Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System Program, 40757-40765 [2016-14712]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0092] Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System Program Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. On August 27, 2015, (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, which was extended until November 25, 2015, PHMSA received many comments on ways to improve this data collection. We are publishing this notice to address the comments received and to announce our proposed path forward. DATES: Written comments on this information collection should be submitted by July 22, 2016. ADDRESSES: Please send comments regarding this information collection request, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. 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: mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: I. Background II. Modified or Dropped Attributes A. Positional Accuracy B. Highest Percent Operating Specified Minimum Yield Strength C. Decade of Installation D. Year of Last Corrosion, Dent, Crack, and Other ILI Inspections E. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection F. Type of Coating VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 G. Year of Original Pressure Test and Its Pressure H. Year of Last Pressure Test and Its Pressure I. Gas Storage Fields III. Retained Attributes A. Pipe Diameter B. Wall Thickness C. Commodity Detail D. Pipe Material E. Pipe Grade F. Pipe Join Method G. Seam Type H. Onshore/Offshore I. Inline Inspection (Yes/No) J. Class Location K. Gas HCA Segment L. Segment Could Affect a High Consequence Area M. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number N. Abandoned Pipelines O. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/Maximum Operating Pressure P. Pump and Compressor Stations Q. Mainline Block Valves R. Breakout Tanks S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes IV. General Comments A. Reporting B. Burden C. Legality D. Data Security E. Industry Counter-Proposals F. Mandates and Recommendations G. Definitions V. Timeline for Collection of New Data Elements A. Phase 1 Data Elements B. Phase 2 Data Elements C. Phase 3 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, (79 FR 65295), 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: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/ MtgHome.mtg?mtg=101. PHMSA encouraged participants of the meeting PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40757 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. On August 27, 2015, (80 FR 52084) PHMSA published another notice in the Federal Register to address the many comments received and to request additional comments on the revised path forward. During this subsequent comment period, PHMSA received feedback and several suggestions on how to improve the quality and efficiency of this information collection. Commenters included: AGA—American Gas Association APGA—American Public Gas Association API/AOPL—American Petroleum Institute/Association of Oil Pipelines CPL—Chevron Pipeline Company DOMAC—Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC ETP—Energy Transfer Partners GPA—Gas Processors Association INGAA John Russell Lilah Haxton MidAmerican Energy Company Molly Wolf NiSource Inc. Northern Natural Gas Company PST—Pipeline Safety Trust SEP—Spectra Energy Partners Southwest Gas Association Tim Ligon TPA—Texas Pipeline Association TRANSCANADA CORP A public meeting was also held on September 10, 2015, (80 FR 52084) and a technical workshop on November 25, 2015, (80 FR 65286). The purpose of the second public meeting and the technical workshop was to grant the public further opportunities to learn about PHMSA’s proposal, to ask pertinent questions about the collection, and to offer suggestions regarding the path forward. Details about the second public meeting and the public workshop can be found at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=106. 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, (30-Day Notice Version), which is attached to the docket. The data being requested is the first substantial update to NPMS submission requirements since the NPMS standards were developed in 1998. The NPMS is E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 40758 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices 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. PHMSA seeks to reduce duplication and will consider the impact on the tabular data submitted through the annual reports once the data elements described in this notice are being collected. 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 systemspecific 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 in section 4F 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 • 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. Modified or 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 consideration, PHMSA will modify or drop the following attributes, standards or components at this time: Positional accuracy, Highest percent operating Specified Maximum Yield Strength, Decade of Installation, Year of last corrosion, dent, crack, and other ILI inspections, Coated/uncoated and cathodic protection, Type of coating, Year of original pressure test and its pressure, Year of last pressure test and its pressure, and Gas Storage Fields. PHMSA reserves the right to reconsider these attributes in the future. Complete details on all of the attributes, (such as format, choices, and whether it is a required attribute), can be found in Appendix A of the draft NPMS Operator Standards Manual, which is attached to the docket. A. Positional Accuracy This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. In the 2015 notice, PHMSA proposed that hazardous liquid pipeline operators submit data with a positional accuracy of +/¥ 50 feet. Gas transmission operators would be 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 § 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 were requested to be mapped to a positional accuracy of +/¥ 100 feet. Multiple commenters noted that the reference GIS layer supplied to determine the ‘‘right-of-way for a designated interstate; freeway, expressway, or other principal 4-lane arterial roadway as defined in the PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Federal Highway Administration’s ‘Highway Functional Classification Concepts’ within its potential impact radius’’ was spatially inaccurate and could not be relied upon to definitively designate the right-of-way. PHMSA conducted a close examination of the reference layer and came to the same conclusion. Therefore, the positional accuracy definition is modified to read as follows: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators must submit data with a positional accuracy of +/ ¥ 50 feet. Gas transmission operators must 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 or an identified site, (See § 192.903), within its potential impact radius. All other gas pipeline segments must be mapped to a positional accuracy of +/¥ 100 feet. Furthermore, multiple commenters requested more time to comply with the new positional accuracy standard. They noted that the most efficient and lowcost method of bringing their data into the new standard is to update centerlines during scheduled in-line inspection (ILI) runs. Commenters from INGAA requested a deadline of 2023 for complying with the new standard. API commenters requested several years to comply, and AGA also requested a seven-year period to bring 100% of pipelines into the proposed accuracy standard. PHMSA seeks to reduce the burden on operators to comply with this standard, and therefore requires all pipelines submitted to the NPMS have the stated new positional accuracy by the operator’s 2024 submission (reflecting data as of 12/31/2023). Operators may submit their centerlines with the new accuracy standard earlier if some or all of their centerlines have been brought into the new standard. To clarify, part of an operator’s yearly submission prior to 2024 may comply with the new 50/100 foot standard, while part retains the current 500 foot standard. B. Highest Percent Operating Specified Maximum Yield Strength This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice, which defined this data element as ‘‘hoop stress corresponding to the maximum operating pressure (MOP) or maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) as a percentage of Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS). Report with up to one decimal place.’’ Commenters argued that PHMSA can calculate this data element with the MAOP/MOP attribute plus pipe grade. However, this is not true in all cases. Where the E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices allowable operating pressure differs from the actual operating pressure, or when the pipe is of unknown or unlisted specification, percent SMYS cannot be calculated. This data element is valuable to PHMSA as it helps show where the pipe material is stressed. PHMSA has a need to see where this attribute changes from year to year to help with risk ranking and inspection planning. This attribute will be changed to the following: Percent SMYS: Hoop stress corresponding to the maximum operating pressure (MOP) or maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) as a percentage of SMYS. Choose one of the following categories: L20 = <20%; L30 = ≥20% and <30%; L40 = ≥30% and <40%; L50 = ≥40% and <50%; L60 = ≥50% and <60%; L72 = ≥60% and <72%; L80 = ≥72% and <80%; G80 = >80%. Also, note that this new data element will eliminate the need for the ‘‘low-stress’’ existing data element. ‘‘Low-stress’’ will be removed from NPMS submissions. This information when contained in the NPMS system is considered Sensitive Security Information (SSI) per PHMSA’s consultations with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES C. Decade of Installation This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. PHMSA asked operators to submit the ‘‘predominant’’ decade of installation on a pipe segment, signifying 90% or more of the physical pipe represented by the segment. In the comments and in the NPMS Operator Workshop held on November 18, 2015, operators explained that the burden would be lower if they could submit actual values, not predominant values. PHMSA is modifying this attribute to be defined as either actual or predominant, (90% or more of the represented segment), decade of installation. D. Year of Last Corrosion, Dent, Crack, and Other ILI Inspections These data elements will be modified from the 2015 notice. Commenters expressed concern about how this element would be used. If a null value was entered because a corrosion/dent/ crack/other ILI inspection was not required by regulation, it would be misleading for PHMSA and its partners to view that segment as having increased risk. In order to reduce the burden on operators and accurately evaluate a pipe’s condition and risk, PHMSA will create a new attribute which streamlines the information in this data element and in the pressure test elements (see sections H and I). The new elements are as follows: (1) VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 Assessment method for the most recent assessment: ILI = Inline Inspection, DIR = Direct Assessment Method, or PT = Hydrostatic Pressure Test). (2) Assessment Year: 4-digit year of last assessment. These elements are mandatory submissions for pipeline segments that must be assessed per §§ 192 and 195. As described in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, operators can indicate whether a segment is exempt from assessment, and if more than one assessment method was performed concurrently the last time the segment was assessed, an operator may indicate that in the additional assessment method fields, which are optional. E. