[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35130-35136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14991]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket ID PHMSA-2007-27954; Amdt. Nos. 192-117; 195-97]
RIN 2137-AE64
Pipeline Safety: Control Room Management/Human Factors
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule expedites the program implementation deadlines in
the Control Room Management/Human Factors regulations in order to
realize the safety benefits sooner than established in the original
rule. The deadline for pipeline operators to implement the procedures
for roles and responsibilities, shift change, change management, and
operating experience, fatigue mitigation education and training is now
October 1, 2011, 16 months sooner than the original regulation. The
deadline for pipeline operators to implement the other procedures for
adequate information, shift lengths, maximum hours-of-service, and
alarm management is now August 1, 2012, six months sooner than the
original regulation. In general, training procedures must also be
implemented by August 1, 2012, with certain exceptions.
DATES: This rule is effective August 15, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Byron
Coy at 609-989-2180 or by e-mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
This final rule amends the program implementation deadlines
originally published by PHMSA on December 3, 2009, in 49 CFR 192.631
and 195.446 (74 FR 63310), as corrected February 3, 2010 (75 FR 5536).
By this amendment to the Control Room Management/Human Factors (CRM)
rule, an operator must implement the procedures required by the rule
according to the following schedule. The procedures required by
Paragraphs (b) (roles and responsibilities), (c)(5) (shift change),
(d)(2)-(3) (fatigue mitigation education and training), (f) (change
management), and (g) (operating experience) of the rule must now be
implemented no later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by
Paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) (adequate information), (d)(1) (shift lengths),
(d)(4) (maximum hours-of-service), and (e) (alarm management) must now
be implemented no later than August 1, 2012. The training procedures
required by the remaining Paragraph (h) must now be implemented no
later than August 1, 2012, except that any training required as a
condition of compliance with another paragraph of the rule must be
implemented no later than the corresponding deadline for implementing
that part of the rule. Table 1 shows program implementation deadlines
for different paragraphs.
Table 1--Program Implementation Deadline for Different Paragraphs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Roles & (c) Adequate (d) Fatigue (e) Alarm (f) Change (g) Operating
Paragraph responsibilities information mitigation management management experience (h) Training
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Regulations.......... Feb 1, 2013...... Feb 1, 2013..... Feb 1, 2013..... Feb 1, 2013.... Feb 1, 2013.... Feb 1, 2013.... Feb 1, 2013.
NPRM......................... Aug 1, 2011...... C5 Aug 1, 2011.. Aug 1, 2011..... Aug 1, 2012.... Aug 1, 2011.... Aug 1, 2011.... Aug 1, 2011.
C1-4 Aug 1, 2012
Final Rule................... Oct 1, 2011...... C5 Oct 1, 2011.. D2 & D3 Oct 1, Aug 1, 2012.... Oct 1, 2011.... Oct 1, 2011.... Training
C1-4 Aug 1, 2012 2011. elements
D1 & D4 Aug 1, aligned to due
2012. date of each
element.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require agencies to regulate in
the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and
to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' The
expected benefit of this rulemaking action is an expedited
implementation deadline of the CRM rule that realizes the safety
benefit to the public, property, and the environment sooner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High ($ Average ($
Low ($ millions) millions) millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost of Rule........................................ $8.8 13.5 11.1
Total Benefit of Rule..................................... $13.9 13.9 13.9
Net Benefit of Rule....................................... $5.1 0.4 2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
On September 17, 2010, PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to expedite the program implementation
deadlines in the CRM rule at Sec. Sec. 192.631 and 195.446 (75 FR
56972). The NPRM proposed to expedite the deadline for implementing all
the procedures required by the rule to August 1, 2011, except that
procedures required by Paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) (adequate information) and
(e) (alarm management) would have a program implementation deadline of
August 1, 2012.
PHMSA received requests from several pipeline trade associations
and pipeline operators to extend the comment period until after PHMSA's
public workshop on pipeline control room management, which was held on
November 17, 2010, in Houston, Texas (75 FR 67450). So, PHMSA extended
the
[[Page 35131]]
comment period deadline from November 16, 2010, to December 3, 2010 (75
FR 69912).
