Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection-National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB Control No. 2137-0596)., 44246-44249 [2014-17865]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44246
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Notices
issue a National Public Transportation
Safety Plan, establish safety
performance criteria for all modes of
public transportation, define a ‘‘state of
good repair,’’ establish minimum safety
performance standards for public
transportation vehicles, and a safety
certification training program. FTA will
be issuing regulations and interim
guidance to implement these new
requirements in consultation with
public transportation industry
stakeholders.
Additionally, this section of the
proposed circular clarifies the effect that
MAP–21 has had on the State Safety
Oversight (SSO) Program and the
requirements of 49 CFR 659. Section
5330, which authorizes the SSO
Program, will be repealed three years
from the effective date of the new
regulations implementing the new
Section 5329 safety requirements. Until
then, the current requirements of 49
CFR 659 will continue to apply.
H. Appendix
The appendices include instructions
for preparing a grant application and a
budget, an application checklist, and
several forms and representative
documents that recipients will need
when applying for Section 5339 funds.
In addition, the appendices include
FTA regional and metropolitan contact
information. Last is a list of references,
including Federal Register notice and
other citations as appropriate to enable
readers to view the source documents.
Issued in Washington, DC, this 24th day of
July, 2014.
Therese McMillan,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014–17926 Filed 7–29–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0092]
Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision
of a Previously Approved Information
Collection—National Pipeline Mapping
System Program (OMB Control No.
2137–0596).
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
PHMSA invites public comments on our
intent to request the Office of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
Management and Budget’s approval to
revise and renew an information
collection currently under OMB Control
Number 2137–0596 titled: ‘‘National
Pipeline Mapping System Program.’’
The collection currently requires
operators to submit geospatial data,
attributes, metadata, public contact
information and a transmittal letter to
the National Pipeline Mapping System
(NPMS) program. The proposed
revisions will require operators to
submit additional information to the
NPMS.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments on or before
September 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by Docket No. PHMSA–2014–
0092 through one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–
140, Washington, DC 20590, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on Federal
holidays.
• Instructions: Identify the docket
number, PHMSA–2014–0092, at the
beginning of your comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You
should know that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
Therefore, you may want to review
DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477) or visit
https://www.regulations.gov before
submitting any such comments.
• Docket: For access to the docket or
to read background documents or
comments, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12–140 on the ground level of
DOT’s West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
If you wish to receive confirmation of
receipt of your written comments,
please include a self-addressed,
stamped postcard with the following
statement: ‘‘Comments on: PHMSA–
2014–0092.’’ The Docket Clerk will date
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stamp the postcard prior to returning it
to you via the U.S. mail. Please note that
due to delays in the delivery of U.S.
mail to Federal offices in Washington,
DC, we recommend that persons
consider an alternative method
(Internet, fax, or professional delivery
service) of submitting comments to the
docket and ensuring their timely receipt
at the DOT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Nelson, Geospatial Information
Systems Manager, Program
Development Division, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by
phone at 202–493–0591 or email at
amy.nelson@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The NPMS is a geospatial dataset that
contains information about PHMSAregulated gas transmission pipelines,
hazardous liquid pipelines, and
hazardous liquid low-stress gathering
lines. The NPMS also contains data
layers for all liquefied natural gas plants
and a partial dataset of PHMSAregulated breakout tanks.
The original standards for the NPMS
data collection were drafted in 1998 by
a joint government/industry committee
comprised of members from PHMSA’s
predecessor agency the Research and
Special Programs Administration, the
American Petroleum Institute, the
American Gas Association and the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of
America. With the passage of the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2002 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 60132), gas
transmission and hazardous liquid
pipeline operators are required to
submit their geospatial data, attributes,
metadata, public contact information,
and a transmittal letter to the NPMS
program. While the standards reflected
the state of geospatial data and
positional accuracy at that time, they do
not reflect the current state of geospatial
data and positional accuracy. PHMSA
requires more accurate and complete
information about each pipeline,
liquefied natural gas plant or breakout
tank than the minimal set of attributes
it receives with NPMS submissions.
Collecting enhanced data will
strengthen PHMSA’s ability to fulfill its
strategic goals to improve public safety,
protect the environment and ensure
infrastructure is well-maintained. More
accurate and complete NPMS data will
also help emergency responders and
government officials create better, more
appropriate emergency response plans.
Specifically, the new data will:
• Aid the industry and all levels of
government, from Federal to municipal,
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Notices
in promoting public awareness of
hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
in improving emergency responder
outreach. Currently, 787 Federal
officials, 1,208 state officials and 4,791
county officials have access to the
online mapping application. Providing
these officials with an improved NPMS
containing system-specific information
about local pipeline facilities can help
ensure emergency response agencies
and communities are better prepared
and can better execute response
operations during incidents.