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection These data elements will be modified from the 2015 notice. In that notice, PHMSA proposed two related data elements: Coated/uncoated pipe and type of coating. The operator was asked to identify whether the pipe was ‘‘effectively’’ cathodic protection (CP) coated steel, no CP coated steel, CP bare steel, no CP bare steel, or plastic. INGAA requested that this attribute be changed to a yes/no choice to reduce the burden on operators. PHMSA agrees that a yes/no choice is sufficient for its internal needs and for the needs of its stakeholders. Furthermore, PHMSA will remove the word ‘‘effectively’’ from the definition. The new data element is as follows: Whether the pipe is coated (yes/no). F. Type of Coating As explained in section F above, this data element will be dropped. Submitting the type of coating increases the burden on operators and PHMSA has determined that this data element is not necessary to serve its internal needs and those of its stakeholders. G. Year of Original Pressure Test and Its Pressure This data element will be dropped. As explained in section E, the pressure test and ILI inspection elements are being rolled up into the new Assessment Method element. The original pressure test and its pressure will no longer be required. If the original pressure test was the only assessment performed, it will be submitted as the Assessment Method and its year will be noted in the Assessment Year field. Operators will not be required to research the original pressure test otherwise. PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40759 H. Year of Last Pressure Test and Its Pressure This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. As explained in section E, the pressure test and ILI inspection elements are being rolled up into the new Assessment Method element. The requirement to always submit the year of the last pressure test has been removed; however, if the method of assessment was a pressure test, the year of the test is required in the Assessment Year field. I. Gas Storage Fields This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. Commenters (Transcanada and Texas Pipeline Association) opposed this data element. AGA requested that the choices for field type be changed to aboveground tanks, underground cavern, depleted reservoir, or aquifer storage. PHMSA accepts the proposal to change the storage field types per AGA’s request, but will also include a choice for injection wells. The new choices are noted in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, Appendix A4. Note that this element when contained in the NPMS system is considered SSI per PHMSA’s consultations with TSA. 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 with no substantial modifications. A. Pipe Diameter PHMSA originally proposed requiring operators to submit data on the nominal diameter, also called the nominal pipe size 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 sizes of pipe being operated in any given geographic region, and to further assess potential impacts to public safety and the environment. PHMSA received eighteen comments in support of including mandatory reporting of pipe diameter in the information collection. This included industry associations such as INGAA, AGA, API, and AOPL, public interest groups, and individual operators. Most concerns centered on clarification regarding whether PHMSA was requesting nominal pipe size or actual diameter. Nominal pipe size will be collected. E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 40760 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices PHMSA proposes to move forward with this attribute as originally proposed. To clarify and be consistent with other reporting methods, diameter will be reported as the Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) of the pipe segment, which is the diameter in whole number inches, (except for pipe less than 5″), used to describe the pipe size, (e.g., 85⁄8″ outside diameter pipe has a nominal pipe size of 8). Decimals are not accepted for this measure (except for pipe with an outside diameter less than 5″). 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. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES B. 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. Comments received on the last information collection revision include support from Spectra Energy Partners and Transcanada Corporation. AGA opposed collection of wall thickness, claiming it can be derived from SMYS. However, this is not possible when the pipe is of unknown or unlisted specification. Texas Pipeline Association asked that an ‘‘unknown’’ option be added due to data gaps for pre-1970 pipe. PHMSA will add an ‘‘unknown’’ option. API asked whether wall thickness would be required for grandfathered natural gas pipelines, and whether the lowest wall thickness per diameter could be submitted. In this case, operators should choose the lowest wall thickness value for that MAOP/ MOP section. Otherwise, operators should submit actual wall thickness values. PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed. For clarification, PHMSA is requesting the nominal wall thickness. 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. C. 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. During the last VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 comment period, supporters of collecting commodity detail included AGA, INGAA, Southwest Gas Association, and Texas Pipeline Association. API/AOPL noted that the specific commodity can change on a daily basis, which could be misleading for emergency responders. PHMSA understands this is the case with many pipelines, and provides three fields, (CMDTY_DTL1, CMDTY_DTL2, and CMDTY_DTL3), to represent up to three specific commodities. The fields COMMODITY and CMDTY_DTL1 should represent the commodity in the pipe on 12/31 of the previous year. PHMSA will move forward with this collection. 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 are prepared for the commodity which is likely being transported. D. Pipe Material PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit data on pipe material. 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. E. Pipe Grade PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit information on the predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. AGA believed this attribute was redundant because percentage of SMYS captured the risk from pipe grade. Spectra asked that PHMSA collect this information as actual, not predominant, values. 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). Operators are welcome to submit either actual or predominant (90% of pipe segment) values. F. Pipe Join Method PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the pipe join method. Operators will indicate whether pipes within the PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 segment were welded, coupled, screwed, flanged, used plastic pipe joints, or other. AGA asked that an option be added to submit the predominant value for this data. TransCanada opposed collecting this attribute. The Texas Pipeline Association and commenter Molly Wolf asked that an ‘‘unknown’’ choice be added. PHMSA will include the requested ‘‘unknown’’ choice. 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. G. Seam Type PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the seam type of each pipe segment. Options include: SMLS = Seamless, LFERW = Low frequency or direct current electric resistance welded, HFERW = High frequency electric resistance welded, UNKERW = Electric resistance welded with unknown frequency (possible if made around 1970), DSAW = Double side submerged arc weld, SSAW = Single side submerged arc weld, SPRSAW = Spiral single side submerged arc weld, EFW = Flash weld, LAPW = Lap weld, FBW = Furnace butt weld, PLAS = Plastic or OTHER = Other unlisted seam type, UNK = Unknown seam type. Spectra Energy Partners supported inclusion of this attribute. TransCanada opposed collection, and commenter Molly Wolf recommended adding an ‘‘unknown’’ option. PHMSA intends to collect this information with the possibility of limiting it to Classes 3, 4, and HCAs. An ‘‘unknown’’ option has been added. 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 (e.g. LFERW), and is used to confirm MAOP/MOP. H. Onshore/Offshore PHMSA proposes operators designate whether a pipe segment is onshore or offshore. Spectra Energy Partners and TransCanada were supportive of collecting this attribute and asked that PHMSA issue a clear definition of ‘‘offshore.’’ PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as originally proposed. PHMSA directs operators to the definition of an offshore pipeline found in §§ 191.3 and 195.2: ‘‘Offshore means beyond the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast of the United States that is E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices in direct contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.’’ Frequently, 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. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES I. Inline Inspection (Yes/No) PHMSA originally proposed that operators indicate whether their system is capable of accommodating an ILI tool. INGAA, Spectra Energy Partners, and Transcanada supported collection of this attribute. AGA opposed collection. APGA asked that PHMSA clarify it was not requiring operators of transmission pipelines to make modifications to pipelines to accommodate ILI tools. A comment from the November 2015 Operator Workshop was to make this attribute predominant. PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed. This attribute is not collected on a predominant basis on the Annual Reports, so PHMSA will not accept this attribute on a predominant basis on the NPMS submission. 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. There is no attached mandate to modify the pipeline so that it can accommodate ILI tools. ILI 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.’’ J. Class Location Operators of gas transmission pipeline segments will be required to submit information on class location (§ 192.5) at the segment level. PHMSA received four comments on this attribute (from AGA, Southwest Gas Association, Spectra Energy Partners, and Texas Pipeline Association) which were generally positive. PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed. 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 K. Gas HCA Segment PHMSA proposed gas transmission operators identify HCA pipe segments as defined by § 192.903. AGA, INGAA, Southwest Gas Association, Spectra Energy Partners, Transcanada, and Texas Pipeline Association supported collecting data regarding Gas HCAs. PHMSA intends to move forward with the Gas HCA segment attribute as originally proposed. This information will help emergency responders identify pipelines with greater potential for significant damage. Additionally, these attributes identify pipelines subject to integrity management procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority to map high-consequence assets under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d). Gas operators are only expected to submit information on whether or not that segment is an HCA segment as defined in § 192.903. L. Segment Could Affect a High Consequence Area (HCA) PHMSA proposed hazardous liquid operators identify pipe segments which could affect HCAs as defined by § 195.450. Pipe segments can be classified as affecting or not affecting each of the following: a ‘‘highly populated area,’’ an ‘‘other populated area,’’ an Ecological Unusually Sensitive Area (USA), a Drinking Water USA, and a Commercially Navigable Waterway. See Appendix A of the NPMS Operator Standards for definitions. Spectra Energy Partners and the Texas Pipeline Association supported this attribute, while Transcanada opposed it. PHMSA intends to move forward with the ‘‘could affect HCA’’ attributes as originally proposed, noting that it only applies to hazardous liquid pipeline segments. This information will help emergency response planners identify pipelines with greater potential for significant damage. Additionally it identifies pipelines subject to integrity management procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority to map highconsequence assets 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 by limiting access to government officials to mitigate potential security risks. Because of its unique sensitivity, the Drinking Water USAs when contained in NPMSA are considered SSI per PHMSA’s consultations with TSA. See Section 4.D for additional details on security levels for each attribute. PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40761 M. