Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB Control No. 2137-0596), 52084-52093 [2015-21238]

Agencies

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52084-52093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21238]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 of public meeting and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: PHMSA invites public comments on our intention to request the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to revise this 
information collection. On July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246) PHMSA published 
a notice and request for comments in the Federal Register titled: 
``Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved 
Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Program 
(OMB Control No. 2137-0596)'' seeking comments on proposed changes to 
the NPMS data collection. During the comment period, PHMSA received 
several comments and suggestions on ways to improve this data 
collection. We are publishing this notice to address the many comments 
received and to request additional comments on PHMSA's proposed path 
forward. We are required to publish this notice in the Federal Register 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

DATES: A public meeting to discuss the revisions to the NPMS will be 
held on the afternoon of September 10, 2015.
    Written comments on this information collection should be submitted 
by October 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Crystal City Marriott 
located at 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington, Virginia. Details 
regarding the meeting can be found at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=106.
    You may submit written 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: 1-202-493-2251
     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 a.m. and 5 
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 DOT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nelson, GIS 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:

I. Background
II. Dropped Attributes
    A. Installation Method if Pipe Segment Crosses Water Body Which 
is 100 Feet in Width or Greater
    B. Year of Last Direct Assessment
    C. Type of Leak Detection
    D. Special Permit Segment and Permit Number
    E. Offshore Gas Gathering Line (Y/N)
    F. Average Daily Throughput
    G. Refineries
    H. Gas Processing and Treatment Plants
III. Kept Attributes
    A. Positional Accuracy (changed from previous 60-day notice)
    B. Pipe Diameter
    C. Wall Thickness
    D. Commodity Detail
    E. Pipe Material
    F. Pipe Grade
    G. Pipe Join Method
    H. Highest Percent Operating SMYS
    I. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/Maximum Operating 
Pressure
    J. Seam Type
    K. Year or Decade of Installation
    L. Onshore/Offshore
    M. Inline Inspection
    N. Class Location
    O. Gas HCA Segment
    P. Segment Could Affect an HCA
    Q. Year of Last ILI
    R. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection
    S. Type of Coating
    T. FRP Control Number and Sequence Number, if Applicable
    U. Year and Pressure of Last and Original Pressure Test
    V. Abandoned Pipelines
    W. Pump and Compressor Stations
    X. Mainline Block Valves
    Y. Gas Storage Fields
    Z. Breakout Tanks

[[Page 52085]]

    AA. LNG Attributes
IV. General Comments
    A. Reporting
    B. Burden
    C. Legality
    D. Data Security
    E. INGAA Counter-Proposal
    F. Definitions
V. Timeline for Collection of New Data Elements
VI. Summary of Impacted Collection

I. Background

    On July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246) PHMSA published a notice and 
request for comments in the Federal Register titled: ``Pipeline Safety: 
Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: 
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Program (OMB Control No. 2137-
0596)'' seeking comments on proposed changes to the NPMS data 
collection. Within this notice, PHMSA laid out its intentions to revise 
the currently approved NPMS data collection to expand the data 
attributes collected and to improve the positional accuracy of NPMS 
submissions. On November 17, 2014, PHMSA held a public meeting to grant 
the public an opportunity to learn more about PHMSA's proposal, to ask 
pertinent questions about the collection, and to offer suggestions 
regarding the path forward. Details about the meeting, including copies 
of the meeting's presentation files, can be found at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=101. PHMSA encouraged 
participants of the meeting to submit comments on the proposed 
attributes to docket PHMSA-2014-0092. During the 60-day comment period, 
PHMSA received input from 28 different commenters comprised of pipeline 
operators, industry and interest groups, and the general public. 
Commenters include:

Ameren Illinois
Ameren Missouri
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers
American Gas Association
Anonymous
APGA via John Erickson
CenterPoint Energy
Chuck Lesniak
COGENT
Consumers Energy Company
Dan Ferguson for Enbridge Pipelines
INGAA
Intermountain Gas Company
MidAmerican Energy Company
Northern Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Trust
Questar Gas Company
Questar Pipeline Company
Rodney Begnaud
Southwest Gas Corporation
Spectra Energy Partners
Texas Pipeline Association
Vectren

    PHMSA is publishing this notice to address and respond to the 
comments received. Please note that technical details pertaining to the 
new data elements such as domains and reporting requirements for each 
attribute can be found in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual.
    The data being requested is the first substantial update to NPMS 
submission requirements since the NPMS standards were developed in 
1998. The NPMS is PHMSA's only dataset which tracks where pipe 
characteristics occur, instead of how much/how many of those 
characteristics are in PHMSA's regulated pipelines. In PHMSA's last 
Congressional reauthorization, Section 60132(a) stated that PHMSA has 
the power to collect ``any other geospatial or technical data, 
including design and material specifications, which the Secretary 
determines are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. The 
Secretary shall give reasonable notice to operators that the data are 
being requested.'' The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
recommendation P-11-8 states that PHMSA should ``require operators of 
natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines and hazardous 
liquid pipelines to provide system-specific information about their 
pipeline systems to the emergency response agencies of the communities 
and jurisdictions in which those pipelines are located. This 
information should include pipe diameter, operating pressure, product 
transported, and potential impact radius.'' Other NTSB recommendations 
are cited below with the attributes they address.
    Specifically, the new data elements will:
     Aid the industry and all levels of government, from 
Federal to municipal, 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.
     Better support PHMSA's research and development programs 
by helping to predict the impact of new technology on regulated 
pipelines.

II. Dropped Attributes

    PHMSA received wide-ranging comments that provided various points 
of view on the proposed attributes and the effect the collection of 
this data would have on the Pipeline Safety program, the pipeline 
industry, and the general public. After much research and 
consideration, PHMSA has decided not to move forward with the following 
attributes at this time. PHMSA reserves the right to reconsider 
including these attributes in the future.

