Alright. I am showing 10:00, so let's, go ahead and go on the record. Good morning. This is the time scheduled for an oral proceeding in the matter of the proposed amendments to the pipeline safety rules. Docket number RG00000A250048. I'm administrative law judge Chris Nichols, and I have been assigned to preside over this matter. This oral proceeding is being held pursuant to Arizona revised statute section 41 dash ten twenty three to allow adequate discussion of the substance and form of the rule proposal,
and to allow persons to ask questions and present oral argument data and views on the proposal. I'll begin by asking staff to present information on the proposal and I may then ask questions of staff staff to clarify the record. I will then take public comment. If you are physically present and desire to speak, please complete a speaker slip and bring it up to me. If you're on the phone, please tell the person who answers both your name and that you desire to speak. Alright. Staff, may I have your appearance for the record? Good morning, your honor. Nicole Layton from the office of general counsel on behalf of staff.
With me today are Eric Villa, Chris Watson, and then online, we have Alan Born as well. I will be the one providing a sort of presentation, and then either myself or any of the three with me will be able to answer questions. Thank you, miss Layton. And with that, you can go ahead and, provide the prepared statement of information regarding the proposed rulemaking. Thank you, your honor. The proposed amendments, the pipeline safety rules, there are, I guess, four aspects of what was published as our proposed rule. Staff is recommending that rule 14 dash five dash two zero one be amended simply
to correct a typographical error. Rule 14 dash five dash two zero two, our proposal is to amend that to incorporate the 2024 updates to the federal regulations, update those incorporations by reference. As published in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the recommendation was to update rule 14 dash five dash two zero three, to amend requirements for filing written reports with the with the safety division for certain incidents
involving the unintentional release of gas from a transmission pipeline. Staff actually would like to withdraw that proposed amendment, for the notice of final rulemaking. And that change, we have conducted an analysis under the relevant statute, which is ARS 41 dash ten twenty five subsection b, which provides factors to consider with determining whether a change is substantial between the proposed and final rules. I'll run through each of the factors briefly.
The first factor involves the extent to which all persons affected by the rule should have understood that the published proposed rule would affect their interest. We do not believe there is any change in either the classes of of affected persons or those who have been on notice of a potential effect. Persons or those who have been on notice of a potential effect to their interest because, it's the same persons of interest or groups of persons of interest who would be affected by either amending the rule or maintaining the current rule,
which is what our proposal is, to maintain the current rule rather than amend rule two zero three. So we do not believe that factor weighs towards considering this is substantial change. Similarly, with factor number two, it's there's no change to the subject matter of the current proposal versus what we would like to do in just maintaining the current rule. It's all revolving around the nature of reports of those incidences of unintentional release of gas from the transmission
pipelines. With respect to factor number three, we want to point out that the published proposed rule did not contemplate actually eliminating written reports to the safety division in these this subset of incidents. It's the published proposal was designed to allow the safety division some discretion following a telephonic report, and the telephonic reporting would have been maintained in the published proposal. And upon that telephonic report in which the safety division does create a a written
record of what's reported to them, the safety division would have had the discretion to then not require or still require a more thorough write up from the responsible party of the pipeline with that unintentional release. Mhmm. So there's not necessarily a difference in the ultimate effect under either the published proposed rule or the current rule that staff would now like to maintain because, feasibly, the safety division could have still required that written report in every single incident of
receiving a telephonic report. Maintain the current rule actually provides, in some ways, more certainty that that would happen, because the written report will be required every time as opposed to the subject company, waiting to find out if they would have to provide the written report. So we don't see that this is again, considering that end result of the published proposed rule still potentially leading to written reports in every one of these incidents,
and now it would may remain that there is that requirement in every incident, we don't see a a substantial change, in the impact of the rule. And, finally, the published proposed rule contains amendments to to rule 14 dash five dash two zero seven, which is relating to the different forms, used to provide certain reports. We believe that those forms do not fall within the scope of ARRIS 41 dash ten twenty eight,
which requires incorporations by reference. So our proposal is to remove those incorporations by reference, which would promote some in not having a lag between any potential changes, by PHMSA to the forms, which is the pipeline and hazardous material safety administration. There there would always be consistency between what forms have to be submitted to us versus being submitted to PHMSA. Because in the relevant situations, every company does have to do both of those things. So eliminating those unnecessary incorporations public
interest, interest, does favor these proposed amendments, and the that public interest analysis is not materially affected by even now wanting to revert rule two zero three to its current state rather than moving forward with, the published proposed amendments. And I am more than happy to answer any questions you're having in dialogue on that legal front. And as I said, mister Villa, mister Watson, and mister Born are available for questions on the nonlegal realm of things.
Thank you. Thank you, miss Layton. I do have a few questions. Some legal, some not so much. The first of which is, just for the benefit of our court reporter, could you spell out the, the acronym for PHMSA? Yes. PHMSA is p h m s a. Thank you. And then as for the, the notice of, rulemaking docket opening and the notice of proposed rulemaking, were those published as in the, Arizona Administrative Register? Yes. They were in accordance with the commission decision approving the publication in the docket, whereas I have seen a a filing affirming that in other dockets.