• Permit more powerful and accurate
tabular and geospatial analysis, which
will strengthen PHMSA’s ability to
evaluate existing and proposed
regulations as well as operator programs
and/or procedures.
• Strengthen the effectiveness of
PHMSA’s risk rankings and evaluations,
which are used as a factor in
determining pipeline inspection priority
and frequency.
• Allow for more effective assistance
to emergency responders by providing
them with a more reliable, complete
dataset of pipelines and facilities.
• Provide better support to PHMSA’s
inspectors by providing more accurate
pipeline locations and additional
pipeline-related geospatial data that can
be linked to tabular data in PHMSA’s
inspection database.
PHMSA discussed its NPMS
information needs at the joint meeting
of the Gas Pipeline Advisory
Committee, also known as the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee,
and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory
Committee, also known as the Technical
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, on August 9,
2013, in Arlington, Virginia. Having
discussed with the joint committee
some of the challenges involved with
gathering positional accuracy data for
certain lines, PHMSA devised a
proposal that will allow us to gather
crucial NPMS data for lines that are in
areas of the greatest consequence.
The proposed changes to the NPMS
Operator Standards Manual detailed
below can be found at:
www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/
Draft_Operator_Standards.pdf. The
proposed changes to the attributes will
be part of an operator’s annual NPMS
submission. Unless otherwise marked,
all attributes will be linked to the
geospatial pipeline file as attributes at
the pipe segment level.
PHMSA understands that operators,
through their annual report
submissions, are currently collecting
and have the following information and
attributes that PHMSA specifically
proposes to collect as additional parts of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
the NPMS submission. Collecting this
geospatial information could lead to
eliminating duplicate data requests from
the annual reports. PHMSA invites
comment on how this expanded
collection of information could affect
the annual report:
• Positional Accuracy: PHMSA
proposes that for pipeline segments
located within Class 3, Class 4, High
Consequence Areas (HCA), or ‘‘couldaffect’’ HCAs, operators submit data to
the NPMS with a positional accuracy of
five feet. The degree of positional
accuracy needed is more stringent and
important in these areas because of the
potential for greater consequence in the
event of a pipeline incident. PHMSA
further proposes that for all pipeline
segments located within Class 1 or Class
2 locations, operators submit data to the
NPMS with a positional accuracy of 50
feet. PHMSA believes that a large
number of operators already have access
to data with this degree of accuracy
within their GIS systems. The current
accuracy requirement of 500 feet does
not allow PHMSA to effectively locate a
pipeline to the degree needed to
respond to environmental and integrity
threats. It also hinders PHMSA in
identifying special features on the
pipeline that may be relevant for
emergency response considerations. The
new degree of accuracy will help
emergency responders more effectively
locate a pipeline to the degree needed
to respond to environmental and
integrity threats and help in emergency
planning.
• Pipe Diameter: PHMSA proposes to
require operators to submit data on the
nominal diameter of a pipe segment.
Knowing the diameter of a pipeline can
help emergency responders determine
the impact area of a pipeline. This
attribute also gives PHMSA the
opportunity to gain a broader
understanding of the diameters of pipe
being operated in any given
geographical region and to further assess
potential impacts to public safety and
the environment.
• Maximum Allowable Operating
Pressure (MAOP), Maximum Operating
Pressure (MOP): PHMSA proposes
operators submit the maximum MAOP
or MOP for a pipeline segment in
pounds per square inch gauge. This
information is critical because it affects
important risk-ranking algorithms and
the potential impact radius of a
pipeline, which can influence
emergency response planning.
• Pipe Grade: PHMSA proposes
operators submit information on the
predominant pipe grade of a pipeline
segment. This information is essential in
issues regarding pipe integrity and is a
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44247
necessary component in determining
the allowable operating pressure of a
pipeline.
• Percent Specified Minimum Yield
Strength (SMYS): PHMSA proposes
operators submit information pertaining
to the percent at which the pipeline is
operating to SMYS. Specifically,
operators would submit hoop stress
caused by the highest operating pressure
during the year as a percentage of
SMYS. PHMSA uses the percentage of
operating SMYS to determine low- and
high-stress pipelines, class locations,
test requirements, inspection intervals,
and other requirements in the pipeline
safety regulations.
• Leak Detection: PHMSA proposes
operators submit information on the
type of leak detection system used. The
type of leak detection used can
drastically alter effective response times
for operators and emergency responders.
Knowing the type of leak detection
system used during an incident will
help emergency responders respond
appropriately in the event of a release.