A. Installation Method if Pipe Segment Crosses Water Body Which is 100 
Feet in Width or Greater

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit data on the 
installation method of pipe segments that cross bodies of water greater 
than 100 feet in width. Operators would have selected from options such 
as open cut, trenchless technologies, pipe spans, etc. The Pipeline 
Safety Trust and COGENT supported including this information as 
originally proposed. Energy Transfer Partners submitted comments 
indicating a willingness to provide this information but noted that for 
many lines this information may not exist. The American Gas Association 
(AGA), the Texas Pipeline Association (TPA), TransCanada, InterMountain 
Energy Company, and the American Petroleum Institute commenting jointly 
with Association of Oil Pipelines (API/AOPL) noted that the 
installation method does not provide a reliable estimate for the depth 
of cover. Spectra Energy Partners and Vectren submitted comments 
suggesting that this attribute would not be useful for risk 
assessments. Avista commented that they did not possess this 
information within their Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 
infrastructure. PHMSA has decided not to move forward with including 
this attribute in the NPMS at this time.

[[Page 52086]]

B. Year of Last Direct Assessment

    PHMSA originally proposed to collect the year and type of last 
direct assessment, as it is used to verify the integrity of the 
pipeline and is used in pipeline risk calculations. Comments received 
from the Pipeline Safety Trust supported including this attribute while 
those from TransCanada, Vectren, Energy Transfer, TPA, and AGA were 
opposed. PHMSA has determined that the year and type of the last Inline 
Inspection Instrument (ILI) assessment and last pressure test were most 
valuable for integrity evaluation. Further, PHMSA determined that the 
data regarding which lines have been subject to direct assessment can 
be deduced. As a result, PHMSA has decided not to move forward with 
this attribute at this time.

C. Type of Leak Detection

    PHMSA proposed that operators submit information on the type of 
leak detection system used. Comments submitted by the Pipeline Safety 
Trust and COGENT supported including the attribute. The American 
Petroleum Institute, commenting jointly with Association of Oil 
Pipelines (API/AOPL), did not oppose including this attribute. However, 
API/AOPL requested delayed compliance as part of a three-phase 
implementation and that PHMSA include the option to submit more than 
one type of leak detection technology. The remaining comments from 
TransCanada, Spectra Energy Partners, Vectren, Energy Transfer 
Partners, Energy Transfer, DTE Gas Company, TPA, and AGA were critical 
of including this attribute. These comments focused primarily on the 
lack of a perceived safety or risk benefit for knowing what leak 
detection technologies were in place. InterMountain Gas Company and 
Avista noted that they did not have this information on a geospatial 
level within their GIS infrastructure. PHMSA has decided not to move 
forward with including this attribute in the NPMS at this time.

D. Special Permit Segment and Permit Number

    PHMSA proposed that operators denote whether a pipe segment is part 
of a PHMSA special permit and report the special permit number. PHMSA 
received comments from COGENT and Spectra Energy Transfer supporting 
including this attribute as well as critical comments from API/AOPL, 
TPA, Energy Transfer, and TransCanada. Those opposed argued that since 
PHMSA issues special permits, requiring operators to submit this 
information would be duplicative. At this time PHMSA believes it would 
be better to collect this information via inspections or the special 
permitting and reporting process itself rather than in this revision to 
the NPMS.

E. Offshore Gas Gathering Line (Y/N)

    PHMSA proposed that operators of offshore gas gathering pipelines 
make NPMS data submissions. PHMSA received comments from COGENT and 
Energy Transfer Partners, whom were not opposed to including this 
attribute to NPMS. COGENT requested all onshore gathering lines be 
required to submit data to NPMS. TPA submitted comments claiming that 
this attribute would create a new class of pipelines and is therefore 
not an appropriate action for an information collection revision. PHMSA 
has decided not to move forward with including this attribute in the 
NPMS at this time.

F. Average Daily Throughput

    Throughput is used to denote a pipeline's capacity by stating the 
pipeline's ability to flow a measured amount of product per unit of 
time. PHMSA received a positive comment from COGENT supporting the 
inclusion of this attribute in the NPMS. PHMSA received comments from 
13 major industry trade associations and operators strongly opposed to 
collecting this attribute. Those opposed primarily argued that this 
attribute exceeds PHMSA's regulatory authority, and that the data 
requested poses a security and commercial risk. AGA, TPA, Avista, 
Spectra Energy Partners, and InterMountain Gas Company further noted 
that this information is difficult to measure, collect, and report due 
to constant fluctuations in market forces and pipeline flow. American 
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, TPA, and InterMountain questioned 
the risk assessment and emergency response value of collecting this 
information. PHMSA has decided not to proceed with this attribute as 
proposed, due to potential jurisdictional conflict with the Department 
of Energy.

G. Refineries

    PHMSA proposes liquid pipeline operators submit a geospatial point 
file containing the locations of refineries. PHMSA received a comment 
from COGENT in support of including this attribute and another comment 
from Energy Transfer indicating a willingness to provide this 
information. Critical comments from AFPM, Spectra Energy Partners, API/
AOPL, TPA, and AGA strongly opposed the inclusion of this attribute. 
These groups primarily claimed that these facilities are outside of 
PHMSA's regulatory jurisdiction and that pipeline operators do not 
control them. Due to potential jurisdictional issues, PHMSA is not 
moving forward with this attribute for this revision to the NPMS.

