternatives, and (4) the
agencies and persons consulted during
the consideration process. 40 CFR
1508.9(b).
The amendment adopted in this final
rule will not impose increased
compliance costs on the regulated
industry or have any measureable effect
on our original assessment. The
amendments to the March 11, 2015,
final rule provide regulatory relief to
pipeline operators involved in
construction inspection. Overall, this
final rule will reduce the compliance
burden without compromising pipeline
safety. Therefore, PHMSA has
determined that this final rule will not
have a significant impact on the human
environment.
This final rule imposes no new
requirements for recordkeeping and
reporting.
Privacy Act Statement
Anyone may search the electronic
form of all comments received for any
Regulatory Flexibility Act
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. This final rule will not impose
increased compliance costs on the
regulated industry. The delay in the
effective date to § 192.305 does not alter
our original certification that the March
11, 2015 final rule does not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Therefore, I
certify under Section 605 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605)
that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
58635
of our dockets. You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement
published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (70 FR 19477).
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA has analyzed this final rule
according to Executive Order 13132
(‘‘Federalism’’). This final 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 final rule
does not impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State and local
governments. This final 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 final 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 final rule as a significant energy
action.
The effective date for the amendment
revising 49 CFR 192.305, published
March 11, 2015, at 80 FR 12779, is
delayed indefinitely.
Issued in Washington, DC on September
25, 2015, under authority delegated in 49
CFR Part 1.97.
Stacy Cummings,
Interim Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2015–24763 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM
30SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58633-58635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24763]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 192
[Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0026; Amdt. Nos. 191-23; 192-120; 195-100]
RIN 2137-AE59
Pipeline Safety: Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety
Regulations: Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 11, 2015, PHMSA published a final rule amending the
pipeline safety regulations to make miscellaneous changes that updated
and clarified certain regulatory requirements. These amendments
addressed several subject matter areas, including the performance of
post-construction inspections, Type B onshore gas gathering line leak
surveys, qualifying plastic pipe joiners, ethanol regulation, pipe
transportation, offshore pipeline condition report filing, pressure
reduction calculations for hazardous liquid pipeline anomalies, and
components fabricated by welding. This final rule responds to petitions
for reconsideration of the final rule.
DATES: The effective date of the amendment to 49 CFR 192.305, published
at 80 FR 12779, March 11, 2015, is delayed indefinitely. PHMSA will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing a new effective
date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay McIver, Transportation Specialist,
by telephone at 202-366-0113, or by electronic mail at
kay.mciver@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 11, 2015, PHMSA published a final rule amending the
pipeline safety regulations to make miscellaneous changes that update
and clarify certain regulatory requirements (80 FR 12762). These
amendments address several subject matter areas, including the
performance of post-construction inspections, Type B onshore gas
gathering line leak surveys, qualifying plastic pipe joiners, ethanol
regulation, pipe transportation, offshore pipeline condition report
filing, pressure reduction calculations for hazardous liquid pipeline
anomalies, and components fabricated by welding.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
Collectively, PHMSA received four petitions for reconsideration of
the final rule from the American Public Gas Association (APGA), the
American Gas Association (AGA), the Interstate Natural Gas Association
(INGAA), and the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR). The APGA, the AGA, and NAPSR expressed
concerns about the provisions of the final rule applicable to
construction inspection in Sec. 192.305. INGAA and the AGA expressed
concerns applicable to provisions in the final rule applicable to
components fabricated by welding.
Components Fabricated by Welding; 49 CFR 192.153 and 192.165(b)(3)
In the final rule published on March 11, 2015, PHMSA added
paragraph (e) to Sec. 192.153 requiring that ``a component having a
design pressure established under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of
this section and subject to the strength testing requirements of Sec.
192.505(b) must be tested to at least 1.5 times the MAOP.'' PHMSA also
modified Sec. 192.165(b)(3) to cross-reference this new subsection. In
the preamble to the final rule, PHMSA noted ``this proposal is not a
change to the current pressure testing requirements found in Part 192,
but [is] simply a clarification to ensure a clearer understanding of
PHMSA's pressure testing requirements for certain ASME BPVC vessels
located in compressor stations, meter stations and other Class 3 or
Class 4 locations'' (80 FR 12772, March 11, 2015).
