5494 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

meeting the requirements of 

§ 180.409(d) of this subchapter. 

Furthermore, each nurse tank must have 

the tests performed at least once every 

five years after the completion of the 

initial tests. 

(v) After each nurse tank has 

successfully passed the visual, 

thickness, and pressure tests, welded 

repairs on the tank are prohibited. 

(vi) After the nurse tank has 

successfully passed the visual, 

thickness, and pressure tests, it must be 

marked in accordance with § 180.415(b), 

and permanently marked near the test 

and inspection markings with a unique 

owner’s identification number in letters 

and numbers at least 1⁄2 inch in height 

and width. 

(vii) Each nurse tank owner must 

maintain a copy of the test inspection 

report prepared by the inspector. The 

test report must contain the results of 

the test and meet the requirements in 

§ 180.417(b) and be made available to a 

DOT representative upon request. 

(3) Field truck mounted tanks. A nonDOT specification cargo tank (nurse 

tank) securely mounted on a field truck 

is authorized under the following 

conditions: 

(i) The tank is in conformance with all 

the requirements of paragraph (m)(1) of 

this section, except that the requirement 

in paragraph (m)(1)(vi) does not apply; 

(ii) The tank is inspected and tested 

in accordance with subpart E of part 180 

of this subchapter as specified for an 

MC 331 cargo tank; 

(iii) The tank is restricted to rural 

roads in areas within 50 miles of the 

fertilizer distribution point where the 

nurse tank is loaded; and 

(iv) For the purposes of this section, 

a field truck means a vehicle on which 

a nurse tank is mounted that is designed 

to withstand off-road driving on hilly 

terrain. Specifically, the vehicle must be 

outfitted with stiffer suspension (for 

example, additional springs or airbags) 

than would be necessary for a 

comparable on-road vehicle, a rear axle 

ratio that provides greater low end 

torque, and a braking system and tires 

designed to ensure stability in hilly 

terrain. The field truck must have low 

annual over-the-road mileage and be 

used exclusively for agricultural 

purposes. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 

2011 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 1. 

Cynthia L. Quarterman, 

Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2014 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Part 191, 192 

[Docket No. PHMSA–RSPA–2004–19854, 

Amdt. Nos. 191–22; Amdt. 192–116] 

RIN 2137–AE60 

Pipeline Safety: Mechanical Fitting 

Failure Reporting Requirements 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule is an 

amendment to PHMSA’s regulations 

involving DIMP. This final rule revises 

the pipeline safety regulations to clarify 

the types of pipeline fittings involved in 

the compression coupling failure 

information collection; changes the term 

‘‘compression coupling’’ to ‘‘mechanical 

fitting,’’ aligns a threat category with the 

annual report; and clarifies the Excess 

Flow Valve (EFV) metric to be reported 

by operators of gas systems. This rule 

also announces the OMB approval of the 

revised Distribution Annual Report and 

a new Mechanical Fitting Failure 

Report. Finally, this rulemaking clarifies 

the key dates for the collection and 

submission of the new Mechanical 

Fitting Failure Report. 

DATES: This final rule takes effect April 

4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Israni by phone at 202–366–4571 

or by e-mail at Mike.Israni@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The DIMP Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) published on June 

25, 2008, (73 FR 36015, 36033), 

included a proposed provision for 

operators to report ‘‘each material failure 

of plastic pipe (including fittings, 

couplings, valves and joints).’’ In the 

DIMP final rule published on December 

4, 2009, (74 FR 63906) PHMSA deleted 

the proposed requirement to report 

plastic pipe failures but retained the 

requirement to report failures of 

couplings used in plastic pipe and 

proposed extending the reporting 

requirement to include failures of 

couplings used in metal pipe. The final 

rule also required operators to collect 

compression coupling failure 

information beginning January 1, 2010, 

and report the failures annually on the 

Annual Report Form by March 15, 2011. 