III. Advisory Committees Meeting
On March 24, 2011, the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards
Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee (THLPSSC) met jointly in Arlington, Virginia. The
TPSSC and THLPSSC are statutorily-mandated advisory committees that
advise PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risk assessments, and safety
policies for natural gas pipelines and for hazardous liquid pipelines.
Both committees were established under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1) and the pipeline safety law (49
U.S.C. Chap. 601). Each committee consists of 15 members, with
membership evenly divided among the Federal and state governments, the
regulated industry, and the public. The committees advise PHMSA on
technical feasibility, practicability, and cost-effectiveness of each
proposed pipeline safety standard.
During the meeting, the committees considered the NPRM to expedite
the program implementation deadline of the CRM regulations. To assist
the TPSSC and THLPSSC in their deliberations, PHMSA presented three
options of program implementation deadlines. These included the program
implementation deadlines as proposed in the NPRM, the program
implementation deadline of February 1, 2013, in the original rule, and
a third option that reflected the comments received on the proposed
rule, comments received at the November 17, 2010, workshop, and PHMSA's
internal discussions. PHMSA provided these options to facilitate the
TPSSC and THLPSSC members' discussion of the rule and to provide a
process by which the members could recommend a certain course of action
by PHMSA with regard to the rule. Members were not limited to
discussing these three options.
After discussions, both the TPSSC and THLPSSC separately voted
unanimously to recommend that PHMSA implement the NPRM with the changes
reflected in the third option. Specifically, the TPSSC and THLPSSC
recommended that the deadline for implementing Paragraphs (b) (roles
and responsibilities), (c)(5) (shift change), (d)(2)-(3) (fatigue
mitigation education and training), (f) (change management), and (g)
(operating experience) be amended to August 1, 2011, the deadline for
implementing Paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) (adequate information), (d)(1)
(shift lengths), (d)(4) (maximum hours-of-service), and (e) (alarm
management) be amended to August 1, 2012, and the deadline for training
in Paragraph (h) be amended to August 1, 2012, except that any training
required as a condition of compliance with another paragraph of the
rule be implemented no later than the corresponding deadline for
implementing that part of the rule. This final rule effectively adopts
the recommendations of the TPSSC and THLPSSC except that the earliest
date that any element must be implemented is October 1, 2011 and not
August 1, 2011. This extra time is provided to provide operators proper
notice after the publication of the final rule.
IV. Summary and Response to Public Comments
PHMSA received a total of 16 comments on the NPRM: five comments
from pipeline trade associations, nine comments from individual
hazardous liquid and gas pipeline operators, one comment from a
pipeline consultant, and one comment from an anonymous private citizen.
In addition to the 16 comments, on March 1, 2011, the American
Petroleum Institute (API) and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL)
submitted revised comments.
A. General Comments
In their revised comments API & AOPL stated that they did not
oppose the proposed accelerated deadlines, except that acceleration of
the deadline for Paragraphs (d) (fatigue mitigation) and (h) (training)
was not appropriate.
CenterPoint Energy, Panhandle Energy, Sunoco Pipeline LP (Sunoco),
Texas Pipeline Association, and Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline
Company opposed the proposed accelerated deadlines.
Many of the same commenters and El Paso Pipeline Group (El Paso),
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), and Northeast
Gas Association (NGA), stated that the timing of PHMSA's release of
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) guidance, inspection guidelines, and
compliance criteria would affect their ability to meet the proposed
accelerated deadlines if the content of the guidance differed
significantly from their expectations.
INGAA and El Paso also stated that while they previously supported
the accelerated implementation schedule, the anticipated timing for
PHMSA to release guidance material as stated at the public workshop,
along with their uncertainty about the content of the guidance, has
caused them to reconsider their support.
Sunoco requested that the deadline for compliance be extended
beyond those proposed because field control rooms cannot reasonably be
included in PHMSA's assumption that the industry is largely ready now.
American Gas Association (AGA), Avista, El Paso, NGA, Paiute
Pipeline Company, and Southwest Gas Corporation (SWG) opposed the
proposed accelerated deadlines for Paragraphs (d) (fatigue mitigation)
and (h) (training). In addition, Paiute and SWG requested that
Paragraph (f) (change management) be given an implementation deadline
of August 1, 2012.