• Pipe Coating/Type of Coating:
PHMSA proposes operators indicate the
level of and types of coating on a
pipeline segment. The type of coating
relates to the level of protection from
external corrosion a pipe has while in
the ground. Understanding the level of
coating helps PHMSA assess pipe
integrity and perform better risk
assessments.
• Pipe Material: PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the type of
pipe material. Knowing the pipe
material helps PHMSA determine the
level of potential risk from excavation
damage and external environmental
loads. These can also be factors in
emergency response planning.
• Pipe Join Method: PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the pipe
joining method. PHMSA uses this
information to identify high-risk joining
methods and will be used in PHMSA’s
risk rankings and evaluations, which are
used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
• Year of Construction/Installation:
PHMSA proposes operators submit data
on the predominant year of original
construction (or installation). The year
of construction determines which
regulations apply to a pipeline for
enforcement purposes. The data
requested pertains to the year of
construction and not the year the pipe
was manufactured. On the annual
report, operators have the option of
selecting categories of years to report the
year of installation. As a result of this
revised collection, operators will be able
to submit data on the specific year of
construction or installation. Although
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
44248
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Notices
this information is currently collected in
the annual report, collecting this
information geospatially rather than
tabularly allows PHMSA to run better
risk-ranking algorithms through pattern
analysis and relating pipe attributes to
surrounding geographical areas.
• Class Location: PHMSA proposes
operators of gas transmission pipeline
segments submit information on class
location at the segment level. Class
location is based upon number of
dwellings within 220 yards on either
side of the pipeline in a one-mile
segment level. This data will help
PHMSA determine whether operator IM
plans are adequate and complete.
• High Consequence ‘‘Could Affect’’
Areas: PHMSA proposes hazardous
liquid and gas transmission operators
identify pipe segments which could
affect HCAs as defined by 49 CFR
192.903 and 195.450. Pipe segments can
be classified as affecting a populated
area, an ecologically sensitive area, or a
sole-source drinking water area. This
information will increase the awareness
emergency responders have of potential
areas of significant impact.
• Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA
proposes operators designate whether a
pipe segment is onshore or offshore. As
there is no universally accepted
onshore/offshore boundary,
comparisons between the NPMS
(PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage
statistics and operator-generated annual
report offshore mileage statistics do not
match. This collection will allow
PHMSA to standardize and compare the
statistics for regulatory purposes.
• Inline Inspection: PHMSA proposes
operators indicate whether their system
is capable of accommodating an inline
inspection (ILI) tool. PHMSA considers
inline inspections of pipelines to be
better, safer, and more cost-effective
than other inspection methods.
Knowing this information will help
PHMSA determine the percentage of the
pipeline industry already employing
this practice and could help PHMSA
address concerns related to NTSB
recommendation P–11–17.
• Year of Last Inline Inspection and
Year of Last Direct Assessment: PHMSA
proposes operators submit data detailing
the year of a pipeline’s last corrosion,
dent, crack or ‘‘other’’ ILI inspection.
PHMSA also proposes to collect the year
of the last direct assessment. This
information is used to verify integrity of
the pipeline and is a key metric in
PHMSA’s pipeline risk calculations,
which are used to determine the priority
and frequency of inspections.
• Year and Pressure of Original and
Last Hydrostatic Test: PHMSA proposes
to collect data on a pipeline’s original
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
and most recent hydrostatic test years
and pressures. This information is used
to verify a pipeline’s integrity and is a
key metric in pipeline risk calculations.
• Commodity Detail: PHMSA
proposes operators submit commodity
details for pipelines if that commodity
is crude oil, product or natural gas. The
choices for crude oil will be ‘‘sweet
crude’’ or ‘‘sour crude.’’ The choices for
product will be refined non-ethanol
blended gasoline, refined fuel oil or
diesel, refined kerosene or jet fuel, other
refined and/or non HVL petroleum
products, ethanol blended gasoline,
biodiesel blend and other biofuels. The
choices for natural gas will be pipelinequality or tariff-quality natural gas, wet
but non-sour natural gas, sour but nonwet natural gas, and wet, sour natural
gas. Other choices may be added as the
need arises. This level of detail is
required because of potential differences
in leak characteristics, rupture-impacted
hazardous areas and a pipeline’s
internal integrity. Emergency
responders would also be able to better
respond to and be better prepared for
pipeline incidents if they knew what
commodities were being transported in
which locations.
• Special Permit: PHMSA proposes
operators denote whether a pipe
segment is part of a PHMSA Special
Permit and thus would have a different
maximum operating pressure than
would otherwise be allowed. The
Special Permit number is also needed.
This information allows PHMSA to
more easily locate these pipe segments
and could help emergency responders
respond adequately in the event of an
emergency.
