80_FR_52250 80 FR 52084 - Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB Control No. 2137-0596)

80 FR 52084 - Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB Control No. 2137-0596)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 166 (August 27, 2015)

Page Range52084-52093
FR Document2015-21238

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

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52084-52093]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21238]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092]


Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved 
Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB 
Control No. 2137-0596)

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

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and request for comments.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Crystal City Marriott 
located at 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington, Virginia. Details 
regarding the meeting can be found at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=106.
    You may submit written comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA-
2014-0092 through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
     Instructions: Identify the docket number PHMSA-2014-0092 
at the beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will 
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any 
personal information provided. You should know that anyone is able to 
search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our 
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or 
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, 
business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or visit http://www.regulations.gov 
before submitting any such comments.
     Docket: For access to the docket or to read background 
documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or 
to Room W12-140 on the ground level of DOT's West Building, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to receive 
confirmation of receipt of your written comments, please include a 
self-addressed, stamped postcard with the following statement: 
``Comments on PHMSA-2014-0092.'' The Docket Clerk will date stamp the 
postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S. mail. Please note 
that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices in 
Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider an alternative 
method (Internet, fax, or professional delivery service) of submitting 
comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt at DOT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nelson, GIS Manager, Program 
Development Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by phone at 202-493-0591, or 
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

[[Page 52085]]

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

I. Background

    On July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246) PHMSA published a notice and 
request for comments in the Federal Register titled: ``Pipeline Safety: 
Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection: 
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Program (OMB Control No. 2137-
0596)'' seeking comments on proposed changes to the NPMS data 
collection. Within this notice, PHMSA laid out its intentions to revise 
the currently approved NPMS data collection to expand the data 
attributes collected and to improve the positional accuracy of NPMS 
submissions. On November 17, 2014, PHMSA held a public meeting to grant 
the public an opportunity to learn more about PHMSA's proposal, to ask 
pertinent questions about the collection, and to offer suggestions 
regarding the path forward. Details about the meeting, including copies 
of the meeting's presentation files, can be found at 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. 
Commenters include:

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

    PHMSA is publishing this notice to address and respond to the 
comments received. Please note that technical details pertaining to the 
new data elements such as domains and reporting requirements for each 
attribute can be found in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual.
    The data being requested is the first substantial update to NPMS 
submission requirements since the NPMS standards were developed in 
1998. The NPMS is PHMSA's only dataset which tracks where pipe 
characteristics occur, instead of how much/how many of those 
characteristics are in PHMSA's regulated pipelines. In PHMSA's last 
Congressional reauthorization, Section 60132(a) stated that PHMSA has 
the power to collect ``any other geospatial or technical data, 
including design and material specifications, which the Secretary 
determines are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. The 
Secretary shall give reasonable notice to operators that the data are 
being requested.'' The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
recommendation P-11-8 states that PHMSA should ``require operators of 
natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines and hazardous 
liquid pipelines to provide system-specific information about their 
pipeline systems to the emergency response agencies of the communities 
and jurisdictions in which those pipelines are located. This 
information should include pipe diameter, operating pressure, product 
transported, and potential impact radius.'' Other NTSB recommendations 
are cited below with the attributes they address.
    Specifically, the new data elements will:
     Aid the industry and all levels of government, from 
Federal to municipal, in promoting public awareness of hazardous liquid 
and gas pipelines and in improving emergency responder outreach. 
Currently, 787 Federal officials, 1,208 state officials and 4,791 
county officials have access to the online mapping application. 
Providing these officials with an improved NPMS containing system-
specific information about local pipeline facilities can help ensure 
emergency response agencies and communities are better prepared and can 
better execute response operations during incidents.
     Permit more powerful and accurate tabular and geospatial 
analysis, which will strengthen PHMSA's ability to evaluate existing 
and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or 
procedures.
     Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA's risk rankings and 
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline 
inspection priority and frequency.
     Allow for more effective assistance to emergency 
responders by providing them with a more reliable, complete dataset of 
pipelines and facilities.
     Provide better support to PHMSA's inspectors by providing 
more accurate pipeline locations and additional pipeline-related 
geospatial data that can be linked to tabular data in PHMSA's 
inspection database.
     Better support PHMSA's research and development programs 
by helping to predict the impact of new technology on regulated 
pipelines.

