30 Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2013 / Notices
appear between the bead and a point one-half
the distance from the bead to the shoulder of
the tire, on at least one sidewall. The
markings shall be in letters and numerals not
less than 2 mm (0.078 inch) high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less
than 0.4 mm (0.015 inch), except that the
marking depth shall be not less than 0.25mm
(0.010 inch) in the case of motorcycle tires.
The tire identification and the DOT symbol
labeling shall comply with part 574 of this
chapter. Markings may appear on only one
sidewall and the entire sidewall area may be
used in the case of motorcycle tires and
recreational, boat, baggage, and special trailer
tires

*

*

*

*

*

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

(d) The maximum load rating and
corresponding inflation pressure of the tire,
shown as follows:
(Mark on tires rated for single and dual
load): max load single lllkg (llllb) at
lllkPa (lllpsi) cold. Max load dual
lllkg (llllb) at lllkPa (lllpsi)
cold.
(Mark on tires rated only for single load):
Max load lllkg (llllb) at lllkPa
(lllpsi) cold.

NHTSA’S Analysis of FTS’S
Reasoning: Foreign Tire Sales (FTS)
acknowledges that the subject tires are
marked with a maximum load rating
higher than the intended correct value
and a corresponding inflation pressure
lower than the intended correct value,
but contends that the tires are safe for
use based on additional tests conducted
at the incorrectly marked inflation
pressure and at loads greater than the
incorrectly marked maximum load
rating. The maximum load rating and
corresponding inflation pressure that
are erroneously marked on the subject
FTS tires, size 295/75R22.5/14 and 285/
75R24.5/14 and of the correct
information for the non-comforming
tires as follows: For the subject 295/
75R22.5/14 tires, they are marked Max.
Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at 720
kPa (105 psi) cold and Max. Load Dual
2650 kg (5840 LBS) at 720 kPa (105 psi)
Cold. The correct labeling for these tires
are: Max. Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs)
at 760 kPa (110 psi) Cold and Max. Load
Dual 2575 kg (5675 lbs) at 760 kPa (110
psi) cold. For the subject 285/75R24.5/
14 tires, they are marked Max. Load
Single 3000 kg (6610 lbs) at 720 kPa
(105 psi) cold and Max. Load Dual 2725
kg (6005 lbs) at 720 kpa (105 psi) cold.
The correct labeling for these tires are:
Max. Load Single 2800 kg (6175 lbs) at
760 kpa (110 psi) cold and Max. Load
Dual 2575 kg (5675 lbs) at 760 kpa (110
psi) cold.
The additional testing conducted by
FTS on the subject tires to support its
basis that the tires are safe for use
consisted of eight (8) modified FMVSS
No. 119 tests, in which the tires were
tested at the incorrectly marked

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:02 Nov 26, 2013

Jkt 232001

inflation pressure and at loads increased
by 10% every ten hours of testing up to
almost three times longer than that
required by FMVSS No. 119. FTS argues
that the inaccurate markings on the
subject tires are inconsequential because
the difference between the proper load
ranges and inflation pressures are
minimal. FTS further argues that based
on its modified FMVSS No. 119 testing,
even if a user of the subject tires inflates
the tire to the load inflation pressure as
marked on the sidewall of the subject
tires, the tires greatly exceed FMVSS
No. 119 and are safe.
The Agency does not agree with FTS
that the noncompliance of the subject
tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. The Agency does not consider
the difference between the marked load
ranges and inflation pressures of the
subject tires as compared to the proper
marking of load ranges and inflation
pressures to be minimal. For example,
due to the improper tire marking, the
maximum load rating (single) for the
subject 285/75R24.5/14 tires is overrated by 435 lbs and the maximum load
rating (dual) for the subject 295/
75R22.5/14 tires is over-rated by 165
lbs. Overloading can result in handling
or steering problems, brake failure, and
tire failure. An under-inflated tire is also
a safety concern since the greater the
under-inflation, the more the sidewalls
of a tire can flex, which increases the
internal heat generated and makes the
tire more susceptible to failure.
In addition, the Agency does not
consider eight (8) additional FMVSS No.
119 endurance tests, even as conducted
by FTS with increasing loads and test
durations, an adequate basis to support
that the subject tires are safe for use as
improperly marked. The maximum load
ratings and inflation pressures as
erroneously marked on the subject tires
are outside the intended safe operating
limits of the tires as designed for
manufacture and proper use. The
subject tires as improperly marked
indicate a maximum load rating value
above that designed for the tire, along
with an inflation pressure lower than
that designed for the tire. A tire loaded
above its designed maximum load rating
at a corresponding inflation pressure
below the value for which the tire was
designed creates a compounding safety
problem which clearly impacts the
defined purpose of FMVSS No. 119,
which includes placing ‘‘the correct
information on tires to permit the
proper selection and use, and safe
operation of the tire’’.
NHTSA Decision: In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
the petitioner has not met its burden of
persuasion that the noncompliance