• Wall Thickness: PHMSA proposes
to collect data on the nominal wall
thickness of a pipe. This is a
fundamental piece of information about
a pipe that is used for risk calculations.
• Seam Type: PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the seam type
of each pipe segment. This is a
fundamental piece of information about
a pipe that is used for risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor
in determining pipeline inspection
priority and frequency.
PHMSA understands that operators
may or may not have the following
attributes in their GIS systems and
therefore, operators may need to do
additional research to compile this
information:
• Abandoned Pipelines: PHMSA
proposes that all gas transmission and
hazardous liquid pipelines abandoned
after the effective date of this
information collection be mandatory
submissions to the NPMS. Abandoned
lines are not currently required to be
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submitted to the NPMS. Based on a
recent incident in Wilmington, CA,
where confusion as to whether a
pipeline was abandoned or not was a
factor, abandoned pipelines need to be
identified to help ensure that they are
maintained in the proper manner in
accordance with pipeline safety
regulations. Abandoned lines are at
higher risk for excavation damage and
are a critical integrity management
issue. Operators only need to submit
this data in the calendar year after the
abandonment occurs.
• Offshore Gas Gathering Lines:
PHMSA proposes operators of offshore
gas gathering pipelines make NPMS
data submissions. This information is
not currently collected, but due to a
rising rate of incidents involving
offshore gas gathering lines, PHMSA
believes this information is necessary to
develop risk calculations and accurate
response measures for incidents
involving such pipelines.
• Installation Method if Pipe Crosses
Body of Water Greater Than 100 Feet in
Width: Due to recent incidents
involving washed-out pipelines,
including the incident that occurred
near Laurel, MT, PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the installation
methods of pipe segments that cross
bodies of water greater than 100 feet in
width. This information will give
pipeline inspectors the ability to verify
the depth of cover of pipeline segments
under water. PHMSA will also use this
information in risk-ranking algorithms.
Operators will be able to select from
options such as open cut, trenchless
technologies, pipe spans, etc.
• Facility Response Plan: PHMSA
proposes operators submit the Facility
Response Plan control number and
sequence number for applicable liquid
pipeline segments. This information
will be used by PHMSA inspectors to
verify compliance with PHMSA
requirements and to aid in emergency
response efforts.
• Throughput: Throughput is used to
denote a pipeline’s capacity by stating
the pipelines ability to flow a measured
amount of product per unit of time.
PHMSA proposes operators submit
average daily throughput so States can
better identify shortages and implement
contingency plans for potential
widespread pipeline service outages to
maintain an uninterrupted flow of
energy supplies.
• Mainline Block Valve Locations:
PHMSA proposes operators submit a
geospatial point file containing the
locations of mainline block valves, the
type of valves and the type of valve
operators. This information is essential
for first responders, as the extent and
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 146 / Wednesday, July 30, 2014 / Notices
severity of property damage and lifethreatening risks during highconsequence incidents can be reduced if
the appropriate valves on affected
segments are located and used more
quickly. This information will also
assist PHMSA in accurate risk
assessment.
• Storage Field Locations and Type of
Storage: PHMSA proposes operators
submit a geospatial polygon file
containing the locations of storage fields
and the field type. The footprint of the
storage field helps determine the impact
to the surrounding area and helps
PHMSA provide accurate information to
first responders.
• Refinery Locations/Gas Process/
Treatment Plant Locations: PHMSA
proposes operators submit a geospatial
point file containing the locations of
refineries (for liquid operators) and gas
process/treatment plants (for gas
transmission operators). The location of
these facilities helps determine the
impact to the surrounding area and
helps PHMSA provide accurate
information to first responders.
• Breakout Tanks: PHMSA proposes
to require the submission of breakout
tank data. As PHMSA regulates these
tanks, knowing their locations and
attributes is an essential piece of
knowledge.
• LNG Plants: PHMSA proposes to
collect additional data attributes for
liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants.
These new attributes include type of
plant, capacity, impoundments,
exclusion zones and year constructed.
• Pump and Compressor Stations:
PHMSA proposes operators submit a
geospatial point file containing the
locations of pump (for liquid operators)
and compressor (for gas transmission
operators) stations. Pump and
compressor stations are vulnerable
areas, and emergency responders need
to know their locations for adequate
emergency planning. Additionally, the
stations are often referenced as
inspection boundaries for PHMSA’s
inspectors.
Title: National Pipeline Mapping
System Program.
Form Numbers: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a
Previously Approved Information
Collection.
Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline
facility (except distribution lines and
gathering lines) must provide PHMSA
geospatial data for their pipeline system
and contact information. The provided
information is incorporated into NPMS
to support various regulatory programs,
pipeline inspections and authorized
external customers. Following the initial
submission of the requested data, the
operator must make a new submission
to NPMS if any changes occur so
PHMSA can maintain and improve the
accuracy of NPMS’s information.