NGA requested that if the proposed accelerated deadlines are
implemented, PHMSA should consider modifying its review process during
the first inspection cycle to include only recommended improvements,
rather than Notices of Probable Violation and monetary penalties for
companies that make efforts to implement their plans within the
accelerated deadlines.
Northern Natural Gas requested that the deadline for implementing
all the procedures required by the rule only be accelerated to February
1, 2012, instead of August 1, 2011, as proposed, except that the
procedures required by Paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) (adequate information),
(e) (alarm management), and (f) (change management), should not be
accelerated at all.
Thomas Lael Services, L.P, a pipeline consultant, supported the
proposed accelerated deadlines. He agreed with the statement in the
NPRM that most if not all work associated with each requirement
contained within the regulation has more than likely already been
performed during the program development stage which already has a
regulatory deadline of August 1, 2011. He agreed that due to the
significance of this regulation and the potential for the increased
safe operation of pipelines, an accelerated implementation deadline to
August 1, 2012, is desirable and reasonable, but it is not clear
whether he supported the August 1, 2012, deadline for all paragraphs.
He added that recent pipeline incidents have initially pointed to
control room issues as possible factors in the cause and, therefore, an
accelerated deadline is prudent.
The anonymous private citizen's comments were not deemed
appropriate for consideration.
In general, while some commenters argued the NPRM should be
withdrawn and the implementation deadlines in the current rule be kept,
PHMSA did not find the general comments justified withdrawing the NPRM
in order to leave in place the current program
[[Page 35132]]
implementation deadlines for the reasons specified in more detail
below. Some trade associations and pipeline operators stated that PHMSA
has not released the FAQs document, inspection guidelines and
compliance criteria. To address this concern, PHMSA released draft FAQs
on February 3, 2011, and plans to release inspection forms and
guidelines by early June 2011.
B. Roles and Responsibilities, Sec. Sec. 192.631(b) and 195.446(b)
Paragraph (b) of the rule requires operators to define the roles
and responsibilities of a controller during normal, abnormal, and
emergency operating conditions. The original rule established a
deadline for operators to implement the procedures by February 1, 2013.
The NPRM proposed that operators implement the procedures instead by
August 1, 2011. The TPSSC and THLPSSC recommended that PHMSA amend the
regulation as proposed.
We received no comments specifically directed at the implementation
deadline for this paragraph. Based on only the general comments we
received and the TPSSC's and THLPSSC's recommendation, and in order to
provide operators proper notice we are adopting the new implementation
date of October 1, 2011.
C. Provide Adequate Information, Sec. Sec. 192.631(c) and 195.446(c)
Paragraph (c) of the rule requires operators to provide their
controllers with the information, tools, processes and procedures
necessary for the controllers to carry out the roles and
responsibilities the operators have defined. The original rule
established a deadline for operators to implement the procedures by
February 1, 2013. The NPRM proposed that operators implement the
procedures required by Paragraph (c)(1)-(4) instead by August 1, 2012,
and the procedures required by Paragraph (c)(5) by August 1, 2011. The
TPSSC and THLPSSC recommended that PHMSA amend the regulation as
proposed.
In addition to the general comments specified above, CenterPoint
Energy stated that at a minimum, 12 months is needed from program
development to full implementation in order to give operators an
opportunity to assess their plans for one complete heating season and
to make any necessary adjustments prior to actual implementation of the
plan before the 2012 heating season.
CenterPoint Energy agrees with PHMSA that the proposed 12 months is
sufficient for program implementation deadline, but it is not clear
that the operator agrees, as proposed, or for all sections in Paragraph
(c). Based on this, other general comments received, the TPSSC's and
THLPSSC's recommendation, the program implementation deadline for this
paragraph is amended to October 1, 2011, for section (c)(5), and to
August 1, 2012, for sections (c)(1)-(4).
D. Fatigue Mitigation, Sec. Sec. 192.631(d) and 195.446(d)
Paragraph (d) of the rule requires operators to implement fatigue
mitigation methods to reduce the risk associated with controller
fatigue that could inhibit a controller's ability to carry out the
roles and responsibilities the operator has defined. The original rule
established a deadline for operators to implement the procedures by
February 1, 2013. The NPRM proposed that operators implement the
procedures by August 1, 2011.