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

71033

described is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, FTS’s
petition is hereby denied, and the
petitioner must notify owners,
purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118 and provide a remedy in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Dated: November 21, 2013.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2013–28461 Filed 11–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0084]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities, Revisions to Incident and
Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline
Operators
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

On June 27, 2013, in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
published a notice in the Federal
Register of its intent to revise six forms
under OMB Control Number 2137–0522.
These forms include: PHMSA F 7100.1
Incident Report—Gas Distribution
System; PHMSA F 7100.1–2 Mechanical
Fitting Failure Report Form for Calendar
Year 20xx for Distribution Operators;
PHMSA F 7100.2 Incident Report—
Natural and Other Gas Transmission
and Gathering Pipeline Systems;
PHMSA F 7100.2–1 Annual Report for
Calendar Year 20xx Natural and Other
Gas Transmission and Gathering
Pipeline Systems; PHMSA F 7100.3
Incident Report—Liquefied Natural Gas
Facilities; and PHMSA F 7100.3–1
Annual Report for Calendar Year 20xx
Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities.
In response to that notice, PHMSA
received comments from three
organizations on the proposed revisions.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to
respond to the comments, to provide the
public with an additional 30 days to
comment on the proposed revisions to
the forms and instructions, and to
announce that this revised Information
Collection request will be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for approval.

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM

27NON1

71034

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2013 / Notices

Comments on this notice must be
received by December 27, 2013 to be
assured of consideration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Dow by telephone at 202–366–
1246, by fax at 202–366–4566, by email
at [email protected].
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2013–0084 by any of the
following methods:
• Fax: 1–202–395–5806.
• Mail: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Records
Management Center, Room 10102
NEOB, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk
Officer for the U.S. Department of
Transportation\PHMSA.
• Email: OIRA, OMB, at the following
email address: oira_submissions@
omb.eop.gov.
Requests for a copy of the Information
Collection should be directed to Angela
Dow by telephone at 202–366–1246, by
fax at 202–366–4566, by email at
[email protected], or by mail at
U.S. Department of Transportation,
PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
PHP–30, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
1320.8 (d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide
interested members of the public and
affected agencies an opportunity to
comment on information collection and
recordkeeping requests. This notice
identifies a revised information
collection request that PHMSA will be
submitting to OMB for approval.
DATES:

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

I. Summary of Topic Comments/
Responses
During the 60-day comment period,
PHMSA received comments from the
following stakeholders:
• Norton McMurray Manufacturing
Company (NORMAC)
• Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America (INGAA)
• Pipeline Safety Trust (PST)
The comments from these
stakeholders are available at http://
www.regulations.gov, under docket
number ‘‘PHMSA–2013–0084.’’ The
docket also contains the forms and
instructions as amended in response to
the comments. The responses to these
comments are detailed below.
II. NORMAC’s Comments/PHMSA’s
Responses
NORMAC submitted comments on
both the PHMSA F 7100.1 Incident
Report—Gas Distribution System
(Incident Report) and PHMSA F 7100.1–
2 Mechanical Fitting Failure (MFF)
Report Form for Calendar Year 20xx for
Distribution Operators (MFF Report).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:02 Nov 26, 2013