Respondents: Operators of natural gas,
hazardous liquid, and liquefied natural
gas pipelines.
Number of Respondents: 1,211.
Frequency: Annual.
Number of Responses: 1,211.
Total Annual Burden: 420,516 hours.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the
Department’s performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c)
ways for the Department to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways
that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the
collected information. The agency will
summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for the Office
of Management and Budget’s clearance
of this information collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24,
2014, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy
and Programs.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Summary of Impacted Collections
[FR Doc. 2014–17865 Filed 7–29–14; 8:45 am]
The following information is provided
for this information collection: (1) Title
of the information collection, (2) OMB
control number, (3) Current expiration
date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract of
the information collection activity, (6)
Description of affected public, (7)
Estimate of total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden, and (8)
Frequency of collection. PHMSA
requests comments on the following
information collection:
OMB Control Number: 2137–0596.
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Jul 29, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. EP 670 (Sub-No. 2)]
Notice of Rail Energy Transportation
Advisory Committee Vacancy
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44249
Notice of vacancy on federal
advisory committee and solicitation of
nominations.
ACTION:
The Surface Transportation
Board (Board) hereby gives notice of one
vacancy on its Rail Energy
Transportation Advisory Committee
(RETAC) for a representative of a coal
producer. The Board is soliciting
suggestions from the public for a
candidate to fill this vacancy.
DATES: Suggestions for a candidate for
membership on RETAC are due August
22, 2014
ADDRESSES: Suggestions may be
submitted either via the Board’s e-filing
format or in the traditional paper
format. Any person using e-filing should
attach a document and otherwise
comply with the instructions at the
E–FILING link on the Board’s Web site,
at https://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person
submitting a filing in the traditional
paper format should send the original
and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation
Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 670 (SubNo. 2), 395 E Street SW., Washington,
DC 20423–0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael H. Higgins at 202–245–0284.
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board
exercises broad authority over
transportation by rail carriers, including
regulation of railroad rates and service
(49 U.S.C. 10701–10747, 11101–11124),
as well as the construction, acquisition,
operation, and abandonment of rail
lines (49 U.S.C. 10901–10907), and
railroad line sales, consolidations,
mergers, and common control
arrangements (49 U.S.C. 10902, 11323–
11327).
In 2007, the Board established RETAC
as a federal advisory committee
consisting of a balanced cross-section of
energy and rail industry stakeholders to
provide independent, candid policy
advice to the Board and to foster open,
effective communication among the
affected interests on issues such as rail
performance, capacity constraints,
infrastructure planning and
development, and effective coordination
among suppliers, carriers, and users of
energy resources. RETAC operates
subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, 1–16).
RETAC’s membership is balanced and
representative of interested and affected
parties, consisting of not less than: Five
representatives from the Class I
railroads; three representatives from
Class II and III railroads; three
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44246-44249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17865]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092]
Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved
Information Collection--National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB
Control No. 2137-0596).
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites public comments on our intent to request the Office of
Management and Budget's approval to revise and renew an information
collection currently under OMB Control Number 2137-0596 titled:
``National Pipeline Mapping System Program.'' The collection currently
requires operators to submit geospatial data, attributes, metadata,
public contact information and a transmittal letter to the National
Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program. The proposed revisions will
require operators to submit additional information to the NPMS.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on or
before September 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2014-
0092 through one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2014-0092,
at the beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You should know that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477) or visit https://www.regulations.gov
before submitting any such comments.
Docket: For access to the docket or to read background
documents or comments, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or
to Room W12-140 on the ground level of DOT's West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to receive
confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a
self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement:
``Comments on: PHMSA-2014-0092.'' The Docket Clerk will date stamp the
postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail. Please note
that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices in
Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider an alternative
method (Internet, fax, or professional delivery service) of submitting
comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt at the DOT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nelson, Geospatial Information
Systems Manager, Program Development Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by
phone at 202-493-0591 or email at amy.nelson@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The NPMS is a geospatial dataset that contains information about
PHMSA-regulated gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines,
and hazardous liquid low-stress gathering lines. The NPMS also contains
data layers for all liquefied natural gas plants and a partial dataset
of PHMSA-regulated breakout tanks.