H. Gas Processing and Treatment Plants

    PHMSA proposes gas transmission operators submit a geospatial point 
file containing the locations of gas process/treatment plants. PHMSA 
received a comment from COGENT in support of including this attribute 
and another comment from Energy Transfer indicating a willingness to 
provide this information. Critical comments from AFPM,1 0474147Spectra 
Energy Partners, API/AOPL, TPA, and AGA strongly opposed the inclusion 
of this attribute. These groups claimed these facilities are outside of 
PHMSA's regulatory jurisdiction and that pipeline operators do not 
control them. Due to potential jurisdictional issues, PHMSA is not 
moving forward with this attribute for this revision to the NPMS.

III. Retained Attributes

    After careful consideration of the comments received, along with 
the agency's Pipeline Safety goals, PHMSA has decided to move forward 
with the proposal to collect geospatial data on the following pipeline 
attributes:

A. Positional Accuracy

    PHMSA originally proposed that for pipeline segments located within 
Class 3, Class 4, High Consequence Areas (HCA), or ``could affect'' 
High Consequence Areas (HCAs), operators submit data to the NPMS with a 
positional accuracy of five feet. PHMSA further proposed 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 received 24 comments on positional accuracy. COGENT's 
comments supported the original proposal of five foot positional 
accuracy. The Pipeline Safety Trust echoed this support, and noted many 
states already require more stringent accuracy standards though did not 
cite a specific figure. PHMSA received a number of comments from 
industry associations and operators which recognized the need for 
improved positional accuracy, but were highly critical of the five foot 
positional accuracy standard. Commenters noted that the vast majority 
of mileage was not mapped to this level of precision, and that some 
portions of this mileage may

[[Page 52087]]

be impossible to survey to the requested accuracy. API/AOPL's comment 
suggested a positional accuracy of fifty feet would be reasonable, 
while INGAA proposed requiring fifty foot accuracy in 70% of mileage 
and 100 foot elsewhere. INGAA's comments were supported by AGA, 
Questar, DTE Gas Company, Energy Transfer, Spectra Energy Partners, a 
representative of Enbridge, and Questar Pipeline. These operators 
proposed requiring fifty-foot accuracy in 70% of mileage and 100-foot 
elsewhere. TransCanada suggested a positional accuracy of 100-foot was 
sufficient. Texas Pipeline Association commented that the average 
positional accuracy reported by its members was 200-foot. MidAmerican, 
APGA, SW Gas, and Avista noted that the current requirement reflects 
the technical capability of their GIS data and the Gas Producers 
Association stated that several hundred feet was sufficient for 
emergency response and planning.
    PHMSA proposes that hazardous liquid pipeline operators submit data 
with a positional accuracy of  50 feet. Gas transmission 
operators are required to submit data at  50 feet accuracy 
for all segments which are in a Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 area; are 
within a HCA or have one or more buildings intended for human 
occupancy; an identified site (See 49 CFR 192.903); a right-of-way for 
a designated interstate; freeway, expressway, or other principal 4-lane 
arterial roadway as defined in the Federal Highway Administration's 
``Highway Functional Classification Concepts'' within its potential 
impact radius. All other gas pipeline segments must be mapped to a 
positional accuracy of  100 feet. PHMSA concedes that 
 five feet may be unobtainable for certain locations and is 
difficult to maintain when GIS data is reprojected as part of its 
processing, but reiterates its need for a high level of positional 
accuracy. Any accuracy standard coarser than 100 feet would not achieve 
the level of detail required to make basic estimates of where a 
pipeline is located with relation to communities, infrastructure, and 
landmarks. These risk-based requirements require greater levels of 
stringency for locations with the highest potential consequences of 
pipeline incidents, while reducing the data collection burden for 
remote pipelines. These revisions to the positional accuracy 
requirements help satisfy the recommendations issued in NTSB 
recommendations P-15-4, ``Increase the positional accuracy of pipeline 
centerlines and pipeline attribute details relevant to safety in the 
National Pipeline Mapping System.'' Additionally, PHMSA needs to 
improve its ability to identify pipe segments which cross water. Many 
recent pipeline accidents, such as the Yellowstone River accident 
earlier this year, have occurred at or near water crossings. Pipeline 
right-of-ways frequently run alongside water bodies and PHMSA requires 
better positional accuracy to determine whether a pipe is running 
alongside water or under the water body.

B. Pipe Diameter

    PHMSA originally proposed requiring 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 
in the event of a release. 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.
    PHMSA received eleven comments in support of including mandatory 
reporting of pipe diameter in the revised information collection. This 
included industry associations, public interest groups, and individual 
operators. Most concerns centered on clarification regarding whether 
PHMSA was requesting nominal or actual diameter. Those commentators 
included Questar, TransCanada, Spectra, SW Gas, PST, COGENT, INGAA, 
API, TPA, and AGA. Energy Transfer was critical of the safety benefit 
of incorporating this attribute, but was willing to provide the 
information.
    PHMSA proposes to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. This attribute measures the nominal pipe diameter in inches 
to three decimal places. The primary benefit for incorporating this 
attribute is that a larger pipe may pose a greater hazard during a 
rupture. Knowing the location of large lines in relation to populated 
areas will help PHMSA effectively prioritize inspections and emergency 
response planning.

C. Wall Thickness

    PHMSA originally proposed to collect data on the nominal wall 
thickness of a pipe. PHMSA intends to collect this information as 
originally proposed. The Pipeline Safety Trust and COGENT supported 
collecting this information as proposed. API/AOPL submitted comments 
expressing a willingness to collect this information but requested 
clarifications of PHMSA's expectation and that this requirement be 
phased in over time. Energy Transfer requested clarification on whether 
this attribute would be reported on a predominate basis. AGA commented 
that an attribute indicating whether a pipeline was operating above 30% 
SMYS would capture most rupture risk. TPA and Vectren submitted 
comments arguing that this attribute is not a necessary risk measure if 
percentage of SMYS is measured. Spectra Energy Partners commented that 
many interstate gas lines have many changes in wall thickness; 
therefore, capturing this information on an actual basis would greatly 
increase segmentation of the data. PHMSA intends to collect this 
information as originally proposed. For clarification, PHMSA is 
requesting the nominal wall thickness. This information will not be 
collected on a predominant basis. PHMSA analysts and inspectors 
identified this as a fundamental piece of descriptive information for 
pipeline risk. This information is especially critical for determining 
the relative risk of corrosion.