Jkt 232001

1. NORMAC proposes that PHMSA
consistently apply to both the Incident
Report and the MFF Report the
exemption in the MFF Report
instructions against categorizing leaks in
gasketed joints found on main or service
pipe as ‘‘Equipment Failure.’’
Response: PHMSA has proposed
changes to the MFF Report and Incident
Report instructions to improve clarity.
Significant differences exist in the scope
of data collected on each form;
therefore, PHMSA is not accepting
NORMAC’s proposal. The Incident
Report collects data for all gas
distribution pipeline facility failures,
regardless of the location of the failure
within the facility. The MFF Report
only collects data on mechanical fitting
failures. The Incident Report does not
exempt incidents on mains and services
from being categorized as ‘‘Equipment
Failures.’’ The instructions direct these
leaks to either ‘‘Equipment Failure’’ or
‘‘Pipe, Weld, or Joint Failures.’’ The
proposed causes on the Incident Report
allow PHMSA to identify failures
caused by incorrect installation
separately from manufacturing flaws.
On the MFF Report, every failure
reported is a joint failure and PHMSA
provides a different set of cause
categories for these failures. The
proposed causes on the MFF Report
allow PHMSA to identify failures
caused by incorrect installation
separately from manufacturing flaws.
2. NORMAC asserts that because
PHMSA’s reports ask the wrong
questions, the data collected and stored
in PHMSA’s database is flawed.
NORMAC suggests that PHMSA should
delete, redact or similarly account for
this flawed data. Further, PHMSA
should issue corrections to prior reports
and publications that have included
remarks based on such flawed data.
Response: PHMSA believes that data
being collected is critical to its safety
mission and there is no need to delete,
redact, or correct its database. PHMSA
does not believe it needs to revisit its
prior reports and publications on this
topic.
3. NORMAC proposes that PHMSA
create a bright line separation between
equipment failure and improper joining
procedures, joint installation, or joint
design in the MFF Report and all related
PHMSA forms and programs, specifying
the precise regulation that applies.
Response: PHMSA has proposed
changes to the MFF Report, Incident
Report, and the Gas Distribution Annual
Report (see docket PHMSA–2013–0004)
to improve clarity in the instructions
and consistency in the data collected.
PHMSA issued an Advisory Bulletin
(ADB–2012–07) titled: ‘‘Pipeline Safety:

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Mechanical Fitting Failure Reports’’
communicating, among other things,
that hazardous mechanical fitting
failures resulting from an installation
defect be reported under ‘‘Incorrect
Operation’’. Through these information
collections, PHMSA seeks to implement
the separation proposed by NORMAC.
4. NORMAC proposes that PHMSA
use the same definition of ‘‘Cause’’ in
both the Incident Report and the MFF
Report.
Response: As mentioned earlier, the
scope of data collection under the
Incident Report and the MFF Report are
very different. The Incident Report
collects data for all gas distribution
pipeline facility failures regardless of
the location of the failure within the
facility. The MFF Report only collects
data on mechanical fitting failures.
These differing scopes preclude
applying the same definitions and
exemptions to both the Incident Report
and MFF Report.
5. NORMAC proposed that PHMSA
eliminate the titles and intent of 49 CFR
191.12 and 192.1009 for Mechanical
Fitting Failure Reporting.
Response: NORMAC’s proposal
would require rulemaking, which is
beyond the scope of this information
collection renewal.
6. NORMAC asserts that the forms do
not tie the likely causes of failure to
whether such actions, inactions or
decisions are compliant with Subpart F,
the manufacturer’s instructions, or
ASME B31.8, as applicable. NORMAC
proposes that PHMSA reform the MFF
Report to relate each apparent cause of
leaks to specific actions or inactions in
compliance with PHMSA’s applicable
regulations.
Response: The MFF Report form and
instructions provide numerous apparent
leak cause categories and there is no
bias toward selecting ‘‘Equipment
Failure.’’
7. NORMAC proposes that PHMSA
remove the note in Part G1 of the
Incident Report instructions because the
note assumes that the failure of a piece
of equipment is always due to a flaw in
the equipment and never due to a
failure to properly install the
equipment.
Response: PHMSA has revised the
note in Part G1 of the instructions of the
Incident Report to clarify that noncorrosion bonnet, packing, or other
gasket failures could be reported under
‘‘Incorrect Operations’’ or under
‘‘Equipment Failure.’’
8. NORMAC proposes that PHMSA
clarify language in both the Incident
Report and MFF report instructions for
Incorrect Operations.