The original standards for the NPMS data collection were drafted in
1998 by a joint government/industry committee comprised of members from
PHMSA's predecessor agency the Research and Special Programs
Administration, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas
Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. With
the passage of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (codified at
49 U.S.C. 60132), gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline
operators are required to submit their geospatial data, attributes,
metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter to the
NPMS program. While the standards reflected the state of geospatial
data and positional accuracy at that time, they do not reflect the
current state of geospatial data and positional accuracy. PHMSA
requires more accurate and complete information about each pipeline,
liquefied natural gas plant or breakout tank than the minimal set of
attributes it receives with NPMS submissions. Collecting enhanced data
will strengthen PHMSA's ability to fulfill its strategic goals to
improve public safety, protect the environment and ensure
infrastructure is well-maintained. More accurate and complete NPMS data
will also help emergency responders and government officials create
better, more appropriate emergency response plans.
Specifically, the new data will:
Aid the industry and all levels of government, from
Federal to municipal,
[[Page 44247]]
in promoting public awareness of hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
in improving emergency responder outreach. Currently, 787 Federal
officials, 1,208 state officials and 4,791 county officials have access
to the online mapping application. Providing these officials with an
improved NPMS containing system-specific information about local
pipeline facilities can help ensure emergency response agencies and
communities are better prepared and can better execute response
operations during incidents.
Permit more powerful and accurate tabular and geospatial
analysis, which will strengthen PHMSA's ability to evaluate existing
and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or
procedures.
Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
Allow for more effective assistance to emergency
responders by providing them with a more reliable, complete dataset of
pipelines and facilities.
Provide better support to PHMSA's inspectors by providing
more accurate pipeline locations and additional pipeline-related
geospatial data that can be linked to tabular data in PHMSA's
inspection database.
PHMSA discussed its NPMS information needs at the joint meeting of
the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, also known as the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory
Committee, also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, on August 9, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. Having
discussed with the joint committee some of the challenges involved with
gathering positional accuracy data for certain lines, PHMSA devised a
proposal that will allow us to gather crucial NPMS data for lines that
are in areas of the greatest consequence.
The proposed changes to the NPMS Operator Standards Manual detailed
below can be found at: www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Draft_Operator_Standards.pdf. The proposed changes to the attributes will be
part of an operator's annual NPMS submission. Unless otherwise marked,
all attributes will be linked to the geospatial pipeline file as
attributes at the pipe segment level.
PHMSA understands that operators, through their annual report
submissions, are currently collecting and have the following
information and attributes that PHMSA specifically proposes to collect
as additional parts of the NPMS submission. Collecting this geospatial
information could lead to eliminating duplicate data requests from the
annual reports. PHMSA invites comment on how this expanded collection
of information could affect the annual report:
Positional Accuracy: PHMSA proposes that for pipeline
segments located within Class 3, Class 4, High Consequence Areas (HCA),
or ``could-affect'' HCAs, operators submit data to the NPMS with a
positional accuracy of five feet. The degree of positional accuracy
needed is more stringent and important in these areas because of the
potential for greater consequence in the event of a pipeline incident.
PHMSA further proposes that for all pipeline segments located within
Class 1 or Class 2 locations, operators submit data to the NPMS with a
positional accuracy of 50 feet. PHMSA believes that a large number of
operators already have access to data with this degree of accuracy
within their GIS systems. The current accuracy requirement of 500 feet
does not allow PHMSA to effectively locate a pipeline to the degree
needed to respond to environmental and integrity threats. It also
hinders PHMSA in identifying special features on the pipeline that may
be relevant for emergency response considerations. The new degree of
accuracy will help emergency responders more effectively locate a
pipeline to the degree needed to respond to environmental and integrity
threats and help in emergency planning.
Pipe Diameter: PHMSA proposes to require operators to
submit data on the nominal diameter of a pipe segment. Knowing the
diameter of a pipeline can help emergency responders determine the
impact area of a pipeline. This attribute also gives PHMSA the
opportunity to gain a broader understanding of the diameters of pipe
being operated in any given geographical region and to further assess
potential impacts to public safety and the environment.
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP), Maximum
Operating Pressure (MOP): PHMSA proposes operators submit the maximum
MAOP or MOP for a pipeline segment in pounds per square inch gauge.
This information is critical because it affects important risk-ranking
algorithms and the potential impact radius of a pipeline, which can
influence emergency response planning.
Pipe Grade: PHMSA proposes operators submit information on
the predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. This information is
essential in issues regarding pipe integrity and is a necessary
component in determining the allowable operating pressure of a
pipeline.
Percent Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS): PHMSA
proposes operators submit information pertaining to the percent at
which the pipeline is operating to SMYS. Specifically, operators would
submit hoop stress caused by the highest operating pressure during the
year as a percentage of SMYS. PHMSA uses the percentage of operating
SMYS to determine low- and high-stress pipelines, class locations, test
requirements, inspection intervals, and other requirements in the
pipeline safety regulations.