D. Commodity Detail

    PHMSA proposed operators submit commodity details for pipelines if 
the transported commodity is crude oil, product or natural gas, and 
subcategories of each. The list of commodity choices is available in 
the NPMS Operator Standards Manual (Appendix A). Other choices may be 
added as the need arises.
    The Pipeline Safety Trust, COGENT INGAA, AGA, Questar Pipeline 
Company, Spectra Energy Partners, Energy Transfer Partners, and 
Southwest Gas supported including this attribute. Energy Transfer 
requested clarification, and API/AOPL and TransCanada supported a more 
limited version of this attribute as the commodity in hazardous liquid 
lines can change day to day.
    PHMSA will move forward with this collection with minor 
modifications from the original proposal. Please see the NPMS Operator 
Standards Manual for more detailed information on how this information 
is to be reported. 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 will also be able to better respond to pipeline incidents if 
they know the specific type of commodity being transported.

E. Pipe Material

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit data on pipe 
material.

[[Page 52088]]

Operators will be required to submit data on whether a segment was 
constructed out of cast iron, plastic, steel, composite, or other 
material. PHMSA received no opposition from commentators. PHMSA 
proposes to move forward with this collection as originally introduced. 
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.

F. Pipe Grade

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit information on the 
predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. The Pipeline Safety Trust 
supported including this attribute and API did not oppose its 
collection. AGA, TPA, and an operator believed this attribute was 
redundant because percentage of SMYS captured the risk from pipe grade. 
TransCanada and Vectren had concerns about reporting this attribute on 
a ``predominant'' basis. Energy Transfer Partners were willing to 
provide the data but believed the data format noted is insufficient. 
This information is essential in issues regarding pipe integrity, and 
is a necessary component in determining the allowable operating 
pressure of a pipeline. The list of pipe grades is available in the 
NPMS Operator Standards (Appendix A).

G. Pipe Join Method

    PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the pipe join method. 
Operators will indicate whether pipes within the segment were welded, 
coupled, screwed, flanged, used plastic pipe joints, or other.
    COGENT and the Pipeline Safety Trust submitted comments supporting 
including this information. Spectra Energy Partners and Energy Transfer 
Partners submitted comments opposed to incorporating this attribute on 
a joint-by-joint basis, though Energy Transfer Partners was receptive 
to reporting this information on a predominant basis. TPA, TransCanada, 
and Vectren submitted comments critical of the value of this attribute 
for risk assessment. InterMountain, MidAmerican, and Avista noted that 
they did not have this information in their mapping systems, and AGA 
and API/AOPL noted that it would be burdensome for many operators to 
collect and record this information. Energy Transfer Partners commented 
that this information is on the annual reports. PHMSA analysts and 
inspectors would use this information to identify high-risk joining 
methods and will be used in PHMSA's risk rankings and evaluations. 
These models are used to determine pipeline inspection priority and 
frequency.

H. Highest Percent Operating SMYS

    PHMSA proposes operators submit information pertaining to the 
percent at which the pipeline is operating to SMYS. Specifically, 
operators would submit hoop stress corresponding to the maximum 
operating pressure (MOP) or maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) 
as a percentage of SMYS. PHMSA uses the established percent SMYS to 
determine low- and high-stress pipelines, class locations, test 
requirements, inspection intervals, and other requirements in the 
pipeline safety regulations.
    AGA, API/AOPL, TPA, Vectren, and Southwest Gas raised concerns 
about securing this information. AGA, TPA, Intermountain, and DTE Gas 
Company further proposed that this attribute should be calculated based 
on Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP) rather than highest 
observed operating pressure. AGA and a number of gas operators proposed 
to allow lines operating below 30 percent SMYS be categorized as ``low 
stress'' due to a purported low propensity to rupture. Spectra Energy 
Partners believed that MAOP was a better measure of pipeline risk and 
that PHMSA could calculate either from other attributes submitted via 
NPMS. API further suggested that this should be a ``phase 2'' action. 
PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. 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. Percentage of SMYS is required for determining and 
confirming MAOP and Maximum Operating Pressure (MOP). This information 
also helps PHMSA to determine the regulations applicable to each pipe 
segment along with the probable toughness of the steel and a segment's 
likelihood of rupturing.
    In order to safeguard this information, this information will only 
be available to individuals with access to the password protected 
Pipeline Information Management Mapping Application (PIMMA) site. PHMSA 
needs to collect both percent SMYS and MAOP because, though technically 
similar, they encapsulate different aspects of the potential risk to 
the public.

I. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure or Maximum Operating Pressure 
(MAOP/MOP)

    PHMSA proposed that operators submit the maximum MAOP or MOP for a 
pipeline segment in pounds per square inch gauge.
    PHMSA received comments in support of including this attribute from 
COGENT, the Pipeline Safety Trust, TPA, Energy Transfer Partners, and 
Spectra Energy Partners. API, AFPM, AGA, Vectren and Southwest Gas 
submitted comments expressing security concerns. TPA, AGA, and Vectren 
suggested that this attribute is duplicative of and inferior to percent 
SMYS as a risk measure. TransCanada suggested replacing this attribute 
and others with one that indicates whether or not a line is operating 
below 30 percent SMYS. PHMSA intends to collect this information as 
previously proposed. While superficially similar to percent SMYS, MAOP/
MOP is not identical and captures different elements of pipeline risk. 
Specifically, PHMSA inspectors identified it as an important element 
for incident analysis. MAOP/MOP helps enforce pressure levels between 
segments which are rated for different pressures. PHMSA engineers 
further noted that it is useful for determining the potential impact 
radius. This information will be limited to those with PIMMA access or 
PHMSA employees.