The TPSSC and THLPSSC recommended that PHMSA amend the deadlines
for Paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) as proposed, but to establish an
implementation deadline of August 1, 2012, for Paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(4).
In addition to the general comments specified above, INGAA believes
that if PHMSA's guidance concerning controller scheduling and hours-of-
service departs significantly from a paper on the subject published by
the Southern Gas Association, it would severely jeopardize operators'
ability to comply with the proposed deadlines, because operators would
not be able to revise their implementation plans, increase their
staffs, and complete the necessary process development in time. INGAA
suggested, however, that operators could meet the expedited deadlines
if their current understanding of the CRM regulations is implemented
without major changes. INGAA estimated a minimum of six months would be
needed for operators to implement their fatigue mitigation plans,
including training, evaluation and revisions. Several individual
operators agreed with these sentiments.
AGA had concerns with PHMSA's proposal to accelerate the fatigue
mitigation requirements by 18 months, because many operators have to
hire new gas control personnel, and extensive time and effort are
required to identify and train new personnel. AGA suggested that
accelerating the implementation deadlines for these provisions could
have the unintended consequence of moving individuals into gas
controller positions with limited qualifications. Several individual
operators agreed with this sentiment.
API & AOPL similarly stated that the accelerated timeline would not
allow operators the appropriate time for implementation of human
resources directives addressing the hiring and relocating of
controllers. API & AOPL also stated that a lack of guidance from PHMSA
may cause uncertainty as to what will be considered as an acceptable
limit on hours-of-service. API & AOPL estimated a proper implementation
period between eight and 12 months, although the comment appeared to be
related more to training in general, rather than fatigue mitigation
specifically.
Avista was similarly concerned with the impact of the accelerated
schedule for fatigue mitigation if enough time is not provided for
operators to develop course material, create tests, arrange for subject
matter experts to instruct courses, hire, and train new personnel.
CenterPoint Energy supported the proposed accelerated deadlines for
Paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(4), but stated that Paragraphs (d)(2) and
(d)(3) require additional time to implement, because training and
education are ongoing activities that require flexibility and
adjustment based on feedback from the trainees. CenterPoint Energy
suggested 12 months for proper implementation of the required training
and education requirements.
Sunoco stated that a singular point of emphasis within the CRM is
fatigue management, which clearly necessitates that the current 24/7
work schedules be analyzed to ensure that those shift designs mitigate,
as much as possible, the fatigue that is associated with working around
the clock. At PHMSA's Workshop, Sunoco stated that a PHMSA speaker
stated that to complete analysis, the affected pipeline companies would
have to have any modified/proposed shift schedule ``verified'' by a
fatigue expert. Sunoco believes this would create a high demand for a
relatively few fatigue experts within a very compressed timeframe.
Sunoco stated that this verification would take much longer than the
proposed implementation time.
After reviewing these comments and considered the TPSSC's and
THLPSSC's recommendation, PHMSA believes many of the concerns are
justified and that there should be some additional time between
development and implementation of certain procedures related to fatigue
mitigation. Based on the substantive comments provided, including
estimated time frames, PHMSA believes that an implementation period of
12 months is reasonable for Paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(4), which makes
the amended
[[Page 35133]]
deadline August 1, 2012. This would allow for an accelerated safety
benefit in accordance with the intent of the NPRM, while also allowing
operators additional time to conduct internal pilot testing, hiring and
training of any new controllers, and other modifications to their
schedule rotations and maximum hours-of-service, as needed.
With regard to Paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3), PHMSA does not find
the comments justify delaying the education and training of controllers
and supervisors about fatigue mitigation strategies, how off-duty
activities contribute to fatigue, and how to recognize the effects of
fatigue. PHMSA believes the education and training of controllers and
supervisors on the fundamental aspects of fatigue mitigation strategies
can be undertaken upon program development and completed by August 1,
2011. However, due to the short time operators would have after the
issuance of this rule, PHMSA is extending the program implementation
deadline by two months to October 1, 2011. Of course, as operators
develop more experience in fatigue mitigation strategies, they would be
expected to update and improve their education and training program as
necessary. Therefore, consistent with the recommendation of the TPSSC
and THLPSSC, and the expected short time after issuance of this rule,
the implementation deadline for Paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) is amended
to October 1, 2011.