PHMSA used the DIMP final rule to 

open up a 30-day comment period to 

invite public comment on the proposal 

to extend the reporting requirement to 

include the failure of couplings used in 

metal pipe. Comments were due by 

January 4, 2010. On December 31, 2009, 

(74 FR 69286) PHMSA extended the 

comment period to February 4, 2010, as 

requested by the American Gas 

Association. As a result of the 

comments received, PHMSA decided to 

revise the provisions relative to 

compression couplings as detailed in 

the comment summary below. 

PHMSA also used the DIMP final rule 

to solicit comments on the revised Gas 

Distribution Annual Report. The 

revisions to the report were primarily 

made to incorporate the performance 

measures for the Gas Distribution 

Integrity Management Program. To 

comply with the PRA requirements, 

PHMSA issued a 60-day comment 

period with comments due by February 

4, 2010, to allow for comments on the 

proposed revisions. Once the comment 

period passed, PHMSA reviewed the 

comments and made adjustments to the 

Gas Distribution Annual Report. To 

gather further input on the proposed 

revisions, PHMSA published another 

Federal Register notice on June 28, 

2010, (75 FR 36615) with comments due 

by July 28, 2010. 

PHMSA is issuing this rule to address 

the comments received on the notices 

detailed above and modify the pipeline 

safety regulations. In response to 

comments and as discussed below in 

more detail, PHMSA is changing the 

term ‘‘Compression Coupling’’ to 

‘‘Mechanical Fitting’’ and providing a 

definition for ‘‘Mechanical Fitting.’’ 

PHMSA is also using this rule to 

announce the revisions to the Gas 

Distribution Annual Report Form 

(PHMSA F–7100.1–1). The revisions 

include moving the collection of 

mechanical fitting failure information to 

the new Gas Distribution Mechanical 

Fitting Failure Form (PHMSA F– 

7100.1–2). 

The comments related to the proposed 

coupling reporting requirements, the 

reporting of installed excess flow valves, 

and the proposed revisions to the 

Distribution Annual Report Form are 

summarized in the next section. The 

comments and PHMSA’s responses 

regarding the Gas Distribution Annual 

Report and a new Mechanical Fitting 

Failure Report are discussed in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section. 

II. Summary of Comments 

In response to the request for 

comments in the DIMP final rule, 

PHMSA received twenty-three letters 

commenting on the proposals regarding 

compression coupling reporting 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 5495 

requirements, the reporting of EFVs 

installed, and the revisions to the 

Distribution Annual Report Form. The 

commenters included 13 pipeline 

operators, two trade associations 

representing pipeline operators, the 

association representing State pipeline 

safety regulators, one State pipeline 

regulatory agency, one manufacturer, 

and one industry consultant. A 

summary of comments along with 

PHMSA’s responses is provided below. 

The majority of the comments 

recommended that PHMSA define key 

terms, revise the date to collect and 

report this information, and modify the 

Distribution Annual Report Form and 

instructions. They also requested 

consistency in the terminology used in 

§ 192.1009, the Annual Report Form and 

instructions, and the Incident Report 

Form and instructions. 

The comments addressed in this 

notice are detailed below: 

Comment Topic 1: Define Key Term: 

Compression Coupling 

Several commenters were not clear as 

to which pipeline fittings the term 

‘‘compression coupling’’ encompassed. 

The comments stated that ‘‘compression 

coupling’’ implies a variety of 

mechanical joining methods. There was 

general consensus that the term 

‘‘mechanical fittings’’ encompasses 

fittings such as compression, stab, nut 

follower, and bolted. In general, 

commenters stated that the term 

‘‘mechanical fitting’’ is used in industry 

standards, and the meaning is broadly 

accepted. Some commenters proposed 

that PHMSA limit the collection of data 

by various criteria, such as 

compression-type mechanical fittings, 

plastic fittings, compression couplings, 

and fittings currently referenced in 

advisory bulletins. Commenters pointed 

out that there are differences between 

various types of compression fittings 

and to effectively address and mitigate 

the risks, the data collection needs to 

distinguish one type of compression 

fitting from another. 