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number, if Applicable PHMSA proposed operators submit the Facility Response Plan sequence number for applicable liquid pipeline segments according to Part 194. This is a 4 digit number (i.e., 0003) that is assigned by PHMSA and provided to the operator in the Letter of Approval for the submitted facility response plan. PHMSA will not collect the Control Number attribute because it is no longer used to identify a FRP. There was no significant commenter opposition to collecting this information. PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally proposed. Access to the relevant facility response plan sequence 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. Mapping the FRP sequence numbers allows PHMSA and its partners to identify gaps in compliance, assists with facility response plan reviews and approvals, and enables PHMSA to determine the applicable FRP for any given pipe in the NPMS. Since applicable liquid operators are required to have this information, PHMSA believes it should be minimally burdensome to submit it. N. 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 pipelines are defined as those that are ‘‘permanently removed from service’’ according to §§ 192.3 and 195.2. Abandoned lines are not currently required to be submitted to the NPMS unless they are offshore or cross a Commercially Navigable Waterway (note that these two types of abandoned lines also require a certification of abandonment). Operators would only need to submit this data in the calendar year after the abandonment occurs. This data element will be submitted by marking the pipe segment with a ‘‘B’’ in the STATUS_CD field, symbolizing abandonment. AGA and Spectra Energy Partners supported the inclusion of this attribute for newly abandoned lines only. The GPA opposed collection, citing concerns over retaining records for which pipeline operators are no longer responsible. In response, PHMSA notes its Letter of Interpretation PI–08–0003 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 40762 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices states abandoned facilities are still subject to PHMSA jurisdiction, even if they are no longer subject to certain PHMSA regulations. Also, 49 CFR 192.727(g)(1) and 195.59(a) already allow for PHMSA to collect information regarding certain abandoned facilities as part of the NPMS. Last, as noted above, data regarding abandoned facilities collected under this information collection is only required to be submitted in the first calendar year after the abandonment occurs. PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally proposed. This information is important for 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 a commodity). Additionally, there is a high level of public interest in this information. Since operators are already required to map their lines, PHMSA believes that identifying recently abandoned segments is not exceedingly burdensome. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES O. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/Maximum Operating Pressure 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 Spectra Energy Partners and Transcanada. AGA, Texas Pipeline Association, and an individual commenter opposed collection of this attribute. AGA noted that, combined with the Highest Percent Operating SMYS attribute, this attribute would increase the burden on operators. Texas Pipeline Association noted that, without full knowledge of how the MAOP/MOP was established, this attribute could lead to faulty conclusions in assessing risk. PHMSA intends to collect this information. 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 when contained in the NPMS system is considered SSI per PHMSA’s consultations with TSA. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 P. Pump and Compressor Stations PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial point file containing the centroid of the dedicated property location of pump (for liquid operators) and compressor (for gas transmission operators) stations. Appendix A2 in the NPMS Operator Standards contains technical details on submitting this information. 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 and planners 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 when contained in the NPMS system is considered SSI per PHMSA’s consultations with TSA. Q. Mainline Block Valves PHMSA will collect mainline block valve locations and associated attributes as described in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, Appendix A3. 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. Commenters AGA, Transcanada, Texas Pipeline Association, and Energy Transfer Partners opposed collecting this attribute, citing the sensitivity of the data as a concern. AGA proposed that only emergency valve locations be collected. PHMSA agrees that this dataset is sensitive and is considered SSI per PHMSA’s consultations with TSA. R. 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 Texas Pipeline Association and Spectra Energy Partners. TransCanada opposed collection of this attribute. PHMSA intends to proceed with this attribute as originally proposed. As detailed in Appendix A8 of the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, this PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information will be stored as a point for each tank. Please note that the operator contact information that was previously collected in optional breakout tank submissions has been removed, as it is already collected in the operator’s transmittal letter which accompanies his/her submission. As well, the commodity codes and revision codes have been updated to match annual report codes and existing NPMS codes, and a clarifying note has been added to the TANKSIZE attribute. The breakout tank data helps inspectors locate individual tanks because a tank farm may contain both breakout tanks and other tanks. S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes and Features PHMSA proposed to collect additional data attributes and features for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants used in or affecting interstate commerce (under PHMSA’s jurisdiction). The new attributes include type of plant, year constructed and capacity; the new features are impoundments and exclusion zones. PHMSA received positive comments from Texas Pipeline Association and Spectra Energy Partners. Appendices A5–A7 of the NPMS Operator Standards Manual contain technical details on submitting. PHMSA intends to proceed with this information as originally proposed. The new LNG attributes and features will be protected by limiting access to government officials. Geospatial information on the location and characteristics of LNG plants helps PHMSA and emergency responder better understand potential safety risks on a national and local level, respectively, and provides location data which is not submitted on the Annual Report. 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. PHMSA acknowledges that some of the proposed attributes are also collected on the annual report forms. Over time, PHMSA has noticed that there are often discrepancies between the data submitted to the NPMS and the data that is recorded in the annual reports. Data quality is a top priority to PHMSA and its stakeholders. PHMSA plans to use to the geospatial data to corroborate and to fill in any holes that exist in the data collected via the annual reports. E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices 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. PHMSA understands the concerns regarding the expected burden of this collection and proposes operators use a phased-approach to submit the data requested. PHMSA has agreed to give operators up to seven (7) years to submit positional accuracy data. We believe this to be the heaviest of burdens associated with this collection and hope that, by giving operators more time to plan and allocate resources; this timeframe reduces the annual associated burden significantly. During the comment period, many operators provided a list of attributes that they would not take objection to sending. PHMSA believes that operators currently have many of these attributes in their GIS systems. For this reason, PHMSA requests that these attributes be submitted during Phase 1 of this information collection. PHMSA understands that some attributes will require additional layers of data before they can be extracted and submitted to the NPMS. PHMSA would not require submission of those particular attributes until Phase 2 of this information collection. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES C. Authority 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 the Paperwork Reduction Act, and that it should have been considered as a rulemaking. These comments were received in response to the public notice published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2015, (80 FR 52084). VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 The ‘‘Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011,’’ (the 2011 Act) (Public Law No: 112–90), was enacted ‘‘to provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline transportation,’’ and ‘‘to provide for enhanced reliability in the transportation of the Nation’s energy products by pipeline.’’ To facilitate this goal of providing for enhanced safety of transporting energy products via pipeline, Section 11 of the 2011 Act amended 49 U.S.C. 60132, (National pipeline mapping system), to require an operator of a pipeline facility, (except distribution lines and gathering lines), to provide to the Secretary of Transportation particular information including, ‘‘any other geospatial or technical data, including design and material specifications, that 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.’’ 49 U.S.C. 60132(a)(4). Therefore, under § 60132, PHMSA has the authority as delegated from the Secretary, to request submission of this data as an information collection pursuant to the procedural requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act is not required, so long as reasonable notice is given. With regard to the statutory requirement to provide reasonable notice to operators that the data are being requested, PHMSA issued two information collection notices in the Federal Register providing 60-day comment periods each on July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246), and August 27, 2015 (80 FR 52084) respectively, issued notices extending the comment periods for these, held a public meeting on November 17, 2014, (79 FR 65295), September 10, 2015, (80 FR 52084), and a technical workshop on November 25, 2015 (80 FR 65286), (information about the November 25, 2015 public workshop can be found at https:// primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/ MtgHome.mtg?mtg=107). Therefore, PHMSA has provided a number of advance notifications and opportunities to provide comments. API/AOPL further commented that the NPMS is intended for public awareness, rather than for other roles such as risk management. Section 60132(d) requires the Secretary to maintain as part of NPMS a map of designated high-consequence areas in which pipelines are required to meet integrity management program regulations, therefore implying the NPMS is to be used for pipeline safety PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40763 purposes beyond public awareness and emergency response. In addition to public awareness and information to improve emergency response capabilities, PHMSA considers this data as valuable for a number of purposes described in the Background section of this notice. The GPA submitted comments requesting clarification as to the facilities to which this information collection applies. In response to these comments, PHMSA states the requirements of this information collection apply only to facilities subject to 49 CFR parts 192, 193, and 195. The GPA also respectfully suggests that providing information regarding the location of refineries, processing plants, and treatment facilities is not within PHMSA’s current purview. PHMSA would note that any facility where natural gas or hazardous liquids arrive and depart by pipeline are part of the pipeline transportation system. While there may be equipment on the grounds of such a facility that is unregulated under Parts 192 or 195, such as storage wells and processing or treatment equipment, it does not mean that the entire facility is ‘‘non-jurisdictional.’’ PHMSA collects information consistent with its mission to ensure pipeline safety. PHMSA does not collect information that has no relevance to pipeline and storage operations. With respect to refineries used in the petroleum industry, they are nonjurisdictional to PHMSA and we are not proposing to collect information on refineries except that reporting the location of a particular pipeline that ends at a refinery necessarily imparts ancillary information on the location of the refinery. In any event we do not believe the GPA’s members generally include refineries. D. Data Security PHMSA understands that the new data elements have varying degrees of sensitivity, and that some are highly sensitive when contained in the NPMS system. PHMSA has discussed the appropriate security categorization for the new data elements with TSA and has reviewed all comments regarding security submitted during the two 60day notice comment periods. The following new data elements when contained in the NPMS system are considered SSI (Sensitive Security Information). These elements will be kept in an SSI-compliant environment at PHMSA. PHMSA would only release this information to covered persons with a need to know the information, as defined in 49 CFR part 15. E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 40764 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices SSI Elements • Percent SMYS • MAOP/MOP • Segment ‘‘could affect’’ a Drinking Water USA • Pump and compressor stations • Gas storage fields • Mainline block valves The elements in the list below are proposed to be restricted to government officials by inclusion in the Pipeline Information Management and Mapping Application (PIMMA), on www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov. PIMMA is password-protected and available only to government officials (who may see their area of jurisdiction). All PIMMA users are vetted to confirm their identity and employment before a password is issued. Pipeline operators may gain access to PIMMA but they will see only the pipelines they operate. The elements below may also be provided in shapefile or geodatabase format to requesting government officials upon verification of identity and employment, and receipt of a signed letter consenting to PHMSA’s data security policy. Elements Restricted to Government Officials • Pipe diameter • Commodity detail • Pipe grade • Seam type • Decade of installation • Wall thickness • Inline inspection (yes/no) • Class location • Gas HCA segment • Segment ‘‘could affect’’ a Highly Populated Area, Other Populated Area, Ecological USA, or Commercially Navigable Waterway • Assessment method • Assessment year • Coated/uncoated • FRP sequence number • The proposed new LNG plant attributes (type of plant, total capacity, year constructed, impoundments, and exclusion zones) • Breakout tank capacity The following elements are proposed to be displayed on the NPMS Public Viewer, which can be accessed by the general public. The current extent (one county per session) and zoom level (no closer than 1:24,000) restrictions will remain in place. Public Viewer Elements • • • • • Pipe material Pipe join method Onshore/offshore Abandoned lines LNG plant locations and attributes not listed under the ‘‘elements restricted to government officials’’ section • Breakout tank locations and attributes (excluding capacity) E. Industry Counter-Proposals Industry groups AGA, INGAA, API, and AOPL submitted comments which included alternative plans for revisions to the NPMS. These plans included support for a limited number of data elements in the 2015 Federal Register notice. The table below shows the elements supported by the counterproposals. Data element Supported in counter-proposal Diameter ....................................................................................................................................................... Commodity detail .......................................................................................................................................... Pipe material ................................................................................................................................................. Highest percent operating SMYS ................................................................................................................. Decade of installation ................................................................................................................................... Wall thickness ............................................................................................................................................... Inline inspection (yes/no) .............................................................................................................................. Class location ............................................................................................................................................... Gas HCA segment ........................................................................................................................................ Segment ‘‘could affect’’ an HCA ................................................................................................................... Coated/uncoated (yes/no only) ..................................................................................................................... mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES PHMSA finds that all sets of attributes proposed by industry groups are inadequate to meet PHMSA’s risk assessment and emergency planning goals as well as mandates from Congress and recommendations from NTSB. The next section provides a table showing the new data elements which will fulfill the recommendations and mandates. F. Mandates and Recommendations In additional to satisfying DOT mission needs, PHMSA mission needs, PHMSA internal group needs, PHMSA partner needs and PHMSA stakeholder needs, this Information Collection is gathering geospatial information which will be used to fulfill Congressional mandates and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations. These mandates and recommendations include: • NTSB 15–4: Increase the positional accuracy of pipeline centerlines and pipeline attribute details relevant to safety in the National Pipeline Mapping system. • NTSB 15–5: Revise the submission requirement to include high consequence area identification as an attribute data element to the National Pipeline Mapping System. • NTSB 15–8: Work with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to develop a national repository of geospatial data resources for the process for High Consequence Area identification, and publicize the availability of the repository. AGA, INGAA, API, AOPL. AGA. AGA, INGAA, API, AOPL. AGA. AGA. API, AOPL. INGAA. AGA. AGA, INGAA. INGAA. AGA, INGAA. • NTSB 15–22: Develop and implement a plan for all segments of the pipeline industry to improve data integration for integrity management through the use of geographic information systems. • Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Section 11: Any other geospatial or technical data, including design and material specifications, that 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 following table shows the applicable data elements. Mandate or recommendation Information collection data element(s) NTSB 15–4 .......................................................... Positional accuracy, Diameter, Commodity detail, SMYS, MAOP/MOP, Seam type, Decade of installation, Wall thickness, Pipe join method, Inline Inspection y/n, Class location, Gas HCA segment, Segment ‘‘could affect’’ an HCA, Coated/uncoated. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2016 / Notices 40765 Mandate or recommendation Information collection data element(s) NTSB 15–5 .......................................................... NTSB 15–8 .......................................................... NTSB 15–22 ........................................................ Class location, Gas HCA segment, Segment ‘‘could affect’’ an HCA. Class location, Gas HCA segment, Segment ‘‘could affect’’ an HCA. Pipe material, SMYS, MAOP/MOP, Seam type, Wall thickness, Pipe join method, Inline Inspection y/n, Year of last ILI inspection, Coated/uncoated, Pressure test. Diameter, Pipe material, SMYS, Seam type, Wall thickness, Pipe join method, Inline Inspection y/n. Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, Section 11. G. Definitions Several commenters, as well as attendees of the November 2015 Operator Workshop, expressed serious concerns about the use of the word ‘‘predominant.’’ These concerns centered on how the usage of predominant attributes is poorly defined, difficult to verify compliance with, and risks improper categorization of pipeline risk. From a technical standpoint, operators indicated it was more difficult for them to generalize values into a ‘‘predominant’’ value than to submit actual values. For these reasons, submitting a ‘‘predominant’’ value will always be optional. Appendix A of the NPMS Operator Standards details the data elements for which ‘‘predominant’’ is an option. mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES 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 in 2024. 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 • SMYS • Seam type • Onshore/offshore • Inline inspection (yes/no) • Class location • Gas HCA segment • FRP sequence number • Abandoned pipelines • Pump and compressor stations • Breakout tanks • LNG plants Phase 2 • Decade of installation VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:02 Jun 21, 2016 Jkt 238001 • • • • • • Segment could affect an HCA Assessment method Assessment year Coated (yes/no) Gas storage fields Mainline block valves Phase 3 • Positional accuracy conforms with new standards (note that operators are encouraged to submit their centerlines with the new accuracy standard as the data becomes available) 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: 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 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 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: 171,983 hours. Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 June 16, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. Alan K. Mayberry, Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 2016–14712 Filed 6–21–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–60–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Minimum Security Devices and Procedures, Reports of Suspicious Activities, and Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Program Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM 22JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40757-40765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14712]



