[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