PHMSA Response: PHMSA recognizes 

that operators need clarification as to 

which fitting failures they need to 

report. Therefore, PHMSA has changed 

the term ‘‘compression coupling failure’’ 

to ‘‘mechanical fitting failure’’ and has 

included a definition for Mechanical 

Fitting in § 192.1001. 

Comment Topic 2: Reportable 

Mechanical Fitting Failures 

Commenters were also unclear if 

PHMSA intended for all mechanical 

fitting failures to be reported, regardless 

of the failure cause, or only those that 

were caused by material failures of the 

fitting. They were concerned that the 

lack of a standard definition of a 

reportable failure could result in 

inaccurate trending analysis. 

Commenters provided various opinions 

as to which hazardous mechanical 

fitting failure causes should be included 

in the data collection. One commenter 

stated that a hazardous leak caused by 

a compression coupling pulling out as 

the result of third party damage should 

not be considered a compression 

coupling failure since the failure is not 

indicative of the integrity and 

performance of a coupling. The 

commenter further stated that if a 

coupling fails as the result of another 

action, the operator should not be 

required to report the failure. On the 

other hand, another commenter stated 

that if a coupling leaks, it is a failure 

regardless of what failed, how it failed, 

or whether it failed in the body, the seal, 

or the pipe. Another operator indicated 

that the preamble in the final rule was 

clear that only hazardous leaks that 

were the result of ‘‘material failure’’ 

should be reported. One commenter 

noted that instructions for the annual 

report state that a material defect of a 

fitting exceeding the reasonable service 

life is not to be listed as a ‘‘Material or 

Weld’’ cause but as ‘‘Other.’’ The 

commenters were uncertain if PHMSA 

would require fittings exceeding their 

reasonable service life to be reported as 

a mechanical fitting failure. Finally, 

another commenter questioned if a 

crack that propagates from the pipe into 

a compression coupling causing it to fail 

should be reported. Commenters 

requested that PHMSA provide 

examples of failures that must be 

reported. 

PHMSA Response: The objective of 

the data collection is to identify 

mechanical fittings that, based on 

historical data, are susceptible to failure. 

PHMSA intends for operators to report 

all types and all sizes of mechanical 

fitting (stab, nut follower, bolt, or other 

compression type) failures that result in 

a hazardous leak. The reporting 

requirements apply to failures in the 

bodies of mechanical fittings or failures 

in the joints between the fittings and 

pipe. PHMSA recognizes that 

mechanical fitting failures can be the 

primary cause of a leak or that they may 

leak as the result of another cause such 

as excavation damage. Operators are to 

report mechanical fitting failures as the 

result of any cause, including, but not 

limited to, excavation damage, 

exceeding their service life, poor 

installation practice, and incorrect 

application. Fittings are to be included 

regardless of the material they join. 

Operators must report mechanical 

fittings that join steel-to-steel, steel-toplastic, and plastic-to-plastic. Specific 

examples of mechanical fittings to be 

reported include, but are not limited to, 

transition fittings, risers, compression 

couplings, stab fittings, mechanical 

saddles, mechanical tapping tees, 

service tees, risers, sleeves, ells, wyes, 

and straight tees. 

Comment Topic 3: Reportable 

Aboveground Leaks 

Commenters sought criteria for 

defining reportable aboveground leaks. 

One commenter stated that operators 

should classify aboveground leaks 

differently from underground leaks 

because the vast majority of these 

fugitive emissions: 

1. Dissipate harmlessly into the 

atmosphere; 

2. Are located on meter sets, 

downstream of the service regulator, 

and therefore involve low operating 

pressures; and 

3. Are located at threaded joints that 

may release small quantities (parts per 

million) that can only be detected by 

sophisticated electronic leakage 

detection instruments. 

Meter sets commonly contain 

aboveground couplings where small 

leaks are eliminated by tightening. A 

widely accepted industry guidance 

document, Gas Pipeline Technical 

Committee (GPTC) Guide, does not 

currently provide gas leakage 

investigation and classification 

guidelines for aboveground leaks. The 

commenter also proposed a definition 

that would establish criteria for a 

‘‘Hazardous Aboveground Leak’’ on 

Outside Piping and on Inside Piping. 