Does staff plan on filing that? We we can file a notice of the date that it is published. Absolutely. Thank you. Do you happen to know on what date exactly was, if you don't, that's fine. If you give me a moment, I should be able to find that. It should be pretty quick. Sure. Your honor, I actually did not find the email I expected to have in confirming that it was published, but I I will confirm the actual date. Most likely, it was precisely on the October 10 requirement, but I'll confirm that. We'll also make a filing. Okay.
And if, you can make sure that filing also includes the date that it was, published in the register, that would be helpful. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. Alright. So as for the written reports and whether the the change to the proposed rule is substantially different, the thought occurred to me that this safety, division could just as well not require written reports in any instance. Would would you agree? Under the published proposed rule, that that is a possibility, that they would exercise their discretion to not require those written, notifications following the telephone
notification. Okay. And it's still staff's position that even though safety division might elect not to require a written report, that that would not be a substantial change to to leave the current rule in place that requires a written report? I don't believe so, your honor. And when I'm thinking about that factor, I am I think as you could tell by my statement, I am more thinking of whether or not, it's whether or not there is any degree of certainty in whether there would be different outcomes in the publish proposed rule versus maintaining the
current rule. And I do not believe there's certainty that there would be different outcomes because, yes, as you pointed out, potentially, the safety division would elect not to require the written reports, but we're I mean, it's essentially fifty fifty odds, of whether or not that would happen just by virtue of the fact that either they will or they won't. So it it looking at it that way, it's equally likely that in each one of those incidents, the safety division would still ask for a written report. So given that there is that equal potential of the exact same effect effect under
the published proposed rule versus maintaining the current rule. I believe that can weigh towards this not being a substantial change. Thank you, miss Layton. I think there has been some discussion along the way about whether or not it would make sense to have some kind of an abbreviated form or something that would contribute to, the efficiency of the the current, or improve the efficiency of the the current written reporting. Has staff considered that as an option and, if so, why has staff chosen to, just simply leave the rule the way that it is?
Staff has considered that as an option, and it is frankly something that we will probably continue to consider. These pipeline safety updates have to come annually for the most part. But in the interest of, getting through the updates that FIMS requires, to have the most current version of their rules, incorporated by reference, we think it's appropriate to, at this time, drop the proposed amendments to rule two zero three so that we can take the
time to workshop that better for when we come around to incorporate the twenty twenty five versions of the PHMSA, CFRs. Thank you, miss Layton. Alright. I will give that some thought. It's possible that I might issue a procedural order just asking for a bit of additional explanation. Just kind of expounding on what you've provided today about why it's not a substantial change, but I'll I'll have to give that some thought. Okay. Thank you, your honor. Is there anything else the staff would like to add before we move on to public comment? I'm getting head shakes, your honor. So no.
Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Well, with that, we shall move on to the public comment portion of this proceeding. It does not appear that there is anyone in the hearing room today to provide comment in person, and I don't see that anyone has called in to provide comment. So why don't we take a ten minute recess just in case there was anyone who, wanted to appear in person or telephonically today and provide, some comment and hasn't been able to, to call in or appear quite yet. So let's go off the record, and we'll come back at,
twenty seven after. Miss Layton, can you please, spell the, people that are at the council table with you and Alan who is online? Spell their names for me. Watson. Can you hear me? Yeah. Now I can't. Okay. Eric Villalon Eric Villalon is e r I c v I l l a. Chris Watson, c h r I s w a t s o n, and Allen is a l a n b o r n e. Great. Thank you so much.
Of course. Alright. It's 10:27, so let's go back on the record. It does not appear that, anyone has appeared in the hearing room to provide public comment and I don't see that anyone else has called in to provide comment. So that concludes our public comment portion of this oral proceeding. Miss Layton, is there anything that, staff would like to add in terms of a a closing statement or any supplement to what staff has provided already? No, your honor. And we will I will, get something in the docket confirming the date that
it the proposed rulemaking went out in the register. Much appreciated. Alright. The next step in the rulemaking process will be for staff to file by 01/12/2026. A summary of all written and oral comments concerning the notice of proposed rulemaking received between 09/26/2025 and 12/04/2025, along with staff's responses to those comments, as well as a final economic small business and consumer impact statement or a memo explaining why no revision to the previously filed preliminary economic impact statement is needed.
The hearing division will then review the record and issue a recommended opinion in order for the Commission's consideration at a future open meeting, and then the Commission will determine whether and in what manner the rulemaking should go forward. Any additional comments or other issues that need to be, addressed today before we conclude the, the oral proceeding, miss Layton? I will just give you a heads up, your honor. I intend to, meet that requirement well before January 12. Get it out of the way before the holidays. Excellent. Thank you. Alright and with that, we can go ahead and adjourn.
Thank you all for your participation today. That's it. Thank you.