E. Alarm Management, Sec. Sec. 192.631(e) and 195.446(e)
Paragraph (e) of the rule requires operators that use SCADA systems
to have written alarm management plans to provide for effective
controller response to alarms. The original rule established a deadline
for operators to implement the procedures by February 1, 2013. The NPRM
proposed that operators implement the procedures by August 1, 2012. The
TPSSC and THLPSSC recommended that PHMSA amend the regulation as
proposed.
In addition to the general comments specified above, CenterPoint
Energy stated that the full 18 months should be retained so that
operators would be able to test their alarm management systems, modify
their programs based on operator feedback, and repeat testing.
Sunoco also requested that the original 18-month implementation
period be retained because the company's ongoing efforts to install a
new SCADA system and software program to help manage alarms will not be
completed in its control rooms until 2013.
PHMSA has reviewed these comments and considered the TPSSC's and
THLPSSC's recommendation, and does not find that the full 18 months is
necessary for program implementation, but that 12 months is sufficient
for operators to implement this paragraph. Therefore, the program
implementation deadline is amended, as proposed, to August 1, 2012.
F. Change Management, Sec. Sec. 192.631(f) and 195.446(f)
Paragraph (f) of the rule requires operators to assure that changes
that could affect control room operations are coordinated with the
control room personnel. The original rule established a deadline for
operators to implement the procedures by February 1, 2013. The NPRM
proposed that operators implement the procedures by August 1, 2011. The
TPSSC and THLPSSC recommended that PHMSA amend the regulation as
proposed.
In addition to the general comments specified above, CenterPoint
stated that PHMSA should allow six months for program implementation
because the paragraph will require coordination across operator's
organizations, which will be difficult to establish efficiently without
an implementation period to educate the involved employees and make
adjustments as necessary.
Paiute Pipeline Company and SWG requested at least 12 months for
implementing this requirement because it requires integration with
existing processes and procedures, training of both controllers and
field personnel, and evaluation of any other issues that can only be
determined during an adequate implementation period.
PHMSA has reviewed these comments and considered the TPSSC's and
THLPSSC's recommendation, and does not find that an additional program
implementation period is necessary for this requirement. This paragraph
requires operators to assure that changes that could affect control
room operations are coordinated with the control room personnel. Any
changes that affect control room operations, including field changes,
should be coordinated with controllers without delay once the program
procedures are developed. Operators may still update and improve their
change management procedures, if during implementation potential
improvements are recognized. For these reasons, the program
implementation deadline is amended to October 1, 2011.
G. Operating Experience, Sec. Sec. 192.631(g) and 195.446(g)
Paragraph (g) of the rule requires operators to assure that lessons
learned from their operating experiences are incorporated, as
appropriate, into their control room management procedures. The
original rule established a deadline for operators to implement the
procedures requiring the incorporation of operating experience by
February 1, 2013. The NPRM proposed that operators implement the
procedures by August 1, 2011. The TPSSC and THLPSSC recommended that
PHMSA amend the regulation as proposed.
In addition to the general comments specified above, CenterPoint
Energy stated that at a minimum PHMSA should allow six months for
implementation because the regulation will require coordination across
operator's organizations and would be difficult to establish
efficiently without an implementation period to educate the involved
employees and make adjustments as necessary.
PHMSA has reviewed the comments and the TPSSC's and THLPSSC's
recommendation, and does not find an additional program implementation
period is necessary for this requirement. Ensuring that lessons learned
from operating experiences are incorporated, as appropriate, into
operators' control room management procedures should be implemented
once the program procedures are developed. Because incorporating
lessons learned is a continuing process, operators can review accidents
and incidents to determine if control room actions contributed to the
event and correct issues, where necessary, while still updating and
improving their change process during implementation if potential
improvements are recognized. For these reasons, the program
implementation deadline is amended, as proposed, to October 1, 2011.