The commenter further proposed a 

definition for ‘‘Reportable Aboveground 

Leak’’ based on the ‘‘Hazardous 

Aboveground Leak’’ criteria. 

Alternatively, one commenter stated 

that the criteria for reporting leaks 

should be expanded to include leaks 

that can be cured by re-tightening, since 

the leak could have been avoided if the 

fitting had been sufficiently tightened at 

its initial installation. By defining these 

releases as ‘‘not leaks,’’ the commenter 

asserted that important data may be lost, 

data that could possibly identify an area 

or company whose compression fittings 

could pose a threat. 

PHMSA Response: PHMSA recognizes 

that operators seek additional criteria to 

define which leaks on aboveground pipe 

should be reported. Operators have 

previously reported the total number of 

leaks eliminated/repaired during the 

year on the Annual Report Form. 

PHMSA has not made changes to the 

criteria for collecting data for this field. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
5496 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Therefore, all aboveground leaks should 

continue to be reported as detailed in 

the instructions for the Annual Report. 

The reporting of hazardous leaks 

repaired or eliminated is a new 

performance measure. Operators, 

PHMSA, and State regulatory agencies 

may decide to refine the criteria for 

reporting the measure when there is 

data to evaluate. Hazardous leaks, 

whether they occur aboveground or 

below ground, need to be reported. A 

hazardous leak meets both of the 

following definitions regardless of 

whether the leak occurs aboveground or 

below ground: 

A ‘‘leak’’ is defined in the Annual 

Report instructions as an unintentional 

escape of gas from the pipeline. A nonhazardous release that can be eliminated 

by lubrication, adjustment, or 

tightening, is not a leak. 

‘‘Hazardous Leak’’ is defined in 

§ 192.1001 as a leak that represents an 

existing or probable hazard to persons 

or property and requires immediate 

repair or continuous action until the 

conditions are no longer hazardous. 

Comment Topic 4: EFV Data 

One commenter requested that 

PHMSA use the total number of EFVs 

installed in an operator’s system at the 

end of the year as the metric for 

reportable EFV data, not the number of 

EFVs installed during the year. This 

change would make the EFV metric 

consistent with the system data reported 

in PART B—System Description on the 

Annual Report Form and with the 

directive contained within Title 49 

U.S.C. 60109(e)(3)(B). The commenter 

suggested that the information collected 

in Part E of the Annual Report Form be 

designated as, ‘‘The Number of EFVs in 

System at End of Year on single-family 

residences.’’ 

PHMSA Response: The requirement to 

report EFV metrics was mandated in the 

Pipeline Inspection, Protection, 

Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006, 

codified at 49 U.S.C. § 60109(e)(3). The 

statute requires operators to annually 

report to PHMSA the number of EFVs 

installed on their systems to singlefamily residence service lines. PHMSA 

will continue to collect information 

regarding the number of EFVs installed 

on single-family residential services 

during the year. In addition, PHMSA 

will collect estimates on the total 

number of EFVs in the system at the end 

of the year. Further discussion on EFVs 

is found in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section under ‘‘Gas Distribution 

Annual Report.’’ 

Comment Topic 5: Delay Mechanical 

Fitting Failure Information Collection 

and Reporting Date 

Since the current date to start 

collecting data precedes the effective 

date of this final rule, commenters 

proposed that PHMSA delay the start 

date for collecting mechanical fitting 

failure data until calendar year 2011, 

and delay the due date for submitting 

this information until March 15, 2012. 

Commenters stated that operators need 

time to make changes to processes and 

procedures for capturing data, 

programming to data collection systems 

(6–12 months), changes to data 

collection forms (paper or electronic), 

and train personnel on new 

requirements. According to the 

commenters, these changes cannot 

occur until final requirements are 

released. Operators requested that 

PHMSA incorporate all planned 

changes to the annual report before 

operators are required to change their 

data collection process. 