[[Page 40757]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092]


Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved 
Information Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System 
Program

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information 
Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. On August 27, 2015, (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, which was extended until November 25, 2015, PHMSA received many 
comments on ways to improve this data collection. We are publishing 
this notice to address the comments received and to announce our 
proposed path forward.

DATES: Written comments on this information collection should be 
submitted by July 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please send comments regarding this information collection 
request, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB, 
Attention: Desk Officer for PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 
20503.

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. Modified or Dropped Attributes
    A. Positional Accuracy
    B. Highest Percent Operating Specified Minimum Yield Strength
    C. Decade of Installation
    D. Year of Last Corrosion, Dent, Crack, and Other ILI 
Inspections
    E. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection
    F. Type of Coating
    G. Year of Original Pressure Test and Its Pressure
    H. Year of Last Pressure Test and Its Pressure
    I. Gas Storage Fields
III. Retained Attributes
    A. Pipe Diameter
    B. Wall Thickness
    C. Commodity Detail
    D. Pipe Material
    E. Pipe Grade
    F. Pipe Join Method
    G. Seam Type
    H. Onshore/Offshore
    I. Inline Inspection (Yes/No)
    J. Class Location
    K. Gas HCA Segment
    L. Segment Could Affect a High Consequence Area
    M. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number
    N. Abandoned Pipelines
    O. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/Maximum Operating 
Pressure
    P. Pump and Compressor Stations
    Q. Mainline Block Valves
    R. Breakout Tanks
    S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes
IV. General Comments
    A. Reporting
    B. Burden
    C. Legality
    D. Data Security
    E. Industry Counter-Proposals
    F. Mandates and Recommendations
    G. Definitions
V. Timeline for Collection of New Data Elements
    A. Phase 1 Data Elements
    B. Phase 2 Data Elements
    C. Phase 3 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, (79 FR 65295), 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: 
http://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.
    On August 27, 2015, (80 FR 52084) PHMSA published another notice in 
the Federal Register to address the many comments received and to 
request additional comments on the revised path forward. During this 
subsequent comment period, PHMSA received feedback and several 
suggestions on how to improve the quality and efficiency of this 
information collection. Commenters included:

AGA--American Gas Association
APGA--American Public Gas Association
API/AOPL--American Petroleum Institute/Association of Oil Pipelines
CPL--Chevron Pipeline Company
DOMAC--Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC
ETP--Energy Transfer Partners
GPA--Gas Processors Association
INGAA
John Russell
Lilah Haxton
MidAmerican Energy Company
Molly Wolf
NiSource Inc.
Northern Natural Gas Company
PST--Pipeline Safety Trust
SEP--Spectra Energy Partners
Southwest Gas Association
Tim Ligon
TPA--Texas Pipeline Association
TRANSCANADA CORP

    A public meeting was also held on September 10, 2015, (80 FR 52084) 
and a technical workshop on November 25, 2015, (80 FR 65286). The 
purpose of the second public meeting and the technical workshop was to 
grant the public further opportunities to learn about PHMSA's proposal, 
to ask pertinent questions about the collection, and to offer 
suggestions regarding the path forward. Details about the second public 
meeting and the public workshop can be found at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=106.
    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, (30-Day 
Notice Version), which is attached to the docket.
    The data being requested is the first substantial update to NPMS 
submission requirements since the NPMS standards were developed in 
1998. The NPMS is

[[Page 40758]]

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. PHMSA seeks to reduce duplication and will 
consider the impact on the tabular data submitted through the annual 
reports once the data elements described in this notice are being 
collected. 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 in section 4F 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. Modified or 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 consideration, PHMSA will 
modify or drop the following attributes, standards or components at 
this time: Positional accuracy, Highest percent operating Specified 
Maximum Yield Strength, Decade of Installation, Year of last corrosion, 
dent, crack, and other ILI inspections, Coated/uncoated and cathodic 
protection, Type of coating, Year of original pressure test and its 
pressure, Year of last pressure test and its pressure, and Gas Storage 
Fields. PHMSA reserves the right to reconsider these attributes in the 
future. Complete details on all of the attributes, (such as format, 
choices, and whether it is a required attribute), can be found in 
Appendix A of the draft NPMS Operator Standards Manual, which is 
attached to the docket.

A. Positional Accuracy

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. In the 
2015 notice, PHMSA proposed that hazardous liquid pipeline operators 
submit data with a positional accuracy of +/- 50 feet. Gas transmission 
operators would be 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 Sec.  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 were requested to be 
mapped to a positional accuracy of +/- 100 feet. Multiple commenters 
noted that the reference GIS layer supplied to determine the ``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'' was spatially inaccurate and could not be 
relied upon to definitively designate the right-of-way. PHMSA conducted 
a close examination of the reference layer and came to the same 
conclusion. Therefore, the positional accuracy definition is modified 
to read as follows:

    Hazardous liquid pipeline operators must submit data with a 
positional accuracy of +/- 50 feet. Gas transmission operators must 
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 or an identified site, 
(See Sec.  192.903), within its potential impact radius. All other 
gas pipeline segments must be mapped to a positional accuracy of +/- 
100 feet.

    Furthermore, multiple commenters requested more time to comply with 
the new positional accuracy standard. They noted that the most 
efficient and low-cost method of bringing their data into the new 
standard is to update centerlines during scheduled in-line inspection 
(ILI) runs. Commenters from INGAA requested a deadline of 2023 for 
complying with the new standard. API commenters requested several years 
to comply, and AGA also requested a seven-year period to bring 100% of 
pipelines into the proposed accuracy standard. PHMSA seeks to reduce 
the burden on operators to comply with this standard, and therefore 
requires all pipelines submitted to the NPMS have the stated new 
positional accuracy by the operator's 2024 submission (reflecting data 
as of 12/31/2023). Operators may submit their centerlines with the new 
accuracy standard earlier if some or all of their centerlines have been 
brought into the new standard. To clarify, part of an operator's yearly 
submission prior to 2024 may comply with the new 50/100 foot standard, 
while part retains the current 500 foot standard.

B. Highest Percent Operating Specified Maximum Yield Strength

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice, which 
defined this data element as ``hoop stress corresponding to the maximum 
operating pressure (MOP) or maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) 
as a percentage of Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS). Report with 
up to one decimal place.'' Commenters argued that PHMSA can calculate 
this data element with the MAOP/MOP attribute plus pipe grade. However, 
this is not true in all cases. Where the

[[Page 40759]]

allowable operating pressure differs from the actual operating 
pressure, or when the pipe is of unknown or unlisted specification, 
percent SMYS cannot be calculated. This data element is valuable to 
PHMSA as it helps show where the pipe material is stressed. PHMSA has a 
need to see where this attribute changes from year to year to help with 
risk ranking and inspection planning. This attribute will be changed to 
the following: Percent SMYS: Hoop stress corresponding to the maximum 
operating pressure (MOP) or maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) 
as a percentage of SMYS. Choose one of the following categories: L20 = 
<20%; L30 = >=20% and <30%; L40 = >=30% and <40%; L50 = >=40% and <50%; 
L60 = >=50% and <60%; L72 = >=60% and <72%; L80 = >=72% and <80%; G80 = 
>80%. Also, note that this new data element will eliminate the need for 
the ``low-stress'' existing data element. ``Low-stress'' will be 
removed from NPMS submissions. This information when contained in the 
NPMS system is considered Sensitive Security Information (SSI) per 
PHMSA's consultations with the Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA).

C. Decade of Installation

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. PHMSA 
asked operators to submit the ``predominant'' decade of installation on 
a pipe segment, signifying 90% or more of the physical pipe represented 
by the segment. In the comments and in the NPMS Operator Workshop held 
on November 18, 2015, operators explained that the burden would be 
lower if they could submit actual values, not predominant values. PHMSA 
is modifying this attribute to be defined as either actual or 
predominant, (90% or more of the represented segment), decade of 
installation.

D. Year of Last Corrosion, Dent, Crack, and Other ILI Inspections

    These data elements will be modified from the 2015 notice. 
Commenters expressed concern about how this element would be used. If a 
null value was entered because a corrosion/dent/crack/other ILI 
inspection was not required by regulation, it would be misleading for 
PHMSA and its partners to view that segment as having increased risk. 
In order to reduce the burden on operators and accurately evaluate a 
pipe's condition and risk, PHMSA will create a new attribute which 
streamlines the information in this data element and in the pressure 
test elements (see sections H and I). The new elements are as follows: 
(1) Assessment method for the most recent assessment: ILI = Inline 
Inspection, DIR = Direct Assessment Method, or PT = Hydrostatic 
Pressure Test). (2) Assessment Year: 4-digit year of last assessment. 
These elements are mandatory submissions for pipeline segments that 
must be assessed per Sec. Sec.  192 and 195. As described in the NPMS 
Operator Standards Manual, operators can indicate whether a segment is 
exempt from assessment, and if more than one assessment method was 
performed concurrently the last time the segment was assessed, an 
operator may indicate that in the additional assessment method fields, 
which are optional.

E. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection

    These data elements will be modified from the 2015 notice. In that 
notice, PHMSA proposed two related data elements: Coated/uncoated pipe 
and type of coating. The operator was asked to identify whether the 
pipe was ``effectively'' cathodic protection (CP) coated steel, no CP 
coated steel, CP bare steel, no CP bare steel, or plastic. INGAA 
requested that this attribute be changed to a yes/no choice to reduce 
the burden on operators. PHMSA agrees that a yes/no choice is 
sufficient for its internal needs and for the needs of its 
stakeholders. Furthermore, PHMSA will remove the word ``effectively'' 
from the definition. The new data element is as follows: Whether the 
pipe is coated (yes/no).