J. Seam Type

    PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the seam type of each pipe 
segment. Options include: SM = Seamless, LERW = Low frequency or direct 
current electric resistance welded, HERW = High frequency electric 
resistance welded, DSAW = Double submerged arc weld, SAW = Submerged 
arc weld, EFW = Electric fusion weld, LW = Furnace lap weld, FBW = 
Furnace butt weld, PLAS = Plastic or OTHER = Other.
    The Pipeline Safety Trust, COGENT, Southwest Gas supported 
including this attribute as proposed. Vectren, Energy Transfer, and DTE 
Gas Company noted that information may not always be available and 
PHMSA has not allowed an ``unknown'' option. AGA and TPA were opposed 
to collecting this information at this time as it may be part of a 
pending rulemaking. Spectra Energy Partners further noted that long 
interstate lines may have many changes in seam type. TransCanada 
commended that this was not as effective of a risk measure as some 
other pipeline characteristics.

[[Page 52089]]

    PHMSA intends to collect this information with the possibility of 
limiting it to Classes 3, 4, and HCAs. This information is used to 
determine which type of integrity management inspection assessment 
should apply, is important for risk analysis due to certain time-
dependent risky seam types (LF-ERW), and is used to confirm MAOP.

K. Decade of Installation

    PHMSA originally proposed that 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 pertained to the year of 
construction and not the year the pipe was manufactured. On the annual 
report, operators report the decade of installation. As a result of 
this revised collection, operators will be able to submit data on the 
predominant decade of construction or installation. Predominant is 
defined as 90 percent or higher of the pipe segment being submitted to 
the NPMS.
    Comments from both public safety advocacy groups and pipeline 
operators were generally positive. AGA and TPA recommended defining 
this attribute as the year that the segment was placed in service. 
Vectren recommended defining this on a segment-by-segment basis rather 
than on a predominant basis. API suggested this be phase 2 in a 3 phase 
implementation and to allow operators to submit data by decade for 
lines installed before 1990. Southwest Gas had security concerns and 
TransCanada and Spectra Energy Partners submitted comments doubting the 
significance of year of construction on pipeline safety risk. 
TransCanada further noted that this information is already collected on 
annual reports.
    Collecting this information geospatially rather than in tabular 
form in the annual reports allows PHMSA to run better risk-ranking 
algorithms through pattern analysis and relating pipe attributes to 
surrounding geographical areas. Identifying and protecting aging 
infrastructure is a DOT priority and collecting this information allows 
PHMSA to better understand and plan for age-dependent threats.

L. Onshore/Offshore

    Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA proposes operators designate whether a pipe 
segment is onshore or offshore.
    PHMSA received four comments on this attribute which were generally 
supportive. COGENT supported including this information as proposed. 
API/AOPL, Spectra Energy Partners, and Energy Transfer Partners were 
willing to provide this information but requested guidance on defining 
``offshore pipelines'' for the purpose of this information collection. 
API/AOPL further recommended that this information be password 
protected under PIMMA.
    PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as originally proposed. 
To aid compliance and standardization, PHMSA will issue guidance in the 
NPMS Operator Standards Manual on how to determine whether a pipeline 
is offshore or onshore for the purpose of this information collection. 
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.

M. Inline Inspection

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators indicate whether their 
system is capable of accommodating an ILI tool.
    The Pipeline Safety Trust and COGENT strongly supported including 
this attribute, as did a number of industry entities including 
TransCanada, Spectra Energy Partners, and Energy Transfer. INGAA and 
Questar proposed a simplified yes/no version of this attribute. API and 
TPA were receptive to including this information but questioned the 
safety benefit. AGA and DTE Gas Company submitted critical comments 
citing difficulty of compliance given the ongoing technological 
development in pipeline assessment tools. InterMountain Gas Company and 
Avista noted that they did not have this information in their GIS 
infrastructure. Vectren noted their view that the information was not 
needed for risk ranking and was already on the annual report.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed. 
For the purpose of this information collection, this attribute denotes 
whether a line is capable of accepting an inline inspection tool with 
currently available technology. Inline Inspection methods information 
is useful for tracking progress related to NTSB recommendations P-15-18 
and P-15-20 which recommend that all natural gas transmission pipelines 
be capable of being in-line inspected and that PHMSA ``identify all 
operational complications that limit the use of in-line inspection 
tools in piggable pipelines'' respectively.

N. Class Location

    Operators of gas transmission pipeline segments will be required to 
submit information on class location (49 CFR 192.5) at the segment 
level.
    PHMSA received eight comments on this attribute which were 
generally positive. COGENT, Spectra Energy Partners, Southwest Gas, 
TPA, and AGA submitted comments supporting including this attribute. 
TransCanada opposed, stating that PHMSA can collect this information at 
audits and inspections. Avista indicated that they did not have this 
information within their GIS infrastructure. Spectra Energy Partners 
and Energy Transfer submitted comments requesting greater clarity and 
guidance on the definition of segments, as well as expectations for 
accuracy for the purpose of this collection.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed. 
Operators may consult the NPMS Operator Standards Manual for help in 
defining segments. This information is a critical measure of population 
risk, and is necessary to ensure that integrity management rules are 
properly applied to high-risk areas. Survey requirements vary based on 
class location, and this data is valuable for prioritizing, planning, 
and conducting inspections.