PHMSA Response: Based on the 

modifications to § 192.1009 for 

reporting mechanical fitting failures and 

the creation of the new Mechanical 

Fitting Failure Report, PHMSA is 

requiring that reporting of Mechanical 

Fitting Failures begin with calendar year 

2011. PHMSA will allow for operators 

to submit reports throughout the 

calendar year with all reports due 

March 15 of the following year. 

However, the new integrity 

management performance reporting 

criteria for the Gas Distribution Annual 

Report has been available since the 

DIMP final rule was published 

December 4, 2009. Therefore, PHMSA 

will not delay the reporting of the 

revised Gas Distribution Annual Report. 

Calendar year 2010 data will be required 

to be reported on the revised 2011 Gas 

Distribution Annual Report. 

III. Final Rule 

This final rule revises 49 CFR parts 

191 and 192 to amend certain integrity 

management requirements applicable to 

distribution pipelines. This final rule 

addresses comments regarding the data 

collection scope for ‘‘mechanical fittings 

failures’’ and the implementation date 

for data collection and submission. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

Section 191.12 Distribution Systems: 

Mechanical Fitting Failure Report 

This section has been added to 

incorporate the reporting requirements 

for the new Mechanical Fitting Failure 

Report into the pipeline safety 

regulations. In addition, the submission 

requirements have been moved to this 

section. 

Section 192.383 EFV Installation 

This section is revised to specify that 

the reporting metrics for EFVs are 

detailed in the Gas Distribution Annual 

Report. 

Section 192.1007 What are the 

required elements of an integrity 

management plan? 

Paragraph (b) of this section is revised 

to align threats to the integrity of the 

pipeline with the ‘‘cause of leak’’ data 

fields on the Gas Distribution Annual 

Report Form. The phrase ‘‘material, 

weld or joint failure (including 

compression coupling)’’ is replaced with 

the phrase ‘‘Material or Welds.’’ 

Section 192.1009 What must an 

operator report when a mechanical 

fitting fails? 

This section is being revised to 

change the term ‘‘compression coupling’’ 

to ‘‘mechanical fitting’’ and remove the 

listing of information to be collected 

and submitted. This section is also 

revised to refer operators to the new 

Mechanical Fitting Failure reporting 

requirements in § 191.12. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

Statutory/Legal Authority for This 

Rulemaking 

This final rule is published under the 

authority of the Federal Pipeline Safety 

Law (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). Section 

60102 authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation to issue regulations 

governing design, installation, 

inspection, emergency plans and 

procedures, testing, construction, 

extension, operation, replacement, and 

maintenance of pipeline facilities. This 

rulemaking amends the recently 

published DIMP final rule to finalize the 

provisions for reporting mechanical 

fittings failures. 

A. 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) or you may visit http:// 

docketsinfo.dot.gov/. 

B. Executive Order 13132 

PHMSA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria in 

Executive Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). 

The final rule does not have a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 5497 

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 final rule 

does not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments. This final regulation does 

not preempt State law for intrastate 

pipelines. Therefore, the consultation 

and funding requirements of Executive 

Order 13132 do not apply. 

C. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

The final rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) 

and, therefore, was not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. This rule is not significant 

under the Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures of the Department of 

Transportation (44 FR 11034). 

D. Executive Order 13175 

PHMSA analyzed this final rule 

according to Executive Order 13175 

(‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’). Because 

this final rule does 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. 

E. 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. In the DIMP final rule, PHMSA 

detailed the small business impact on 

the small business community and 

determined that 9,090 small operators 

would be impacted by the rule. Further, 

PHMSA estimated that the costs 

associated with the DIMP final rule 

would result in a significant adverse 

economic impact for some of the 

smallest affected entities. This final rule 

does not broaden the scope of the DIMP 

final rule. Therefore, PHMSA believes 

that the provisions contained in this 

final rule will not have a significant 

impact on small entities. Based on the 

facts available about the expected 

impact of this rulemaking, 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. 

F. PRA 

In response to the comments received 

from the 60-day PRA notice contained 

in the DIMP final rule, PHMSA made a 

number of revisions to the Gas 

Distribution Annual Report. To 

maintain transparency and gather 

further input, PHMSA published a 30- 

day notice (June 28, 2010; 75 FR 36615) 

to seek additional comments on the 

revised Gas Distribution Annual Report. 

