Comment from Anonymous

Public comment on 49 CFR Part 190.341(d)(2), docket PHMSA-2025-0135, Federal Register Notice dated 07-01-25 PHMSA must not make the changes to Part 190.341(d)(2) as proposed in above docket. PHMSA’S public notice lacks deleted facts on the below statements in the public notice. PHMSA noticed statement: “PHMSA's historical practice has impeded the agency's ability to modernize the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to accommodate innovative technologies and practices as well. Special permits can serve as a proving ground for evaluating such technologies and practices for potential adoption by regulation under PHMSA's continuing oversight.” Questions for PHMSA: 1)What innovative technologies have operators submitted to PHMSA that would modernize the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations? 2)In reviewing special permit conditions, NTSB recommendations, pipeline failures, Congressional mandates, research (Government and Industry sponsored research) and new pipeline regulations, I see that new innovative technologies in: steel pipe material property verification, crack detection, quick closure of valves during large leaks and ruptures, coating damage remediation, anomaly evaluations, land surveys (for 3rd party excavations/damage, pipe leakage, soil cover, coatings, and terrain) and plastic pipe have been implemented in special permits and the pipeline safety regulations. Did pipeline operators submit these types of safety innovations to PHMSA for these special permits or did PHMSA add them to the special permit conditions to help ensure public safety? Were these types of permit conditions implemented based upon findings from many sources, as listed in this section? 3)How many special permits were issued to pipeline operators that in the past have not “correctly followed” the existing pipeline regulations or issued permit conditions in high population or environmentally sensitive areas? 4)Should PHMSA be limited to what a special permit can include, if so, would many special permit requests need to be denied to protect public safety? 5)The existing and granted special permits listed on the PHMSA Pipeline Safety website have special permit inspection areas for many of the permits, such as Class location or where the regulations were violated by the pipeline operator (Odorization, Welding/NDT, Lack of Pressure Tests), would the insertion of the new proposed limits for Part 190.341(d)(2) not allow special permit inspection areas? Why would PHMSA want to limit the special permit inspection areas? 6)In reviewing the PHMSA list of special permits on the PHMSA pipeline website it seems that most special permits were for class location changes or for an operator not implementing the regulations properly when the pipeline was constructed. A few of the special permits were for smaller plastic pipes, which in some cases would be modern technology? 7)Are some pipeline operators delaying PHMSA’s review of permit applications for a special permit by sending incomplete application details (such as environmental assessments) and problematic pipes for special permits? 8)Why should the public want PHMSA’s discretion in determining the conditions in granting a waiver to be limited? It could have an effect of undermining public safety and the denial of some permit applications due to PHMSA not being able to use this discretion. Also, it could undermine public safety in many areas by allowing unproven technology in high population and limited mobility areas. PHMSA must not make the changes to Part 190.341(d)(2) as proposed in the above docket. PHMSA has not provided to the public documented facts to support PHMSA’s docket comments to support the need for the proposed change. This proposed regulation change will limit PHMSA's ability to obtain equivalent safety for the public on future permits and may lead to permit denials.