O. Gas HCA Segment

    PHMSA proposed gas transmission operators identify pipe segments 
which ``could affect'' HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 192.903.
    AGA, INGAA, TPA, TransCanada, Energy Transfer, Questar Pipeline 
Company, and COGENT supported collecting data regarding Gas HCAs. AGA, 
Vectren, and Intermountain requested clarification on how ``could 
affect'' HCAs impact gas operators.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with the HCA attributes as originally 
proposed. This information will help emergency responders identify 
areas with greater potential for significant damage. Additionally, 
these attributes identify areas subject to integrity management 
procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority to map high-
consequence areas under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d). Gas operators are only 
expected to submit information on whether that segment lies within an 
HCA as defined in 49 CFR 192.903.

P. Segment Could Affect an HCA

    PHMSA proposed hazardous liquid and gas transmission operators 
identify pipe segments which could affect HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 
195.450. Pipe segments can be classified as affecting a populated area, 
an ecologically sensitive

[[Page 52090]]

area, or a sole-source drinking water area.
    TPA and COGENT supported including this information as proposed. 
API/AOPL, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and 
TransCanada had security concerns with including this data element.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with the ``could affect HCA'' 
attribute as originally proposed. This information will help emergency 
response planners identify areas with greater potential for significant 
damage. Additionally it identifies areas subject to integrity 
management procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority to map 
high-consequence areas under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d), and NTSB 
recommendation P-15-5 states that PHMSA should ``revise the submission 
requirement to include HCA identification as an attribute data element 
to the National Pipeline Mapping System.'' This information will be 
secured with the PIMMA system to mitigate potential security risks.

Q. Year of Last ILI

    PHMSA proposes operators submit data detailing the year of a 
pipeline's last corrosion, dent, crack or ``other'' ILI assessment. The 
Pipeline Safety Trust, COGENT, and API/AOPL supported including this 
attribute, though the latter suggested protecting this information with 
PIMMA and delaying compliance to Phase Two of their three-phase plan. 
INGAA, AGA, Spectra and Vectren questioned the safety value of 
including this attribute. Avista noted that they did not have this 
information in their GIS infrastructure.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. This information is used to verify integrity of the pipeline. 
It is also a key metric in PHMSA's pipeline risk calculations, which 
are used to determine the priority and frequency of inspections. 
Inspectors noted that this is important for inspection planning, as a 
line which has been recently assessed has a statistically lower risk 
than one that has not recently been assessed. This information will be 
protected by being placed in PIMMA.

R. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection

    PHMSA proposed operators indicate whether a pipe is effectively 
coated, and if so the type of coating.
    COGENT, Pipeline Safety Trust, TPA, TransCanada and Southwest Gas 
Company supported including this attribute. AGA, INGAA, API/AOPL, 
Questar Pipeline Company, and Spectra Energy Partners petitioned for a 
greatly simplified binary yes/no version of this attribute, possibly 
reported on a predominant basis. Intermountain and Avista indicated 
that they did not collect this information in their GIS infrastructure.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as proposed. The 
presence and type of coating on a pipeline has a significant impact on 
corrosion, which remains a major source of risk to both gas 
transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines.

S. Type of Coating

    See previous section. The choices for type of coating (from the 
NPMS Operator Standards Manual) are: coal tar enamel, fusion bonded 
epoxy, asphalt, cold applied tape, polyolefin, extruded polyethylene, 
field-applied epoxy, paint, composite, other, and no coating.

T. FRP Control Number and Sequence Number, if Applicable

    PHMSA proposed operators submit the Facility Response Plan control 
number and sequence number for applicable liquid pipeline segments.
    COGENT, API/AOPL, Spectra Energy Partners, and Energy Transfer 
Partners were not opposed to collecting this information; API requested 
this information be protected by PIMMA. TransCanada viewed it as a 
potential security risk, and supported only including the plan number. 
AGA and TPA opposed this data element, suggesting that it is not needed 
for risk prioritization and is therefore not required.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. Access to the relevant facility response plan number through 
NPMS would be beneficial to first responders in an emergency situation, 
especially in areas with multiple pipeline facilities. Furthermore, 
this would greatly reduce the workload of regional offices and even 
operators tasked with ensuring compliance with response plan 
regulations. Since operators are required to have this information, 
PHMSA believes it should be minimally burdensome to submit it.

U. Year and Pressure of Last and Original Pressure Test

    PHMSA proposed to collect data on a pipeline's original and most 
recent hydrostatic test years and pressures. Note that the original 
pressure test data will be collected in Phase 3 (see section V) and the 
last pressure test data will be collected in Phase 1. This is to allow 
operators sufficient time to research the year of the original pressure 
test. The NPMS Operator Standards Manual also contains a designation if 
the operator has researched, but not found, the year of the original 
pressure test.
    The Pipeline Safety Trust, COGENT and Energy Transfer Partners 
supported including this attribute. API/AOPL, TPA, and AGA questioned 
the value of this attribute, especially the original pressure test, 
noting that it will greatly increase segmentation of the dataset. API 
further suggested dropping the original pressure test information. 
TransCanada, Spectra Energy Partners, and Vectren were all opposed to 
collecting this attribute. Avista noted that they did not have this 
information in their GIS infrastructure.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed with slight modifications. PHMSA will allow the more flexible 
``pressure test'' language in recognition of some alternative testing 
methodologies available to liquid operators. This information is 
critical for risk assessment. The time elapsed from the last 
hydrostatic test increases risk of failure.