Leak Detection: PHMSA proposes operators submit
information on the type of leak detection system used. The type of leak
detection used can drastically alter effective response times for
operators and emergency responders. Knowing the type of leak detection
system used during an incident will help emergency responders respond
appropriately in the event of a release.
Pipe Coating/Type of Coating: PHMSA proposes operators
indicate the level of and types of coating on a pipeline segment. The
type of coating relates to the level of protection from external
corrosion a pipe has while in the ground. Understanding the level of
coating helps PHMSA assess pipe integrity and perform better risk
assessments.
Pipe Material: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the
type of pipe material. Knowing the pipe material helps PHMSA determine
the level of potential risk from excavation damage and external
environmental loads. These can also be factors in emergency response
planning.
Pipe Join Method: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on
the pipe joining method. PHMSA uses this information to identify high-
risk joining methods and will be used in PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
Year of Construction/Installation: PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the predominant year of original construction
(or installation). The year of construction determines which
regulations apply to a pipeline for enforcement purposes. The data
requested pertains to the year of construction and not the year the
pipe was manufactured. On the annual report, operators have the option
of selecting categories of years to report the year of installation. As
a result of this revised collection, operators will be able to submit
data on the specific year of construction or installation. Although
[[Page 44248]]
this information is currently collected in the annual report,
collecting this information geospatially rather than tabularly allows
PHMSA to run better risk-ranking algorithms through pattern analysis
and relating pipe attributes to surrounding geographical areas.
Class Location: PHMSA proposes operators of gas
transmission pipeline segments submit information on class location at
the segment level. Class location is based upon number of dwellings
within 220 yards on either side of the pipeline in a one-mile segment
level. This data will help PHMSA determine whether operator IM plans
are adequate and complete.
High Consequence ``Could Affect'' Areas: PHMSA proposes
hazardous liquid and gas transmission operators identify pipe segments
which could affect HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 192.903 and 195.450. Pipe
segments can be classified as affecting a populated area, an
ecologically sensitive area, or a sole-source drinking water area. This
information will increase the awareness emergency responders have of
potential areas of significant impact.
Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA proposes operators designate
whether a pipe segment is onshore or offshore. As there is no
universally accepted onshore/offshore boundary, comparisons between the
NPMS (PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage statistics and operator-
generated annual report offshore mileage statistics do not match. This
collection will allow PHMSA to standardize and compare the statistics
for regulatory purposes.
Inline Inspection: PHMSA proposes operators indicate
whether their system is capable of accommodating an inline inspection
(ILI) tool. PHMSA considers inline inspections of pipelines to be
better, safer, and more cost-effective than other inspection methods.
Knowing this information will help PHMSA determine the percentage of
the pipeline industry already employing this practice and could help
PHMSA address concerns related to NTSB recommendation P-11-17.
Year of Last Inline Inspection and Year of Last Direct
Assessment: PHMSA proposes operators submit data detailing the year of
a pipeline's last corrosion, dent, crack or ``other'' ILI inspection.
PHMSA also proposes to collect the year of the last direct assessment.
This information is used to verify integrity of the pipeline and is a
key metric in PHMSA's pipeline risk calculations, which are used to
determine the priority and frequency of inspections.
Year and Pressure of Original and Last Hydrostatic Test:
PHMSA proposes to collect data on a pipeline's original and most recent
hydrostatic test years and pressures. This information is used to
verify a pipeline's integrity and is a key metric in pipeline risk
calculations.
Commodity Detail: PHMSA proposes operators submit
commodity details for pipelines if that commodity is crude oil, product
or natural gas. The choices for crude oil will be ``sweet crude'' or
``sour crude.'' The choices for product will be refined non-ethanol
blended gasoline, refined fuel oil or diesel, refined kerosene or jet
fuel, other refined and/or non HVL petroleum products, ethanol blended
gasoline, biodiesel blend and other biofuels. The choices for natural
gas will be pipeline-quality or tariff-quality natural gas, wet but
non-sour natural gas, sour but non-wet natural gas, and wet, sour
natural gas. Other choices may be added as the need arises. This level
of detail is required because of potential differences in leak
characteristics, rupture-impacted hazardous areas and a pipeline's
internal integrity. Emergency responders would also be able to better
respond to and be better prepared for pipeline incidents if they knew
what commodities were being transported in which locations.
Special Permit: PHMSA proposes operators denote whether a
pipe segment is part of a PHMSA Special Permit and thus would have a
different maximum operating pressure than would otherwise be allowed.
The Special Permit number is also needed. This information allows PHMSA
to more easily locate these pipe segments and could help emergency
responders respond adequately in the event of an emergency.
Wall Thickness: PHMSA proposes to collect data on the
nominal wall thickness of a pipe. This is a fundamental piece of
information about a pipe that is used for risk calculations.