F. Type of Coating

    As explained in section F above, this data element will be dropped. 
Submitting the type of coating increases the burden on operators and 
PHMSA has determined that this data element is not necessary to serve 
its internal needs and those of its stakeholders.

G. Year of Original Pressure Test and Its Pressure

    This data element will be dropped. As explained in section E, the 
pressure test and ILI inspection elements are being rolled up into the 
new Assessment Method element. The original pressure test and its 
pressure will no longer be required. If the original pressure test was 
the only assessment performed, it will be submitted as the Assessment 
Method and its year will be noted in the Assessment Year field. 
Operators will not be required to research the original pressure test 
otherwise.

H. Year of Last Pressure Test and Its Pressure

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. As 
explained in section E, the pressure test and ILI inspection elements 
are being rolled up into the new Assessment Method element. The 
requirement to always submit the year of the last pressure test has 
been removed; however, if the method of assessment was a pressure test, 
the year of the test is required in the Assessment Year field.

I. Gas Storage Fields

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. Commenters 
(Transcanada and Texas Pipeline Association) opposed this data element. 
AGA requested that the choices for field type be changed to aboveground 
tanks, underground cavern, depleted reservoir, or aquifer storage. 
PHMSA accepts the proposal to change the storage field types per AGA's 
request, but will also include a choice for injection wells. The new 
choices are noted in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, Appendix A4. 
Note that this element when contained in the NPMS system is considered 
SSI per PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

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 with no substantial modifications.

A. Pipe Diameter

    PHMSA originally proposed requiring operators to submit data on the 
nominal diameter, also called the nominal pipe size 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 sizes of pipe being operated in any given 
geographic region, and to further assess potential impacts to public 
safety and the environment.
    PHMSA received eighteen comments in support of including mandatory 
reporting of pipe diameter in the information collection. This included 
industry associations such as INGAA, AGA, API, and AOPL, public 
interest groups, and individual operators. Most concerns centered on 
clarification regarding whether PHMSA was requesting nominal pipe size 
or actual diameter. Nominal pipe size will be collected.

[[Page 40760]]

    PHMSA proposes to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. To clarify and be consistent with other reporting methods, 
diameter will be reported as the Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) of the pipe 
segment, which is the diameter in whole number inches, (except for pipe 
less than 5''), used to describe the pipe size, (e.g., 8\5/8\'' outside 
diameter pipe has a nominal pipe size of 8). Decimals are not accepted 
for this measure (except for pipe with an outside diameter less than 
5''). 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.

B. 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. Comments received on the last information 
collection revision include support from Spectra Energy Partners and 
Transcanada Corporation. AGA opposed collection of wall thickness, 
claiming it can be derived from SMYS. However, this is not possible 
when the pipe is of unknown or unlisted specification. Texas Pipeline 
Association asked that an ``unknown'' option be added due to data gaps 
for pre-1970 pipe. PHMSA will add an ``unknown'' option. API asked 
whether wall thickness would be required for grandfathered natural gas 
pipelines, and whether the lowest wall thickness per diameter could be 
submitted. In this case, operators should choose the lowest wall 
thickness value for that MAOP/MOP section. Otherwise, operators should 
submit actual wall thickness values. PHMSA intends to collect this 
information as originally proposed. For clarification, PHMSA is 
requesting the nominal wall thickness. 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.

C. 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. During the last comment period, supporters of 
collecting commodity detail included AGA, INGAA, Southwest Gas 
Association, and Texas Pipeline Association. API/AOPL noted that the 
specific commodity can change on a daily basis, which could be 
misleading for emergency responders. PHMSA understands this is the case 
with many pipelines, and provides three fields, (CMDTY_DTL1, 
CMDTY_DTL2, and CMDTY_DTL3), to represent up to three specific 
commodities. The fields COMMODITY and CMDTY_DTL1 should represent the 
commodity in the pipe on 12/31 of the previous year.
    PHMSA will move forward with this collection. 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 are prepared for the commodity which is likely being 
transported.

D. Pipe Material

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit data on pipe 
material. 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.

E. Pipe Grade

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit information on the 
predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. AGA believed this 
attribute was redundant because percentage of SMYS captured the risk 
from pipe grade. Spectra asked that PHMSA collect this information as 
actual, not predominant, values. 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). 
Operators are welcome to submit either actual or predominant (90% of 
pipe segment) values.

F. 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.
    AGA asked that an option be added to submit the predominant value 
for this data. TransCanada opposed collecting this attribute. The Texas 
Pipeline Association and commenter Molly Wolf asked that an ``unknown'' 
choice be added. PHMSA will include the requested ``unknown'' choice. 
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.

G. Seam Type

    PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the seam type of each pipe 
segment. Options include: SMLS = Seamless, LFERW = Low frequency or 
direct current electric resistance welded, HFERW = High frequency 
electric resistance welded, UNKERW = Electric resistance welded with 
unknown frequency (possible if made around 1970), DSAW = Double side 
submerged arc weld, SSAW = Single side submerged arc weld, SPRSAW = 
Spiral single side submerged arc weld, EFW = Flash weld, LAPW = Lap 
weld, FBW = Furnace butt weld, PLAS = Plastic or OTHER = Other unlisted 
seam type, UNK = Unknown seam type.
    Spectra Energy Partners supported inclusion of this attribute. 
TransCanada opposed collection, and commenter Molly Wolf recommended 
adding an ``unknown'' option.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information with the possibility of 
limiting it to Classes 3, 4, and HCAs. An ``unknown'' option has been 
added. 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 (e.g. LFERW), 
and is used to confirm MAOP/MOP.

H. Onshore/Offshore

    PHMSA proposes operators designate whether a pipe segment is 
onshore or offshore.
    Spectra Energy Partners and TransCanada were supportive of 
collecting this attribute and asked that PHMSA issue a clear definition 
of ``offshore.''
    PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as originally proposed. 
PHMSA directs operators to the definition of an offshore pipeline found 
in Sec. Sec.  191.3 and 195.2: ``Offshore means beyond the line of 
ordinary low water along that portion of the coast of the United States 
that is

[[Page 40761]]

in direct contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the 
seaward limit of inland waters.'' Frequently, 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.

I. Inline Inspection (Yes/No)

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators indicate whether their 
system is capable of accommodating an ILI tool. INGAA, Spectra Energy 
Partners, and Transcanada supported collection of this attribute. AGA 
opposed collection. APGA asked that PHMSA clarify it was not requiring 
operators of transmission pipelines to make modifications to pipelines 
to accommodate ILI tools. A comment from the November 2015 Operator 
Workshop was to make this attribute predominant.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed. 
This attribute is not collected on a predominant basis on the Annual 
Reports, so PHMSA will not accept this attribute on a predominant basis 
on the NPMS submission. 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. There is no 
attached mandate to modify the pipeline so that it can accommodate ILI 
tools. ILI 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.''

J. Class Location

    Operators of gas transmission pipeline segments will be required to 
submit information on class location (Sec.  192.5) at the segment 
level.
    PHMSA received four comments on this attribute (from AGA, Southwest 
Gas Association, Spectra Energy Partners, and Texas Pipeline 
Association) which were generally positive.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed. 
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.

K. Gas HCA Segment

    PHMSA proposed gas transmission operators identify HCA pipe 
segments as defined by Sec.  192.903. AGA, INGAA, Southwest Gas 
Association, Spectra Energy Partners, Transcanada, and Texas Pipeline 
Association supported collecting data regarding Gas HCAs.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with the Gas HCA segment attribute as 
originally proposed. This information will help emergency responders 
identify pipelines with greater potential for significant damage. 
Additionally, these attributes identify pipelines subject to integrity 
management procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority to map 
high-consequence assets under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d). Gas operators are 
only expected to submit information on whether or not that segment is 
an HCA segment as defined in Sec.  192.903.