V. Abandoned Pipelines

    PHMSA proposed 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. Operators would 
only need to submit this data in the calendar year after the 
abandonment occurs. API/AOPL, Energy Transfer Partners, and Dan 
Ferguson on behalf of Enbridge supported the inclusion of this 
attribute for newly abandoned lines only. The Pipeline Safety Trust 
noted that the definition of ``abandoned'' should match the definition 
in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 192.3 and 195.2) to 
mean permanently abandoned and emptied lines. COGENT supported the 
inclusion of this attribute but recommended applying the requirement 
retroactively to all abandoned pipelines. TPA, DTE Gas, and TransCanada 
submitted comments questioning the need for this information for risk 
assessment or integrity management calculation. AGA had concerns that 
including this attribute would encourage excavators to use NPMS instead 
of one call in areas where abandoned lines are expected, noting that 
there is a potential threat to telecommunications infrastructure that 
uses abandoned gas lines as cable conduits.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. This information is important for

[[Page 52091]]

PHMSA inspections, particularly to enforce proper abandonment 
procedures. PHMSA inspectors have identified incidents in the past 
involving lines which had been mischaracterized as abandoned (i.e. 
still containing product). Additionally, there is a high level of 
public interest in this information. Since operators are already 
required to map their lines, identifying recently abandoned segments is 
not exceedingly burdensome.

W. 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. COGENT, Spectra Energy Partners, and 
the Texas Pipeline Association did not oppose this information 
collection. API/AOPL, TransCanada, and the American Fuel and 
Petrochemical Manufacturers opposed this data collection due to 
security concerns. PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as 
originally proposed. Pump and compressor stations are vulnerable areas, 
and emergency responders need to know their locations for adequate 
emergency planning. Proximity to a compressor station has also been 
known to influence the level of stress on nearby segments, making this 
information valuable for prioritizing inspection resources. 
Additionally, the stations are often referenced as inspection 
boundaries for PHMSA's inspectors. Regarding security concerns, this 
information will be password protected under PIMMA, and PHMSA notes 
that this information is already available in commercial datasets.

X. Mainline Block Valves

    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. PHMSA received comments from Spectra Energy 
Partners and Energy Transfer Partners, who were unopposed to the 
inclusion of this attribute in NPMS. TPA conceded that valve location 
could be useful for PHMSA risk evaluation, but that the valve type 
component of the attribute had no safety benefit. AGA, TPA, Energy 
Transfer Partners, DTE Gas Company, Vectren, and TransCanada noted that 
this information is not valuable to emergency responders as they are 
not permitted to operate block valves. Comments from API/AOPL and 
Southwest Gas emphasized security concerns. PHMSA will collect mainline 
block valve locations and associated attributes as described in the 
NPMS Operator Standards Manual. Valve location can assist emergency 
responders when working with pipeline operators during an emergency, 
and it is useful to PHMSA inspectors and partners to identify 
vulnerable points along a pipeline.

Y. Gas Storage Fields

    PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial polygon file 
containing the locations of and type of gas storage fields used in 
interstate gas transmission systems. PHMSA received comments from 
COGENT and Energy Transfer Partners expressing support for including 
this attribute. API/AOPL, AGA, TPA, AFPM, DTE Gas Company, and Spectra 
Energy Partners submitted comments strongly opposed to this proposal. 
The commenters opposed to including this attribute believe it exceeds 
PHMSA's jurisdiction and poses a security risk. PHMSA notes that the 
agency has legal jurisdiction over the transportation of gas which 
includes ``storage of gas in or affecting interstate or foreign 
commerce'', by the definition of transportation of gas in 49 CFR 192.3. 
PHMSA further notes that this information would be available only to 
individuals cleared for access to the PIMMA password protected mapping 
site. This information would help state and local emergency response 
planners prepare for incidents involving these facilities. More details 
on how to submit this data are available in the NPMS Operator Standards 
Manual.

Z. Breakout Tanks

    PHMSA proposed to require the submission of breakout tank data. 
This is currently an optional submission; this revision would make it 
mandatory. PHMSA received positive comments from COGENT, API/AOPL, 
Texas Pipeline Association, and Spectra Energy Partners. API requested 
security safeguards, and Spectra wanted clarification if it was a point 
file for each tank or the boundary of a tank farm.
    PHMSA intends to proceed with this attribute as originally 
proposed. As detailed in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, this 
information will be stored as a point file for each tank. This helps 
inspectors locate individual tanks as a tank farm may contain both 
breakout tanks and other tanks.

AA. LNG Attributes

    PHMSA proposed to collect additional data attributes for liquefied 
natural gas (LNG) plants used in or affecting interstate commerce. 
These new attributes include type of plant, capacity, impoundments, 
exclusion zones and year constructed. COGENT and Spectra Energy 
Partners submitted comments supporting including this attribute. TPA 
supported making submitting LNG plant information mandatory but had 
security concerns with the new descriptive attributes included with 
this revision. The American Gas Association claimed that existing 
comprehensive risk analyses performed by the Department of Homeland 
Security means that PHMSA does not need to include this in its risk 
analysis on pipelines.
    PHMSA intends to proceed with this information as originally 
proposed. Detailed LNG attributes will be protected by access to PIMMA 
and only available to PHMSA, state pipeline safety officials, and 
emergency responders. Geospatial information on the location and 
characteristics of LNG plants helps PHMSA and emergency responders 
better understand potential safety risks on a national and local level 
respectively.

IV. General Comments

A. Reporting

    INGAA, API/AOPL, AGA, and GPA submitted comments indicating that 
some of the proposed attributes appear to be duplicative of information 
that PHMSA already collects, especially from the annual reports.

B. Burden

    A number of operators commented highlighting the expected burden of 
the proposed revisions to the information collection. Comments 
submitted by INGAA, API TPA, Ameren, and MidAmerican claimed that PHMSA 
greatly underestimated the expected burden of this revision. AGA, 
Ameren Illinois, Laclede Gas Co. and TransCanada noted that a high 
regulatory burden could divert resources from other safety initiatives 
such as integrity management and infrastructure replacement activities. 
Intermountain, Avista, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois, Southwest Gas, 
AGA, and INGAA noted that many of the proposed changes were beyond the 
capability of their existing GIS, and would require resources to 
upgrade systems and hire individuals to convert non-GIS or paper 
records to an appropriate format.