E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM

27NON1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2013 / Notices
Response: PHMSA has modified the
instructions for Incorrect Operations
and Equipment Failure in both the
Incident Report and MFF Report in
response to NORMAC’s proposal.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

III. INGAA’s Comments/PHMSA’s
Responses
INGAA submitted comments on
PHMSA F 7100.2 Incident Report—
Natural and Other Gas Transmission
and Gathering Pipeline Systems.
1. INGAA contends that PHMSA did
not explain the reason for amending the
instructions for item 19, time sequence,
and that these changes should not be
adopted without discussion with the
pipeline safety community.
Response: In a report titled,
‘‘PIPELINE SAFETY Better Data and
Guidance Needed to Improve Pipeline
Operator Incident Response’’ (GAO–13–
168) the Government Accountability
Office recommends that PHMSA
improve the reliability of incident
response data. PHMSA concurs with the
GAO recommendation and has
proposed this change to collect more
meaningful data from which to calculate
operator response time. PHMSA will
calculate response time as ‘‘arrival onsite’’ minus ‘‘failure awareness.’’
2. INGAA believes there is significant
potential value in collecting C3(a)
through C3(h) data for welds other than
girth welds.
Response: The current data structure
of the form allows the collection of one
set of C3(a) through C3(h) data for each
report. These data elements are required
for pipe girth weld failures with the
assumption that each data element is
the same on each side of the girth weld.
The other weld configurations would
almost certainly have different C3(a)
through C3(h) values on each side of the
weld. PHMSA lacks the resources to
change the data structure to
accommodate multiple C3(a) through
C3(h) data per report and there is no
compelling reason to do so.
3. INGAA urges PHMSA to ensure
that the database is able to accept
onshore reports without a valid value
for County/Parish.
Response: PHMSA has modified the
instructions accordingly and will ensure
the database is appropriately
configured.
IV. Annual Report Gas Transmission
and Gathering Pipeline Systems
Comments/PHMSA Responses
PHMSA received comments regarding
the proposed changes to the Annual
Report for Gas Transmission and Gas
Gathering Systems—PHMSA F.7100.2–1
from INGAA and the PST. The
following is a summary of the comments

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:02 Nov 26, 2013

Jkt 232001

PHMSA received regarding the
proposed changes to PHMSA F. 7100.2–
1. A complete record of the comments
received is available at http://
www.regulations.gov, at docket number
‘‘PHMSA–2013–0084.’’
1. Remove Part C–Volume Transported
by Transmission Lines
Comment: The PST commented that it
was unable to access this data on the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) Web site and does not support
removing Part C from the PHMSA
report.
Response: PHMSA proposed
removing Part C under the assumption
that volume transported data would be
available from the FERC. PHMSA
concurs that the data is not readily
available from FERC. However, simply
keeping the current instructions for Part
C is not an attractive alternative. Under
the current instructions, Part C data is
not required for ‘‘Transmission Lines of
Gas Distribution Systems.’’ If PHMSA
collects volume transported from any
gas transmission operator, the data
should be collected from all gas
transmission operators. To make fair
comparisons of operator performance,
PHMSA needs to know not just miles of
pipe, but also the volume delivered by
the pipelines included in each annual
report. PHMSA has modified the
instructions so that all gas transmission
operators are required to submit volume
transported data. We expect that
operators with both gas transmission
and gas distribution assets have the
volume transported data readily
available, so the reporting burden
increase is minimal.
2. Instructions for Parts Q and R
Comment: INGAA has no comments
regarding the proposed changes to Parts
Q and R of the annual report form, but
urges PHMSA to change the instructions
for Parts Q and Part R to:
(1) Recognize the distinction between
MAOP determination and MAOP
verification. According to INGAA,
MAOP determination, based on the
reporting operator’s internal procedures
and the best information available,
determines the Part Q ‘‘Total’’ column
where specific mileage will be placed.
MAOP verification, which occurs after
MAOP determination, determines how
much of the reported ‘‘Total’’ mileage
should be reported in the corresponding
‘‘Incomplete Records’’ column.
(2) recognize that an ‘‘Incomplete
Records’’ entry refers exclusively to the
status of the records for the
corresponding determination method
but does not indicate anything regarding