L. Segment Could Affect a High Consequence Area (HCA)

    PHMSA proposed hazardous liquid operators identify pipe segments 
which could affect HCAs as defined by Sec.  195.450. Pipe segments can 
be classified as affecting or not affecting each of the following: a 
``highly populated area,'' an ``other populated area,'' an Ecological 
Unusually Sensitive Area (USA), a Drinking Water USA, and a 
Commercially Navigable Waterway. See Appendix A of the NPMS Operator 
Standards for definitions. Spectra Energy Partners and the Texas 
Pipeline Association supported this attribute, while Transcanada 
opposed it.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with the ``could affect HCA'' 
attributes as originally proposed, noting that it only applies to 
hazardous liquid pipeline segments. This information will help 
emergency response planners identify pipelines with greater potential 
for significant damage. Additionally it identifies pipelines subject to 
integrity management procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority 
to map high-consequence assets 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 by limiting access to government officials to mitigate 
potential security risks. Because of its unique sensitivity, the 
Drinking Water USAs when contained in NPMSA are considered SSI per 
PHMSA's consultations with TSA. See Section 4.D for additional details 
on security levels for each attribute.

M. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number, if Applicable

    PHMSA proposed operators submit the Facility Response Plan sequence 
number for applicable liquid pipeline segments according to Part 194. 
This is a 4 digit number (i.e., 0003) that is assigned by PHMSA and 
provided to the operator in the Letter of Approval for the submitted 
facility response plan. PHMSA will not collect the Control Number 
attribute because it is no longer used to identify a FRP. There was no 
significant commenter opposition to collecting this information.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. Access to the relevant facility response plan sequence 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. Mapping the FRP sequence numbers allows PHMSA and its 
partners to identify gaps in compliance, assists with facility response 
plan reviews and approvals, and enables PHMSA to determine the 
applicable FRP for any given pipe in the NPMS. Since applicable liquid 
operators are required to have this information, PHMSA believes it 
should be minimally burdensome to submit it.

N. 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 pipelines 
are defined as those that are ``permanently removed from service'' 
according to Sec. Sec.  192.3 and 195.2. Abandoned lines are not 
currently required to be submitted to the NPMS unless they are offshore 
or cross a Commercially Navigable Waterway (note that these two types 
of abandoned lines also require a certification of abandonment). 
Operators would only need to submit this data in the calendar year 
after the abandonment occurs. This data element will be submitted by 
marking the pipe segment with a ``B'' in the STATUS_CD field, 
symbolizing abandonment.
    AGA and Spectra Energy Partners supported the inclusion of this 
attribute for newly abandoned lines only. The GPA opposed collection, 
citing concerns over retaining records for which pipeline operators are 
no longer responsible. In response, PHMSA notes its Letter of 
Interpretation PI-08-0003

[[Page 40762]]

states abandoned facilities are still subject to PHMSA jurisdiction, 
even if they are no longer subject to certain PHMSA regulations. Also, 
49 CFR 192.727(g)(1) and 195.59(a) already allow for PHMSA to collect 
information regarding certain abandoned facilities as part of the NPMS. 
Last, as noted above, data regarding abandoned facilities collected 
under this information collection is only required to be submitted in 
the first calendar year after the abandonment occurs.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. This information is important for 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 a commodity). 
Additionally, there is a high level of public interest in this 
information. Since operators are already required to map their lines, 
PHMSA believes that identifying recently abandoned segments is not 
exceedingly burdensome.

O. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/Maximum Operating Pressure

    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 
Spectra Energy Partners and Transcanada. AGA, Texas Pipeline 
Association, and an individual commenter opposed collection of this 
attribute. AGA noted that, combined with the Highest Percent Operating 
SMYS attribute, this attribute would increase the burden on operators. 
Texas Pipeline Association noted that, without full knowledge of how 
the MAOP/MOP was established, this attribute could lead to faulty 
conclusions in assessing risk. PHMSA intends to collect this 
information. 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 when contained in the NPMS system is 
considered SSI per PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

P. Pump and Compressor Stations

    PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial point file containing 
the centroid of the dedicated property location of pump (for liquid 
operators) and compressor (for gas transmission operators) stations. 
Appendix A2 in the NPMS Operator Standards contains technical details 
on submitting this information. 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 and planners 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 when contained in the NPMS system is considered SSI per 
PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

Q. Mainline Block Valves

    PHMSA will collect mainline block valve locations and associated 
attributes as described in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, Appendix 
A3. 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. 
Commenters AGA, Transcanada, Texas Pipeline Association, and Energy 
Transfer Partners opposed collecting this attribute, citing the 
sensitivity of the data as a concern. AGA proposed that only emergency 
valve locations be collected. PHMSA agrees that this dataset is 
sensitive and is considered SSI per PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

R. 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 Texas Pipeline 
Association and Spectra Energy Partners. TransCanada opposed collection 
of this attribute.
    PHMSA intends to proceed with this attribute as originally 
proposed. As detailed in Appendix A8 of the NPMS Operator Standards 
Manual, this information will be stored as a point for each tank. 
Please note that the operator contact information that was previously 
collected in optional breakout tank submissions has been removed, as it 
is already collected in the operator's transmittal letter which 
accompanies his/her submission. As well, the commodity codes and 
revision codes have been updated to match annual report codes and 
existing NPMS codes, and a clarifying note has been added to the 
TANKSIZE attribute. The breakout tank data helps inspectors locate 
individual tanks because a tank farm may contain both breakout tanks 
and other tanks.

S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes and Features

    PHMSA proposed to collect additional data attributes and features 
for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants used in or affecting interstate 
commerce (under PHMSA's jurisdiction). The new attributes include type 
of plant, year constructed and capacity; the new features are 
impoundments and exclusion zones. PHMSA received positive comments from 
Texas Pipeline Association and Spectra Energy Partners. Appendices A5-
A7 of the NPMS Operator Standards Manual contain technical details on 
submitting.
    PHMSA intends to proceed with this information as originally 
proposed. The new LNG attributes and features will be protected by 
limiting access to government officials.
    Geospatial information on the location and characteristics of LNG 
plants helps PHMSA and emergency responder better understand potential 
safety risks on a national and local level, respectively, and provides 
location data which is not submitted on the Annual Report.

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. PHMSA 
acknowledges that some of the proposed attributes are also collected on 
the annual report forms. Over time, PHMSA has noticed that there are 
often discrepancies between the data submitted to the NPMS and the data 
that is recorded in the annual reports. Data quality is a top priority 
to PHMSA and its stakeholders. PHMSA plans to use to the geospatial 
data to corroborate and to fill in any holes that exist in the data 
collected via the annual reports.

[[Page 40763]]

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.
    PHMSA understands the concerns regarding the expected burden of 
this collection and proposes operators use a phased-approach to submit 
the data requested. PHMSA has agreed to give operators up to seven (7) 
years to submit positional accuracy data. We believe this to be the 
heaviest of burdens associated with this collection and hope that, by 
giving operators more time to plan and allocate resources; this 
timeframe reduces the annual associated burden significantly.
    During the comment period, many operators provided a list of 
attributes that they would not take objection to sending. PHMSA 
believes that operators currently have many of these attributes in 
their GIS systems. For this reason, PHMSA requests that these 
attributes be submitted during Phase 1 of this information collection. 
PHMSA understands that some attributes will require additional layers 
of data before they can be extracted and submitted to the NPMS. PHMSA 
would not require submission of those particular attributes until Phase 
2 of this information collection.