C. Legality

    INGAA, AGA, API/AOPL, and CenterPoint Energy submitted comments 
suggesting that certain aspects of the proposal exceed what is 
considered acceptable for an information collection regulated under

[[Page 52092]]

the Paperwork Reduction Act, and that it should have been considered as 
a rulemaking. API/AOPL further commented on their opinion that the NPMS 
is intended for public awareness, rather than for other roles such as 
risk management. PHMSA responds that this information collection 
complies with the paperwork reduction act, as it was done with the 
approval of OMB. Further, this information collection revision was 
carried out with additional procedures normally involved in a 
rulemaking such as the notice and comment procedures, public meetings, 
advisory committee discussions, and a proposed hearing. Regarding the 
purpose of the NPMS, the statute makes clear that NPMS has 
applicability beyond public awareness, especially for emergency 
response. The Web site itself states that NPMS is, ``used by government 
officials, pipeline operators, and the general public for a variety of 
tasks including emergency response, smart growth planning, critical 
infrastructure protection, and environmental protection.'' See https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/About.aspx.

D. Data Security

    PHMSA understands that the new data elements have varying degrees 
of sensitivity, and that some of the new elements are highly sensitive. 
PHMSA has discussed the appropriate security categorization for the new 
data elements with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). 
The following new data elements are proposed to be classified as SSI 
(Sensitive Security Information). These elements would be kept in an 
SSI-compliant environment at PHMSA. They would be released to no other 
parties except for government agencies who can verify they maintain an 
SSI-compliant environment.
SSI Elements
 Highest percent operating SMYS
 MAOP/MOP
 Segment ``could affect'' an HCA
 Pump and compressor stations
 Mainline block valves

    The following elements are proposed to be restricted to PIMMA, the 
mapping application on www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov which is password-
protected and available only to government officials (who may see their 
area of jurisdiction) or pipeline operators (who may see only the 
pipelines they operate).
PIMMA Elements
 Diameter
 Commodity detail
 Pipe grade
 Seam type
 Decade of installation
 Wall thickness
 Inline inspection
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 Year of last ILI inspection
 Coated/uncoated and cathodic protection
 Type of coating
 FRP control and sequence numbers
 Year of original and last pressure test
 Gas storage fields
 All new LNG plant attributes
 Capacity element for breakout tanks

    The following elements are proposed to be displayed on the NPMS 
Public Viewer, which can be accessed by the general public.
Public Viewer Elements
 Pipe grade
 Pipe join method
 Onshore/offshore
 Abandoned lines
 Breakout tanks (excluding capacity)

E. INGAA Counter Proposal

    The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America submitted 
comments which included an alternative plan for revisions to the NPMS. 
INGAA proposed to collect only pipe material, nominal diameter, HCA, 
pipe coating (yes/no), cathodic protection (yes/no), ILI capability 
(yes/no), and commodity type. INGAA further proposed an alternative 
positional accuracy requirement of 50 feet for 70 percent of mileage 
and 100 feet for the remaining 30 percent. PHMSA has addressed the 
positional accuracy standard in the previous section. PHMSA further 
finds that the set of attributes proposed by INGAA is inadequate to 
meet the agency's risk assessment and emergency planning goals.

F. Definitions

    API/AOPL, INGAA, DTE Gas Company, the Pipeline Safety Trust has 
serious concerns about the use of the word ``predominant.'' Other 
commenters made attribute specific comments to a similar effect. These 
criticisms centered on how the usage of predominant attributes is 
poorly defined, difficult to verify compliance with, and risks improper 
categorization of pipeline risk. For these reasons PHMSA has largely 
eliminated the option to submit data on a predominant basis.
    Spectra Energy Partners requested general guidance on the 
definition of a segment. Other commenters had attribute-specific 
comments to a similar effect. This information is defined in more 
detail in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual.

V. Timeline for Collection of New Data Elements

    PHMSA has heard operators' and industry's concerns regarding the 
amount of time needed to compile, research, and/or prepare the data 
required for this information collection. PHMSA will collect the new 
data elements in three phases. Phase 1 data will be collected the first 
submission year after the effective date, Phase 2 data will be 
collected the second submission year after the effective date, and 
Phase 3 data will be collected the third submission year after the 
effective date. The data elements in each phase are listed below.

Phase 1

 Pipe diameter
 Commodity detail
 Pipe material
 Pipe grade
 Wall thickness
 Pipe joining method
 MAOP/MOP
 Highest percent operating SMYS
 Seam type
 Onshore/offshore
 Inline inspection
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 FRP control number and sequence number, if applicable
 Abandoned pipelines
 Pump and compressor stations
 Breakout tanks
 LNG attributes

Phase 2

 Decade of installation
 Segment could affect an HCA
 Year of last ILI
 Coated/uncoated and cathodic protection
 Type of coating
 Year and pressure of last pressure test
 Mainline block valves
 Gas storage fields

Phase 3

 Positional accuracy conforms with new standards
 Year and pressure of original pressure test

VI. Summary of Impacted Collection

    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) Frequency of collection, and (8) Estimate of total annual 
reporting and recordkeeping burden. PHMSA requests comments on the 
following information collection:

[[Page 52093]]

    Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Expiration Date: 6/30/2016.
    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 the National Pipeline Mapping System (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 the NPMS if 
any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and improve the accuracy of the 
NPMS's information.
    Respondents: Operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and 
liquefied natural gas pipelines.
    Number of Respondents: 1,211.
    Number of Responses: 1,211.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 335,124 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 OMB'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 August 21, 2015, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-21238 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P