PHMSA received eight comments which 

have been reviewed and responded to as 

follows: 

Section of form Comment PHMSA response/resulting action 

General .............................................................. Standardize information collection terminology 

used for both Incident and Annual Report 

Forms.

PR1. This will be addressed during the information collection renewal process that occurs every three years. 

Part A. Operator Information Question 6. 

(Commodity Transported).

Instructions are unclear as to how operators 

with multiple gases should respond.

PR2. This question has been removed. 

Part C. Total Leaks and Hazardous Leaks 

Eliminated/Repaired During Year.

There is no specific entry for collecting mechanical fitting leaks eliminated/repaired during the year in Part C. Since failure data on 

such fittings is collected in Part F, it would 

make sense to collect data specifically on 

them in Part C.

PR3. PHMSA is moving Part F to a separate 

form and therefore, will not make the suggested revision. 

Modify form instructions for Part C to have all 

mechanical fitting failures included in ‘‘Material and Welds’’ as stated in § 192.1007(b). 

Remove from ‘‘Equipment’’.

PR4. PHMSA is moving Part F to a separate 

form and therefore, will not make the suggested revision. 

For aboveground leaks, clarify the instructions 

to state that operators should only report 

hazardous aboveground leaks (the preponderance of aboveground leaks are trivial 

and represent no threat to the public).

PR5. PHMSA disagrees. PHMSA maintains 

that, based on the intent of recent guidance, 

all aboveground leaks should be reported 

unless the leak is a non-hazardous leak that 

can be eliminated by lubrication, adjustment, 

or tightening. 

Part E. EFV Data .............................................. Operators should simply report all EFVs installed on the distribution system, not just 

on Single Family Residences. (No records 

to distinguish commercial and residential).

PR6. As detailed in DIMP, PHMSA will require 

each operator, on an annual basis, to report 

the number of EFVs installed during the 

year on service lines serving single-family 

residences. PHMSA has included another 

block to allow for companies to estimate the 

total number of EFVs installed in their system. 

The instructions should expressly state that 

operators can estimate the number of EFVs 

in service.

PR7. PHMSA will allow for estimates on the 

total number of EFVs in the system. 

The option regarding reporting single-family or 

single-family branch services is confusing 

and holds no value. (Should be removed).

PR8. PHMSA agrees and has removed this 

provision. 

This is a significant change from what was 

originally proposed, which was to report the 

number of EFVs that the operator installed 

during the year, which was easy to capture. 

Plus no discussion as to why this change 

was made.

PR9. PHMSA is requiring primarily the number 

of EFVs installed per § 192.383 for the year. 

PHMSA is also requiring operators to estimate the total number of EFVs installed in 

their system. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
5498 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Section of form Comment PHMSA response/resulting action 

It is not a problem identifying EFVs added to 

system for the year (w/no distinction to type).

PR10. See PR7 and PR9. 

Will successive annual reports require a cumulative total number of EFVs installed or 

only the number installed for the calendar 

year reporting period? If cumulative, from 

what date forward? 

PR11. See above. PHMSA is requesting CY 

2010 data based on installation pursuant to 

§ 192.383(b). PHMSA is also requesting operators to provide an estimated total number 

of EFVs installed in a system. 

Part F. Mechanical Fitting Failure Data (This 

information will be placed on the new mechanical fitting failure form).

Form a stakeholders group to review the results and decide if the information request 

should sunset after the three- year OMB approval. Information in Part F is comprehensive and duplicative to other data collection 

efforts.

PR12. PHMSA will first seek to use the notice 

and comment process. However, PHMSA 

will continue to consider such actions for future revisions. 

A major problem is the enormous expansion 

of the data. Mechanical fittings encompass 

an almost infinite universe of fittings. 

PHMSA’s Federal Register notice provides 

no explanation or justification for the expansion of the data request. Expanding the reporting scope increases reporting requirements by several orders of magnitude. 