On April 10, 2015, INGAA and AGA filed separate petitions for
reconsideration with PHMSA regarding this change (Docket No. PHMSA-
2010-0026). INGAA stated that PHMSA's modifications to these code
sections were not merely a clarification, but a departure from industry
and agency understanding and practice, and require additional review.
Specifically, INGAA claimed that PHMSA changed the acceptable test
factor for a pressure vessel built under the American Society or
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) from
the ASME requirements of 1.3 times the Maximum Allowable Working
Pressure
[[Page 58634]]
(MAWP) to 1.5 times the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP).
INGAA and AGA requested that PHMSA reconsider this change due to a
lack of technical justification and regulatory support, asking PHMSA
to, at a minimum, conduct a study to validate the future use of 1.5
times MAOP for ASME pressure vessels and create an exception for ASME
pressure vessels that were put into operation between July 14, 2004
(when the 1.3 factor was adopted by ASME) and October 1, 2015 (the
final rule's effective date).
After reviewing INGAA's and AGA's petitions for reconsideration,
the language in the final rule, and the Pipeline Safety Regulations
(PSR), PHMSA disagrees with the petitioners' claim that the change, as
written, was a departure from industry and agency understanding. The
pressure testing requirements in the PSR for pipelines in Class 3 and 4
areas, as well as facilities located in Class 1 and 2 areas, are
subject to the requirements of Sec. 192.505(b) and require a pressure
test equal to a minimum of 1.5 times the MAOP. The testing requirements
of Sec. 192.505(b), which were not revised in the final rule, state
that in a Class 1 or Class 2 location, each compressor station,
regulator station, and measuring station must be tested to at least
Class 3 location test requirements. PHMSA believes the amendment to
Sec. 192.153 and the corresponding cross-reference with Sec.
192.165(b)(3) simply clarify the regulations, is consistent with
existing agency understanding and practice, and ensures regulated
parties do not incorrectly use the newer ASME BPVC design factor of 1.3
for pressure testing in instances where pipelines must be tested at 1.5
times MAOP.
Regarding INGAA's request to create an exception for ASME pressure
vessels put into operation between July 14, 2004, and October 1, 2015,
from the requirements found at Sec. 192.153(e), PHMSA is considering
INGAA's request and will be evaluating the potential costs and
environmental implications to operators to retest the non-compliant
pressure vessels.
Responsibility To Conduct Construction Inspections; 49 CFR 192.305
Prior to the issuance of the final rule on March 11, 2015, Sec.
192.305 stated that ``each transmission pipeline or main must be
inspected to ensure that it is constructed in accordance with this
part,'' and Sec. 195.204 stated ``inspection must be provided to
ensure the installation of pipe or pipeline systems in accordance with
the requirements of this subpart.'' In the final rule issued on March
11, 2015, PHMSA amended Sec. 192.305 to specify that a pipeline
operator must not use operator personnel to perform a required
inspection if the operator personnel also performed the construction
task that required inspection. This amendment was based, in part, on a
petition (Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0026) from the National Association of
Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR),\1\ which suggested that
contractors who install transmission lines or mains should be
prohibited from inspecting their own work for compliance purposes. On
Wednesday, July 11, 2012, the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee
recommended that PHMSA adopt the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NAPSR is a non-profit organization of state pipeline safety
personnel who serve to promote pipeline safety in the United States
and its territories. Its membership includes the staff manager
responsible for regulating pipeline safety from each state that is
certified to do so or conducts inspections under an agreement with
DOT in lieu of certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 10, 2015, the APGA petitioned for a clarification, or in
the alternative, a reconsideration of the final rule. The APGA stated
that the amendment to Sec. 192.305 has the potential to impose
significant costs on publicly-owned gas distribution systems with
little, if any, corresponding safety benefit. The APGA stated that if a
utility has only one qualified crew that works together to construct
distribution mains, there would not be anyone working for the utility
available and qualified to perform the inspection. According to the
APGA, 585 municipal gas utilities have 5 or fewer employees. The APGA
went on to say that prohibiting small utilities from having their own
employees inspect pipeline construction work performed by employees of
the municipal utility would significantly increase the costs for those
utilities by requiring small utilities to contract with third parties
for such inspections. The APGA stated that its concerns would be
alleviated by a clarification stating a two-man utility crew may
inspect each other's work and comply with the amendment to Sec.