C. Authority

    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 the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, and that it should have been considered as a 
rulemaking. These comments were received in response to the public 
notice published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2015, (80 FR 
52084).
    The ``Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act 
of 2011,'' (the 2011 Act) (Public Law No: 112-90), was enacted ``to 
provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline 
transportation,'' and ``to provide for enhanced reliability in the 
transportation of the Nation's energy products by pipeline.'' To 
facilitate this goal of providing for enhanced safety of transporting 
energy products via pipeline, Section 11 of the 2011 Act amended 49 
U.S.C. 60132, (National pipeline mapping system), to require an 
operator of a pipeline facility, (except distribution lines and 
gathering lines), to provide to the Secretary of Transportation 
particular information including, ``any other geospatial or technical 
data, including design and material specifications, that 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.'' 49 U.S.C. 60132(a)(4).
    Therefore, under Sec.  60132, PHMSA has the authority as delegated 
from the Secretary, to request submission of this data as an 
information collection pursuant to the procedural requirements under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and a rulemaking 
under the Administrative Procedure Act is not required, so long as 
reasonable notice is given.
    With regard to the statutory requirement to provide reasonable 
notice to operators that the data are being requested, PHMSA issued two 
information collection notices in the Federal Register providing 60-day 
comment periods each on July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246), and August 27, 
2015 (80 FR 52084) respectively, issued notices extending the comment 
periods for these, held a public meeting on November 17, 2014, (79 FR 
65295), September 10, 2015, (80 FR 52084), and a technical workshop on 
November 25, 2015 (80 FR 65286), (information about the November 25, 
2015 public workshop can be found at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=107). Therefore, PHMSA has provided a number 
of advance notifications and opportunities to provide comments.
    API/AOPL further commented that the NPMS is intended for public 
awareness, rather than for other roles such as risk management. Section 
60132(d) requires the Secretary to maintain as part of NPMS a map of 
designated high-consequence areas in which pipelines are required to 
meet integrity management program regulations, therefore implying the 
NPMS is to be used for pipeline safety purposes beyond public awareness 
and emergency response. In addition to public awareness and information 
to improve emergency response capabilities, PHMSA considers this data 
as valuable for a number of purposes described in the Background 
section of this notice.
    The GPA submitted comments requesting clarification as to the 
facilities to which this information collection applies. In response to 
these comments, PHMSA states the requirements of this information 
collection apply only to facilities subject to 49 CFR parts 192, 193, 
and 195.
    The GPA also respectfully suggests that providing information 
regarding the location of refineries, processing plants, and treatment 
facilities is not within PHMSA's current purview. PHMSA would note that 
any facility where natural gas or hazardous liquids arrive and depart 
by pipeline are part of the pipeline transportation system. While there 
may be equipment on the grounds of such a facility that is unregulated 
under Parts 192 or 195, such as storage wells and processing or 
treatment equipment, it does not mean that the entire facility is 
``non-jurisdictional.'' PHMSA collects information consistent with its 
mission to ensure pipeline safety. PHMSA does not collect information 
that has no relevance to pipeline and storage operations. With respect 
to refineries used in the petroleum industry, they are non-
jurisdictional to PHMSA and we are not proposing to collect information 
on refineries except that reporting the location of a particular 
pipeline that ends at a refinery necessarily imparts ancillary 
information on the location of the refinery. In any event we do not 
believe the GPA's members generally include refineries.

D. Data Security

    PHMSA understands that the new data elements have varying degrees 
of sensitivity, and that some are highly sensitive when contained in 
the NPMS system. PHMSA has discussed the appropriate security 
categorization for the new data elements with TSA and has reviewed all 
comments regarding security submitted during the two 60-day notice 
comment periods.
    The following new data elements when contained in the NPMS system 
are considered SSI (Sensitive Security Information). These elements 
will be kept in an SSI-compliant environment at PHMSA. PHMSA would only 
release this information to covered persons with a need to know the 
information, as defined in 49 CFR part 15.

[[Page 40764]]

SSI Elements
 Percent SMYS
 MAOP/MOP
 Segment ``could affect'' a Drinking Water USA
 Pump and compressor stations
 Gas storage fields
 Mainline block valves

    The elements in the list below are proposed to be restricted to 
government officials by inclusion in the Pipeline Information 
Management and Mapping Application (PIMMA), on www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov. 
PIMMA is password-protected and available only to government officials 
(who may see their area of jurisdiction). All PIMMA users are vetted to 
confirm their identity and employment before a password is issued. 
Pipeline operators may gain access to PIMMA but they will see only the 
pipelines they operate. The elements below may also be provided in 
shapefile or geodatabase format to requesting government officials upon 
verification of identity and employment, and receipt of a signed letter 
consenting to PHMSA's data security policy.
Elements Restricted to Government Officials
 Pipe diameter
 Commodity detail
 Pipe grade
 Seam type
 Decade of installation
 Wall thickness
 Inline inspection (yes/no)
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 Segment ``could affect'' a Highly Populated Area, Other 
Populated Area, Ecological USA, or Commercially Navigable Waterway
 Assessment method
 Assessment year
 Coated/uncoated
 FRP sequence number
 The proposed new LNG plant attributes (type of plant, total 
capacity, year constructed, impoundments, and exclusion zones)
 Breakout tank capacity

    The following elements are proposed to be displayed on the NPMS 
Public Viewer, which can be accessed by the general public. The current 
extent (one county per session) and zoom level (no closer than 
1:24,000) restrictions will remain in place.
Public Viewer Elements
 Pipe material
 Pipe join method
 Onshore/offshore
 Abandoned lines
 LNG plant locations and attributes not listed under the 
``elements restricted to government officials'' section
 Breakout tank locations and attributes (excluding capacity)

E. Industry Counter-Proposals

    Industry groups AGA, INGAA, API, and AOPL submitted comments which 
included alternative plans for revisions to the NPMS. These plans 
included support for a limited number of data elements in the 2015 
Federal Register notice. The table below shows the elements supported 
by the counter-proposals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Data element                                     Supported in counter-proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter......................................  AGA, INGAA, API, AOPL.
Commodity detail..............................  AGA.
Pipe material.................................  AGA, INGAA, API, AOPL.
Highest percent operating SMYS................  AGA.
Decade of installation........................  AGA.
Wall thickness................................  API, AOPL.
Inline inspection (yes/no)....................  INGAA.
Class location................................  AGA.
Gas HCA segment...............................  AGA, INGAA.
Segment ``could affect'' an HCA...............  INGAA.
Coated/uncoated (yes/no only).................  AGA, INGAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA finds that all sets of attributes proposed by industry groups 
are inadequate to meet PHMSA's risk assessment and emergency planning 
goals as well as mandates from Congress and recommendations from NTSB. 
The next section provides a table showing the new data elements which 
will fulfill the recommendations and mandates.

F. Mandates and Recommendations

    In additional to satisfying DOT mission needs, PHMSA mission needs, 
PHMSA internal group needs, PHMSA partner needs and PHMSA stakeholder 
needs, this Information Collection is gathering geospatial information 
which will be used to fulfill Congressional mandates and National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations. These mandates and 
recommendations include:
     NTSB 15-4: Increase the positional accuracy of pipeline 
centerlines and pipeline attribute details relevant to safety in the 
National Pipeline Mapping system.
     NTSB 15-5: Revise the submission requirement to include 
high consequence area identification as an attribute data element to 
the National Pipeline Mapping System.
     NTSB 15-8: Work with the appropriate federal, state, and 
local agencies to develop a national repository of geospatial data 
resources for the process for High Consequence Area identification, and 
publicize the availability of the repository.
     NTSB 15-22: Develop and implement a plan for all segments 
of the pipeline industry to improve data integration for integrity 
management through the use of geographic information systems.
     Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation 
Act of 2011, Section 11: Any other geospatial or technical data, 
including design and material specifications, that 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 following table shows the applicable data elements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Information collection data
     Mandate or recommendation                   element(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB 15-4.........................  Positional accuracy, Diameter,
                                     Commodity detail, SMYS, MAOP/MOP,
                                     Seam type, Decade of installation,
                                     Wall thickness, Pipe join method,
                                     Inline Inspection y/n, Class
                                     location, Gas HCA segment, Segment
                                     ``could affect'' an HCA, Coated/
                                     uncoated.

[[Page 40765]]

 
NTSB 15-5.........................  Class location, Gas HCA segment,
                                     Segment ``could affect'' an HCA.
NTSB 15-8.........................  Class location, Gas HCA segment,
                                     Segment ``could affect'' an HCA.
NTSB 15-22........................  Pipe material, SMYS, MAOP/MOP, Seam
                                     type, Wall thickness, Pipe join
                                     method, Inline Inspection y/n, Year
                                     of last ILI inspection, Coated/
                                     uncoated, Pressure test.
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory         Diameter, Pipe material, SMYS, Seam
 Certainty, and Job Creation Act     type, Wall thickness, Pipe join
 of 2011, Section 11.                method, Inline Inspection y/n.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Definitions

    Several commenters, as well as attendees of the November 2015 
Operator Workshop, expressed serious concerns about the use of the word 
``predominant.'' These concerns centered on how the usage of 
predominant attributes is poorly defined, difficult to verify 
compliance with, and risks improper categorization of pipeline risk. 
From a technical standpoint, operators indicated it was more difficult 
for them to generalize values into a ``predominant'' value than to 
submit actual values. For these reasons, submitting a ``predominant'' 
value will always be optional. Appendix A of the NPMS Operator 
Standards details the data elements for which ``predominant'' is an 
option.

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 in 2024. 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
 SMYS
 Seam type
 Onshore/offshore
 Inline inspection (yes/no)
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 FRP sequence number
 Abandoned pipelines
 Pump and compressor stations
 Breakout tanks
 LNG plants

Phase 2

 Decade of installation
 Segment could affect an HCA
 Assessment method
 Assessment year
 Coated (yes/no)
 Gas storage fields
 Mainline block valves

Phase 3

 Positional accuracy conforms with new standards (note that 
operators are encouraged to submit their centerlines with the new 
accuracy standard as the data becomes available)

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:
    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 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 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: 171,983 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 June 16, 2016, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2016-14712 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P