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

71035

the quality or existence of the operator’s
records for any of the other MAOP
determination methods.
(3) eliminate the phrase ‘‘traceable,
verifiable, and complete’’ to describe the
MAOP records because it appears to
impose a standard for records though
instructions for completing an annual
report.
(4) expand the instructions for Part Q
to specify how and where entries should
be made when two of the methods
specified in subsection 192.619(a) result
in the same MAOP.
(5) specify that consistency is
required between the ‘‘Total’’ columns
in Part Q and mileage entered in other
parts of the Annual Report. No
consistency is expected between the
‘‘Incomplete Records’’ columns and
other parts of the Annual Report.
(6) provide that if an elevation
analysis shows some of a tested segment
did not achieve a specified test pressure,
(e.g., a 1.25 x MAOP) because of
elevation differences, the operator
should report the miles that did not
achieve the specified test pressure in the
pressure test range actually achieved.
Response: PHMSA has revised the
instructions to implement the changes
listed above except for suggested
revision (3). PHMSA is using the data
submitted in Parts Q and R as one of
many inputs into potential regulation
changes. These instruction clarifications
should provide more accurate data to
inform the rulemaking process. PHMSA
has chosen not to change the exisiting
instructions for records. PHMSA’s use
of the phrase ‘‘traceable, verifiable, and
complete’’ provides guidance for
operators to meet the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 60139.
3. Effective Date
Comment: INGAA suggested
improvements in the ‘‘General
Instructions’’ section of the instructions
to clarify the effective date for the form.
Response: PHMSA has implemented
the suggestion.
4. Filing Supplemental Reports to
Amend Part Q
Comment: INGAA expressed concern
that the ‘‘General Instructions’’ require
operators to supplement an annual
report if any length of pipe, regardless
of how short, changes record status from
incomplete to complete.
Response: PHMSA has modified the
‘‘General Instructions’’ to clarify that
supplemental reports to change the
record status are optional.
5. Consistency Among Parts
Comment: INGAA asked for the
details behind the consistency

E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM

27NON1

71036

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 27, 2013 / Notices

requirements among various parts of the
form.
Response: Some of the details already
exist in the Parts H through R
introductory instructions. PHMSA has
expanded these details in accordance
with INGAA’s request.
6. Categories for Leaks and Failures
After the publication of the 60-day
notice, PHMSA found an error in the
instructions for leak and failure
categories in Part M of the instructions.
Under the heading titled ‘‘Third Party
Damage/Mechanical Damage,’’ operators
are instructed to report first, second,
and third party excavation damage.
Only third party excavation damage
should be reported under this heading.
First and second party excavation
damage leaks and failures represent an
error by either the operator (first party)
or a contractor working for the operator
(second party) and should be reported
in the ‘‘Incorrect Operations’’ category.
PHMSA has revised the instructions
accordingly.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