There is no information in this OMB approval request regarding the paperwork burden for the great expansion in the data request. (Replace ‘‘mechanical fittings’’ with 

‘‘compression couplings’’).

PR13. PHMSA is not expanding the reporting 

scope. Based on DIMP we are only looking 

for failures that result in a hazardous leak 

on ‘‘compression style’’ fittings ( e.g. stab, 

nut follower, bolted). 

The ‘‘other’’ category following stab, nut follower, and bolted couplings should be deleted since they are the only type of compression type fittings.PR14. PHMSA wants to confirm that there are 

no other types of compression type coupling 

in use. Therefore, PHMSA is retaining the 

‘‘other’’ category with a slight revision to 

change ‘‘other’’ to ‘‘Other Compression Type 

Fitting.’’ 

Delete the line beginning with ‘‘Was the Failure a Result of’’ and the associated subcategories.PR15. PHMSA has deleted the line beginning 

with ‘‘Was the Failure a Result of’’ and revised the associated subcategories. 

Delete ‘‘Pull Out’’ as a choice for ‘‘Location of 

Leak.’’ 

PR16. PHMSA is keeping the ‘‘Pull Out’’ as a 

choice for ‘‘Location of the Leak’’ and revising ‘‘Location of Leak’’ to ‘‘How did the leak 

occur.’’ 

Rather than use the bullet outline throughout 

Part F, use a numbered outline format so 

that the subsections of Part F can be clearly 

referenced if questions arise.

PR17. PHMSA created a new form for Part F 

with a numbered outline format. 

The form should allow ‘‘Unavailable’’ to be entered under ‘‘Year Installed,’’ ‘‘Year Manufactured,’’ and ‘‘If Year Unknown, Provide 

Decade Installed:’’ This option is provided 

for in the instructions for the bulleted items 

after this section.

PR18. PHMSA revised the instructions to 

allow for ‘‘Unavailable.’’ 

Part F of the form would be reproduced for 

each separate event where failure of a compression fitting results in a hazardous leak. 

PHMSA should provide that the (electronic) 

form have an index or tracking number to 

identify separate events within the calendar 

year (such as 20XX–XXX). Such a mechanism is important, not only to distinguish between reports compiled during the year, but 

also in the case where information is later 

determined to require a supplemental report 

to be filed.

PR19. In addition to separating out Part F 

onto its own form, PHMSA will create a 

unique identifier for each report. 

The section titled ‘‘Location of Leak’’ should be 

relabeled ‘‘Type of Failure’’ with the existing 

choices: ‘‘Leak Through Seal,’’ ‘‘Leak 

Through Body,’’ or ‘‘Pull Out.’’ 

PR20. PHMSA revised the section title from 

‘‘Location of Leak’’ to ‘‘How did the leak 

occur’’ to identify the visual evidence of the 

leak. 

The subsection ‘‘Was the Failure a Result of’’ 

should have a choice of ‘‘Unknown’’ or 

‘‘Other’’ since the cause may never be 

known.

PR21. PHMSA is deleting that subsection. 

Operators should be able to file Part F 

throughout the year.

PR22. Operators will be able to file the new 

form for Mechanical Fitting failures throughout the year. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 5499 

Section of form Comment PHMSA response/resulting action 

Under ‘‘Location of Leak’’ replace ‘‘Pull Out’’ 

with ‘‘Leak at Separation of Pipe and Coupling.’’ (more appropriate and in line with 

other descriptions).

PR23. PHMSA has revised the Location of 

Leak section as detailed above. 

Annual report should only contain summary 

data.

PR24. Part F is now on its own form. 

The resulting revised Gas Distribution 

Annual Report (PHMSA F–7100.1–1) 

and new Mechanical Fitting Failure 

Report (PHMSA F–7100.1–2) have been 

approved by OMB under the 

information collection titled ‘‘Incident 

and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline 

Operators’’ (OMB Control No. 2137– 

0522). 

G. 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 rule as a significant energy action. 

H. Unfunded Mandates 

This final rule does not impose 

unfunded mandates under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. It does not result in costs of $100 

million (adjusted for inflation currently 

estimated to be $132 million) 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. 

