Comment from Anonymous

PHMSA-2025-0135 - Part 190.341(d)(2) PHMSA must not make the changes to Part 190.341(d)(2) as proposed in docket PHMSA-2025-0135. PHMSA public notice PHMSA-2025-0135 lacks deleted facts on the below statements in the public notice. Without more details, it is difficult for the public to understand this notice and its effects on safety. PHMSA public noticed statement: “Experience has shown that the current language in the special permit procedures provides too much discretion to PHMSA in determining the conditions that should be included in granting a waiver. PHMSA has in the past often imposed conditions that are not directly, or even substantially, related to the requirement in the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations that the applicant asked to be waived. As a result of that historical practice, owners and operators of pipeline facilities are unable to predict what types of conditions will be accepted by or imposed by PHMSA in granting a special permit. These uncertain and inconsistent outcomes also discourage owners and operators from applying for special permits or from proposing conditions to address directly potential risks in their applications.” Questions for PHMSA: 1) PHMSA must “not implement” this proposed change to 190.341(d)(2) as noticed in PHMSA-2025-0135 (“directly and substantially related to the relevant standard or regulation being waived” – do not implement this proposed wording). 2) PHMSA must keep the regulatory discretion for safety conditions in a special permit, especially where the pipeline is in higher population areas such as Class 2 or 3 locations or high consequence areas. 3) If an operator asks for a permit for not operating per the Code, why would PHMSA want to limit the type of conditions pertaining to the permit application? 4) In reviewing PHMSA’s Pipeline Special Permit website, it seems that many of the permits are for gas transmission Class 1 to 3 location changes. If most of the permit applications have been for Class locations, the PHMSA Public Notice comment above seems to be incorrect (“These uncertain and inconsistent outcomes also discourage owners and operators from applying for special permits or from proposing conditions to address directly potential risks in their applications.”), since about 15 special permits for Class locations were issued by PHMSA in 2023, see (Pipeline Special Permits and State Waivers Overview | PHMSA). 5) The special permits issued by PHMSA (see Pipeline Special Permits and State Waivers Overview | PHMSA) have similar conditions in all the permits granted. The permit changes over the years seem to be findings from pipeline incidents, NTSB findings, Congressional Mandates, and regulatory changes. Please detail for public comment the noted “inconsistent outcomes.” 6) Does PHMSA allow the operator regulatory relief while the permit application is reviewed, noticed, and either granted, withdrawn or denied? If so, how is the process affecting operators if they are being granted regulatory relief while the permit request is being processed? Also, does PHMSA allow an operator additional regulatory time to implement the regulation requirements when a permit request is denied? 7) Have operators asked for special permits on existing, older, or problematic pipes that should not be granted special permits due to risks to public safety in high population areas? Are these problematic special permit applications on the PHMSA website “Withdrawn or Denied” lists (see Pipeline Special Permits and State Waivers Overview | PHMSA)? 8) Problematic pipe with poor coating, problematic seam types, poor girth welding and alignment practices, cracking in pipe body, girth welds, and pipe seam should not be granted a special permit, especially in higher populated areas. It seems the proposed regulation changes to Part 190.341(d)(2) is trying to limit the special permit by not allowing PHMSA to require remediation in the vicinity of the permit that will help to prevent failures and harm to the public. PHMSA must re-notice and define for the public where and how the regulation change will be used to limit special permit conditions and the effect on public safety when the permit effects older, non-modern, and/or lower strength pipe. 9) Has PHMSA, over the past 20 years, changed the application, review process, draft pipe properties and operational details for the special permit process from what is noticed and detailed on the PHMSA Pipeline Special Permits website (Class Location Special Permits Documents | PHMSA)? When going to the PHMSA websites everything for the application, review, and condition types over the past 15 to 20 years seem to be similar. In reviewing the public permit documents and notice documents I think PHMSA-2025-0135 is incorrect and misleading the public in stating “uncertain and inconsistent outcomes” in the public notice. The public needs details of why changes are required.