Pipeline Safety: Eliminating Burdensome and Duplicative Deadlines for Gas Pipeline Coating Damage Assessments and Remedial Actions

The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) supports the proposal to replace vague "promptly" deadlines with concrete timelines linked to in-service dates. However, they argue that the proposed technical requirements and prescriptive voltage criteria are flawed and request modifications to allow for site-specific, technically justified assessment methods.

The American Gas Association and the Northeast Gas Association support the proposed rulemaking to streamline and clarify coating damage assessment and remedial action timelines for gas transmission pipelines. They argue that the current framework is burdensome and advocate for linking timelines to in-service dates while requesting the restoration of specific "onshore steel transmission line" qualifiers to maintain the rule's intended scope.

The Pipeline Safety Trust, a non-profit watchdog organization, opposes the proposed rulemaking because it delays the identification and remediation of pipeline coating deficiencies, which increases the risk of corrosion and pipeline failure. They argue the proposal prioritizes industry cost savings over public safety and request that PHMSA withdraw the rulemaking or hold a public meeting.

The Pipeline Safety Trust is requesting a 30-day extension of the comment period for the proposed action to allow for a more substantive and deliberate review. They argue that the volume of recent PHMSA rulemakings requires more time to consult with experts and stakeholders to ensure comprehensive feedback.

The commenter opposes the proposed changes to Parts 192.319 and 192.461, arguing that the revisions would increase costs for operators by creating logistical hurdles and removing specific timeframes for permit applications. They contend that the proposed changes create safety loopholes regarding the remediation of damaged pipeline coatings.

The comment is completely off-topic and appears to be spam or a technical error, as it provides contact information for Delta Airlines in Argentina instead of addressing the proposed pipeline safety regulations.