I. National Environmental Policy Act 

PHMSA analyzed this final rule in 

accordance with section 102(2)(c) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4332), the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations (40 

CFR 1500–1508), and DOT Order 

5610.1C, and has determined that this 

action will not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment. 

PHMSA conducted an Environmental 

Assessment on the DIMP NPRM and did 

not receive any comment on the 

preliminary analysis. In the final rule, 

we concluded that the rule would not 

have any significant impacts on the 

quality of the human environment. The 

amendments we are making to the final 

rule do not change that determination. 

The Environmental Assessment is 

available for review in the Docket. 

J. Regulation Identifier Number 

A regulation identifier number (RIN) 

is assigned to each regulatory action 

listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. The RIN number contained in the 

heading of this document can be used 

to cross-reference this action with the 

Unified Agenda. 

List of Subjects 

49 CFR Part 191 

Pipeline safety, Incident and Annual 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

49 CFR Part 192 

Integrity management, Pipeline safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

PHMSA is amending part 191 and part 

192 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 191—TRANSPORTATION OF 

NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY 

PIPELINE; ANNUAL REPORTS, 

INCIDENT REPORTS, AND SAFETYRELATED CONDITION REPORTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 191 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60102, 60103, 

60104, 60108, 60117, 60118, and 60124; and 

49 CFR 1.53. 

■ 2. A new § 191.12 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 191.12 Distribution Systems: Mechanical 

Fitting Failure Reports 

Each mechanical fitting failure, as 

required by § 192.1009, must be 

submitted on a Mechanical Fitting 

Failure Report Form PHMSA F–7100.1– 

2. An operator must submit a 

mechanical fitting failure report for each 

mechanical fitting failure that occurs 

within a calendar year not later than 

March 15 of the following year (for 

example, all mechanical failure reports 

for calendar year 2011 must be 

submitted no later than March 15, 

2012). Alternatively, an operator may 

elect to submit its reports throughout 

the year. In addition, an operator must 

also report this information to the State 

pipeline safety authority if a State has 

obtained regulatory authority over the 

operator’s pipeline. 

PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF 

NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY 

PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL 

SAFETY STANDARDS 

■ 3. 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. 

■ 4. In § 192.383, paragraph (c) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 192.383 Excess flow valve installation. 

* * * * * 

(c) Reporting. Each operator must 

report the EFV measures detailed in the 

annual report required by § 191.11. 

■ 5. In § 192.1001, a definition for 

‘‘Mechanical fitting’’ is added in 

appropriate alphabetical order as 

follows: 

§ 192.1001 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Mechanical fitting means a 

mechanical device used to connect 

sections of pipe. The term ‘‘Mechanical 

fitting’’ applies only to: 

(1) Stab Type fittings; 

(2) Nut Follower Type fittings; 

(3) Bolted Type fittings; or 

(4) Other Compression Type fittings. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 192.1007, in paragraph (b), the 

first sentence is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 192.1007 What are the required elements 

of an integrity management plan? 

* * * * * 

(b) Identify threats. The operator must 

consider the following categories of 

threats to each gas distribution pipeline: 

corrosion, natural forces, excavation 

damage, other outside force damage, 

material or welds, equipment failure, 

incorrect operations, and other concerns 

that could threaten the integrity of its 

pipeline. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 192.1009 is revised to read 

as follows: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
5500 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 192.1009 What must an operator report 

when a mechanical fitting fails? 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each operator of a 

distribution pipeline system must 

submit a report on each mechanical 

fitting failure, excluding any failure that 

results only in a nonhazardous leak, on 

a Department of Transportation Form 

PHMSA F–7100.1–2. The report(s) must 

be submitted in accordance with 

§ 191.12. 

(b) The mechanical fitting failure 

reporting requirements in paragraph (a) 

of this section do not apply to the 

following: 

(1) Master meter operators; 

(2) Small LPG operator as defined in 

§ 192.1001; or 

(3) LNG facilities. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 24, 

2011. 

Cynthia L. Quarterman, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2081 Filed 1–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1