H. Training, Sec. Sec. 192.631(h) and 195.446(h)
Paragraph (h) of the rule requires operators to establish a
controller training program and review the training program content to
identify potential improvements at least once each calendar year, but
at intervals not to exceed fifteen months. The original rule
established a deadline for operators to implement the procedures by
February 1, 2013. The NPRM proposed that operators implement the
procedures by August 1, 2011. The TPSSC and THLPSSC recommended that
PHMSA establish an implementation deadline of August 1,
[[Page 35134]]
2012, for training, except that for any training required under one of
the other paragraphs of the rule, that training must still be
implemented in accordance with the corresponding deadline for that part
of the rule.
In addition to the general comments specified above, AGA stated
that operators already have training methods, but many operators still
need to formalize their processes, which takes extensive time and
effort. In addition, AGA explained that new controllers that will be
hired will not have time to complete the new training procedures by
August 1, 2011. AGA stated that operators will be able to develop a
training program that meets the control room management requirements by
August 2011, but they will not be able to fully implement those
training procedures with all controllers by that time.
API & AOPL estimated that training and qualification takes between
eight and 12 months and additional time could be required to recruit
capable and qualified candidates. They stated that the accelerated
timeline does not allow enough time to complete training and,
therefore, would lead to additional costs. Avista agreed with the
sentiment that additional time is required to develop course material,
create tests, arrange for subject matter experts to instruct courses,
hire, and train new personnel, and suggested that PHMSA retain the 18-
month implementation period in the original rule.
CenterPoint Energy stated that at a minimum PHMSA should allow six
months for implementation because the regulation will require
coordination across operator's organizations that would be difficult to
establish efficiently without an implementation period to educate the
involved employees and make adjustments as necessary.
El Paso stated that it has taken a leadership role in formulating
joint industry training to meet the requirements of the final rule, but
its effort is not expected to be completed until the middle of 2011. El
Paso requested additional time beyond that proposed in the NPRM because
they stated that they need to formalize the training program, have that
program adopted within each operating company, and have all the
controllers trained, including those not yet hired.
Paiute Pipeline Company and SWG requested to keep the original 18-
month implementation period, because the identification, hiring,
training, as well as the period of supervised work experience and
qualification of new controllers is a time consuming process. In
addition, they stated some training requirements may go beyond
controllers, such as training field employees impacting SCADA points,
information services employees making changes to SCADA screens, and
supervisors and managers being trained in fatigue mitigation
strategies.
Panhandle Energy also opposed the proposed amendment, stating that
it typically takes upward of one year to provide the training and
experience to be able to confidently utilize a new staff member as a
gas controller.
PHMSA has reviewed the comments and considered the TPSSC's and
THLPSSC's recommendations concerning the time necessary to implement
the new training procedures. PHMSA finds these comments justify an
additional implementation period and that the proposed amendment could
create an undue burden on operators to achieve compliance with
Paragraph (h). While PHMSA still finds the original 18 months is not
necessary, an implementation period of 12 months is reasonable, which
makes the amended deadline August 1, 2012. This would allow for an
accelerated safety benefit in accordance with the intent of the NPRM,
while also allowing operators additional time to implement the new
training procedures specified in Paragraph (h).
It must be clarified, however, that the training required by other
paragraphs of the CRM rule (e.g., fatigue mitigation) must still be
implemented in accordance with the corresponding deadline for that part
of the rule (e.g., October 1, 2011).
I. Other Paragraphs, Sec. Sec. 192.631(i)-(j) and 195.446(i)-(j)
Paragraph (i) of the rule requires operators to submit their
procedures, upon request, to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate
pipeline facility regulated by a state, to the appropriate state
agency. Paragraph (j) of the rule requires operators to maintain
records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the rule,
and documentation to demonstrate that any deviation from the procedures
required by the rule was necessary for the safe operation of a pipeline
facility. These requirements are self-executing and the NPRM did not
propose to amend them. PHMSA received no comments on these paragraphs.
V. Regulatory Analysis and Notice
Privacy Act Statement
Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received in
response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting
the comment (or signing the comment if submitted for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477).
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
This final rule is a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule is
significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). PHMSA has also reviewed
this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January
18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is supplemental to and
explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions
governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To
the extent permitted by law, agencies are required to meet principles
established by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. PHMSA finds that,
within the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the Control
Room Management/Human Factors rule expediting the program
implementation deadlines in the Control Room Management/Human Factors
regulations is consistent with EO 12866 and 13563.