Seam Type: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the
seam type of each pipe segment. This is a fundamental piece of
information about a pipe that is used for risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
PHMSA understands that operators may or may not have the following
attributes in their GIS systems and therefore, operators may need to do
additional research to compile this information:
Abandoned Pipelines: PHMSA proposes that all gas
transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines abandoned after the
effective date of this information collection be mandatory submissions
to the NPMS. Abandoned lines are not currently required to be submitted
to the NPMS. Based on a recent incident in Wilmington, CA, where
confusion as to whether a pipeline was abandoned or not was a factor,
abandoned pipelines need to be identified to help ensure that they are
maintained in the proper manner in accordance with pipeline safety
regulations. Abandoned lines are at higher risk for excavation damage
and are a critical integrity management issue. Operators only need to
submit this data in the calendar year after the abandonment occurs.
Offshore Gas Gathering Lines: PHMSA proposes operators of
offshore gas gathering pipelines make NPMS data submissions. This
information is not currently collected, but due to a rising rate of
incidents involving offshore gas gathering lines, PHMSA believes this
information is necessary to develop risk calculations and accurate
response measures for incidents involving such pipelines.
Installation Method if Pipe Crosses Body of Water Greater
Than 100 Feet in Width: Due to recent incidents involving washed-out
pipelines, including the incident that occurred near Laurel, MT, PHMSA
proposes operators submit data on the installation methods of pipe
segments that cross bodies of water greater than 100 feet in width.
This information will give pipeline inspectors the ability to verify
the depth of cover of pipeline segments under water. PHMSA will also
use this information in risk-ranking algorithms. Operators will be able
to select from options such as open cut, trenchless technologies, pipe
spans, etc.
Facility Response Plan: PHMSA proposes operators submit
the Facility Response Plan control number and sequence number for
applicable liquid pipeline segments. This information will be used by
PHMSA inspectors to verify compliance with PHMSA requirements and to
aid in emergency response efforts.
Throughput: Throughput is used to denote a pipeline's
capacity by stating the pipelines ability to flow a measured amount of
product per unit of time. PHMSA proposes operators submit average daily
throughput so States can better identify shortages and implement
contingency plans for potential widespread pipeline service outages to
maintain an uninterrupted flow of energy supplies.
Mainline Block Valve Locations: PHMSA proposes operators
submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of mainline
block valves, the type of valves and the type of valve operators. This
information is essential for first responders, as the extent and
[[Page 44249]]
severity of property damage and life-threatening risks during high-
consequence incidents can be reduced if the appropriate valves on
affected segments are located and used more quickly. This information
will also assist PHMSA in accurate risk assessment.
Storage Field Locations and Type of Storage: PHMSA
proposes operators submit a geospatial polygon file containing the
locations of storage fields and the field type. The footprint of the
storage field helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and
helps PHMSA provide accurate information to first responders.
Refinery Locations/Gas Process/Treatment Plant Locations:
PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial point file containing the
locations of refineries (for liquid operators) and gas process/
treatment plants (for gas transmission operators). The location of
these facilities helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and
helps PHMSA provide accurate information to first responders.
Breakout Tanks: PHMSA proposes to require the submission
of breakout tank data. As PHMSA regulates these tanks, knowing their
locations and attributes is an essential piece of knowledge.
LNG Plants: PHMSA proposes to collect additional data
attributes for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. These new attributes
include type of plant, capacity, impoundments, exclusion zones and year
constructed.
Pump and Compressor Stations: PHMSA proposes operators
submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of pump (for
liquid operators) and compressor (for gas transmission operators)
stations. Pump and compressor stations are vulnerable areas, and
emergency responders need to know their locations for adequate
emergency planning. Additionally, the stations are often referenced as
inspection boundaries for PHMSA's inspectors.
B. Summary of Impacted Collections
The following information is provided for this information
collection: (1) Title of the information collection, (2) OMB control
number, (3) Current expiration date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract
of the information collection activity, (6) Description of affected
public, (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden, and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA requests comments on the
following information collection:
OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
Form Numbers: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution
lines and gathering lines) must provide PHMSA geospatial data for their
pipeline system and contact information. The provided information is
incorporated into NPMS to support various regulatory programs, pipeline
inspections and authorized external customers. Following the initial
submission of the requested data, the operator must make a new
submission to NPMS if any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and
improve the accuracy of NPMS's information.
Respondents: Operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and
liquefied natural gas pipelines.
Number of Respondents: 1,211.
Frequency: Annual.
Number of Responses: 1,211.
Total Annual Burden: 420,516 hours.
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for the
Office of Management and Budget's clearance of this information
collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-17865 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