192.305.
On April 10, 2015, the AGA petitioned PHMSA to extend the
compliance date for the amendments in Sec. 192.305 and Sec. 195.204
from October 1, 2015, to January 1, 2016. The AGA asked for this
additional time to allow pipeline operators to modify their
construction inspection procedures, align associated documentation, and
ensure proper training is in place for both company employees and
contractors.
On July 28, 2015, NAPSR petitioned PHMSA to reconsider the revision
of Sec. 192.305, as it undermines the 2002 NAPSR CR-1-02 resolution.
NAPSR asked for a delay in the effective date of the final rule
relative to Sec. 192.305 until PHMSA has reviewed the rule and worked
with NAPSR to address its concerns. According to NAPSR, allowing
contractor personnel to inspect the work performed by their own company
does not remove the inherent conflict of interest that is present and
defeats the safety benefits that NAPSR intended. NAPSR stated that its
original resolution would have prohibited contractors from self-
inspecting their own work. NAPSR noted that, unfortunately, the final
rule's amendment specifically allows contract personnel to inspect the
work of their own crews so long as the inspector did not directly
perform the task being inspected. Additionally, the amendment appears
to apply to operator construction personnel as well, which was not
NAPSR's original intent since, in its experience, operator personnel
have less of an incentive to accept poor-quality work. Further, the
final rule mistakenly decreases the scope of the inspection by changing
the inspection requirements to only those found in Subpart G for the
construction of mains and transmission lines,, rather than in all of
Part 192 as it was prior to the amendment.
As stated in the final rule, PHMSA believes that these construction
inspections are important safety requirements because transmission
pipelines and distribution mains are usually buried after construction,
and subsequent examinations of these pipelines often involve a
difficult excavation process. Upon further examination of the impacts
of this amendment, in particular the issues raised by the petitioners,
PHMSA believes that further examination and analysis of this safety
issue is warranted prior to this change going into effect. Therefore,
PHMSA is delaying the effective date of the amendment to 49 CFR 192.305
indefinitely. During this delay, PHMSA will be evaluating the ways
operators are currently complying with Sec. 192.305, developing
guidance (based on input from industry and other regulatory bodies) and
hosting a series of workshops on the guidance. Upon completion of this
evaluation, PHMSA will determine the efficacy of the amendment and
decide if any additional amendments to the current regulations are
warranted and to propose any necessary amendments to Sec. 192.305.
Please note, the effective date for all the other amendments contained
in the final rule remains October 1, 2015.
[[Page 58635]]
III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
This final rule is a non-significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and therefore was
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is
not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
This final rule will not impose increased compliance costs on the
regulated industry. The amendments to the March 11, 2015 final rule
provide regulatory relief to pipeline operators involved in
construction inspection and do not alter the cost benefit analysis and
conclusions.
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. This final
rule will not impose increased compliance costs on the regulated
industry. The delay in the effective date to Sec. 192.305 does not
alter our original certification that the March 11, 2015 final rule
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, I certify under Section 605 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605) that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule imposes no new requirements for recordkeeping and
reporting.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs of
$100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year to either
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the final rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4375)
requires that Federal agencies analyze final actions to determine
whether those actions will have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations requires
Federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering (1) the
need for the final action, (2) alternatives to the final action, (3)
probable environmental impacts of the final action and alternatives,
and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the consideration
process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b).
The amendment adopted in this final rule will not impose increased
compliance costs on the regulated industry or have any measureable
effect on our original assessment. The amendments to the March 11,
2015, final rule provide regulatory relief to pipeline operators
involved in construction inspection. Overall, this final rule will
reduce the compliance burden without compromising pipeline safety.
Therefore, PHMSA has determined that this final rule will not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
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).
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to Executive Order
13132 (``Federalism''). This final 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 final
rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. This final 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 final 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 final rule as a significant energy action.
The effective date for the amendment revising 49 CFR 192.305,
published March 11, 2015, at 80 FR 12779, is delayed indefinitely.
Issued in Washington, DC on September 25, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR Part 1.97.
Stacy Cummings,
Interim Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-24763 Filed 9-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P