In this analysis we estimate that the average costs of this final
rule are $11.15 million. We also estimate that the benefits of this
final rule are $13.9 million. Two observations of note are (1) that the
estimated annual benefits, $13.9 million, exceed the average estimated
costs $11.15 million, by $2.75 million; (2) since the benefits do not
include the non-quantified benefits, such as improved health and well-
being of controllers and improved productivity for the reasons we
discussed above it is likely that the actual benefits of the rule could
be higher. A full Regulatory Analysis has been provided in the docket,
while the chart below summarizes the estimated costs and benefits of
this final rule.
[[Page 35135]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High ($ Average ($
Low ($ millions) millions) millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost of Rule........................................ $8.8 $13.5 $11.1
Total Benefit of Rule..................................... 13.9 13.9 13.9
Net Benefit of Rule....................................... 5.1 0.4 2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The original
CRM rule included certain accommodations in consideration of small
businesses. PHMSA estimated that the costs of those substantive
requirements would be significantly less than one percent of revenues
for most firms and there was not likely to be a significant economic
impact on a substantial small number of operators, as explained in the
original rule. PHMSA went on to say that the economic impact of the
original CRM final rule on small entities will be minor and certified
that that final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Since this final rule only
expedites program implementation deadlines and does not establish any
new substantive requirements, we likewise certify that this rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 13175
PHMSA has analyzed this rulemaking according to Executive Order
13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Because the rule would not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of the indian tribal governments or impose
substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation
requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The rule does not require any additional paperwork burden on
hazardous liquid and gas pipeline operators under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $141.3
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector.
National Environmental Policy Act
PHMSA has examined the rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). If pipeline
operators comply with the technical elements of this rule within a
shorter time, environmental benefits could be realized sooner and may
reduce the number and severity of pipeline releases. PHMSA has
concluded this rule would not have any significant impacts to the
quality of the human environment under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Executive Order 13132
PHMSA has analyzed this rule according to Executive Order 13132
(``Federalism''). The 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. The rule does not impose substantial
direct compliance costs on state and local governments. This rule would
not preempt state law for intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the
consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not
apply.
Executive Order 13211
Transporting gas and hazardous liquids impacts the nation's
available energy supply. However, this rule is not a ``significant
energy action'' under Executive Order 13211 and is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Further, the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not identified this rule as a significant energy
action.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 192
Gas, Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 195
Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons provided in the preamble, 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
are amended as follows:
PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60116, 60118, and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53.
0
2. Amend Sec. 192.631 by removing the last sentence in paragraph
(a)(2) and adding four sentences in its place to read as follows:
Sec. 192.631 Control room management.
(a) * * *
(2) * * * An operator must develop the procedures no later than
August 1, 2011, and must implement the procedures according to the
following schedule. The procedures required by paragraphs (b), (c)(5),
(d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must be implemented no
later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by paragraphs
(c)(1) through (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be implemented no
later than August 1, 2012. The training procedures required by
paragraph (h) must be implemented no later than August 1, 2012, except
that any training required by another paragraph of this section must be
implemented no later than the deadline for that paragraph.
* * * * *
PART 195--TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
0
3. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60116,
60118, and 60137; and 49 CFR 1.53.
0
4. Amend Sec. 195.446 by removing the last sentence in paragraph (a)
and adding four sentences in its place to read as follows:
Sec. 195.446 Control room management.
(a) * * * An operator must develop the procedures no later than
August 1, 2011, and must implement the procedures according to the
following schedule. The procedures required by paragraphs (b), (c)(5),
(d)(2) and (d)(3), (f) and (g) of this section must be implemented no
later than October 1, 2011. The procedures required by
[[Page 35136]]
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4), (d)(1), (d)(4), and (e) must be
implemented no later than August 1, 2012. The training procedures
required by paragraph (h) must be implemented no later than August 1,
2012, except that any training required by another paragraph of this
section must be implemented no later than the deadline for that
paragraph.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2011 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Cynthia L. Quarterman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-14991 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P