V. Proposed Information Collection
Revisions and Request for Comments
The following information is provided
for each revised information collection:
(1) Title of the information collection;
(2) OMB control number; (3) Type of
request; (4) Abstract of the information
collection activity; (5) Description of
affected public; (6) Estimate of total
annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden; and (7) Frequency of collection.
PHMSA will request a three-year term of
approval for each information collection
activity. PHMSA is only focusing on the
revisions detailed in this notice and will
request revisions to the following
information collection activities.
Title: Incident and Annual Reports for
Gas Pipeline Operators.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0522.
Current Expiration Date: 02/28/2014.
Type of Request: Revision.
Abstract: PHMSA is looking to revise
several reporting forms for gas pipeline
operators to improve the granularity of
the data collected in several areas.
Affected Public: Gas pipeline
operators.
Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
Burden:
Total Annual Responses: 12,164.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 92,321.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the proposed
collection of information for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:02 Nov 26, 2013

Jkt 232001

collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques.
Issued in Washington, DC on November 22,
2013.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013–28450 Filed 11–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket ID PHMSA–2013–0248]

Pipeline Safety: Random Drug Testing
Rate; Contractor Management
Information System Reporting; and
Obtaining Drug and Alcohol
Management Information System SignIn Information
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Calendar Year 2014
Minimum Annual Percentage Rate for
Random Drug Testing; Reminder for
Operators to Report Contractor
Management Information System (MIS)
Data; and New Method for Operators to
Obtain User Name and Password for
Electronic Reporting.
AGENCY:

PHMSA has determined that
the minimum random drug testing rate
for covered employees will remain at 25
percent during calendar year 2014.
Operators are reminded that drug and
alcohol testing information must be
submitted for contractors performing or
ready to perform covered functions. For
calendar year 2013 reporting, PHMSA
will not mail the ‘‘user name’’ and
‘‘password’’ for the Drug and Alcohol
Management Information System
(DAMIS) to operators, but will make the
user name and password available in
the PHMSA Portal (https://
portal.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline).
DATES: Effective January 1, 2014,
through December 31, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Blaine Keener, National Field
Coordinator, by telephone at 202–366–
0970 or by email at blaine.keener@
dot.gov.
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Calendar Year 2014 Minimum
Annual Percentage Rate for Random
Drug Testing
Operators of gas, hazardous liquid,
and carbon dioxide pipelines and
operators of liquefied natural gas
facilities must randomly select and test
a percentage of covered employees for
prohibited drug use. Pursuant to 49 CFR
199.105(c)(2), (3), and (4), the PHMSA
Administrator’s decision on whether to
change the minimum annual random
drug testing rate is based on the
reported random drug test positive rate
for the pipeline industry. The data
considered by the Administrator comes
from operators’ annual submissions of
MIS reports required by § 199.119(a). If
the reported random drug test positive
rate is less than one percent, the
Administrator may continue the
minimum random drug testing rate at 25
percent. In calendar year 2012, the
random drug test positive rate was less
than one percent. Therefore, the PHMSA
minimum annual random drug testing
selection rate will remain at 25 percent
for calendar year 2014.
Reminder for Operators To Report
Contractor MIS Data
On January 19, 2010, PHMSA
published an Advisory Bulletin (75 FR
2926) implementing the annual
collection of contractor MIS drug and
alcohol testing data. All applicable
§ 199.119 (drug testing) and § 199.229
(alcohol testing) MIS reporting operators
are responsible for the submission to
PHMSA of all contractor MIS reports to
PHMSA, as well as their own, by March
15, 2014.
Contractors with employees in safetysensitive positions who performed
covered functions as defined in § 199.3
of Part 199, must submit these reports
only through the auspices of each
operator for whom these covered
employees performed those covered
functions (i.e., maintenance, operations
or emergency response).
New Method for Operators To Obtain
User Name and Password for Electronic
Reporting
In previous years, PHMSA attempted
to mail the DAMIS user name and
password to operator staff with
responsibility for submitting DAMIS
reports. Based on the number of phone
calls to PHMSA each year requesting
this information, the mailing process
has not been effective. Pipeline
operators have been submitting reports
required by Parts 191 and 195 through
the PHMSA Portal (https://
portal.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline) for the

E:\FR\FM\27NON1.SGM

27NON1