II. Dropped Attributes

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

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

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

[[Page 52086]]

B. Year of Last Direct Assessment

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

C. Type of Leak Detection

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

D. Special Permit Segment and Permit Number

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

E. Offshore Gas Gathering Line (Y/N)

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

F. Average Daily Throughput

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

G. Refineries

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

H. Gas Processing and Treatment Plants

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

III. Retained Attributes

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

A. Positional Accuracy

    PHMSA originally proposed that for pipeline segments located within 
Class 3, Class 4, High Consequence Areas (HCA), or ``could affect'' 
High Consequence Areas (HCAs), operators submit data to the NPMS with a 
positional accuracy of five feet. PHMSA further proposed that for all 
pipeline segments located within Class 1 or Class 2 locations, 
operators submit data to the NPMS with a positional accuracy of 50 
feet.
    PHMSA received 24 comments on positional accuracy. COGENT's 
comments supported the original proposal of five foot positional 
accuracy. The Pipeline Safety Trust echoed this support, and noted many 
states already require more stringent accuracy standards though did not 
cite a specific figure. PHMSA received a number of comments from 
industry associations and operators which recognized the need for 
improved positional accuracy, but were highly critical of the five foot 
positional accuracy standard. Commenters noted that the vast majority 
of mileage was not mapped to this level of precision, and that some 
portions of this mileage may

[[Page 52087]]

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

B. Pipe Diameter

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

C. Wall Thickness

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

D. Commodity Detail

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

E. Pipe Material

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit data on pipe 
material.

[[Page 52088]]

Operators will be required to submit data on whether a segment was 
constructed out of cast iron, plastic, steel, composite, or other 
material. PHMSA received no opposition from commentators. PHMSA 
proposes to move forward with this collection as originally introduced. 
Knowing the pipe material helps PHMSA determine the level of potential 
risk from excavation damage and external environmental loads. These can 
also be factors in emergency response planning.

F. Pipe Grade

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

G. Pipe Join Method

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

H. Highest Percent Operating SMYS

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

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

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

J. Seam Type

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

[[Page 52089]]

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

K. Decade of Installation

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

L. Onshore/Offshore

    Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA proposes operators designate whether a pipe 
segment is onshore or offshore.
    PHMSA received four comments on this attribute which were generally 
supportive. COGENT supported including this information as proposed. 
API/AOPL, Spectra Energy Partners, and Energy Transfer Partners were 
willing to provide this information but requested guidance on defining 
``offshore pipelines'' for the purpose of this information collection. 
API/AOPL further recommended that this information be password 
protected under PIMMA.
    PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as originally proposed. 
To aid compliance and standardization, PHMSA will issue guidance in the 
NPMS Operator Standards Manual on how to determine whether a pipeline 
is offshore or onshore for the purpose of this information collection. 
Comparisons between the NPMS (PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage 
statistics and operator-generated annual report offshore mileage 
statistics do not match. This collection will allow PHMSA to 
standardize and compare the statistics for regulatory purposes.

M. Inline Inspection

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

N. Class Location

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

O. Gas HCA Segment

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

P. Segment Could Affect an HCA

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

[[Page 52090]]

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

Q. Year of Last ILI

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

R. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection

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

S. Type of Coating

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

T. FRP Control Number and Sequence Number, if Applicable

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

U. Year and Pressure of Last and Original Pressure Test

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

V. Abandoned Pipelines

    PHMSA proposed that all gas transmission and hazardous liquid 
pipelines abandoned after the effective date of this information 
collection be mandatory submissions to the NPMS. Abandoned lines are 
not currently required to be submitted to the NPMS. Operators would 
only need to submit this data in the calendar year after the 
abandonment occurs. API/AOPL, Energy Transfer Partners, and Dan 
Ferguson on behalf of Enbridge supported the inclusion of this 
attribute for newly abandoned lines only. The Pipeline Safety Trust 
noted that the definition of ``abandoned'' should match the definition 
in the Pipeline Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 192.3 and 195.2) to 
mean permanently abandoned and emptied lines. COGENT supported the 
inclusion of this attribute but recommended applying the requirement 
retroactively to all abandoned pipelines. TPA, DTE Gas, and TransCanada 
submitted comments questioning the need for this information for risk 
assessment or integrity management calculation. AGA had concerns that 
including this attribute would encourage excavators to use NPMS instead 
of one call in areas where abandoned lines are expected, noting that 
there is a potential threat to telecommunications infrastructure that 
uses abandoned gas lines as cable conduits.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally 
proposed. This information is important for

[[Page 52091]]

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

W. Pump and Compressor Stations

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

X. Mainline Block Valves

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

Y. Gas Storage Fields

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

Z. Breakout Tanks

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

AA. LNG Attributes

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

IV. General Comments

A. Reporting

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

B. Burden

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

C. Legality

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

[[Page 52092]]

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

D. Data Security

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

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

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

E. INGAA Counter Proposal

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

F. Definitions

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

V. Timeline for Collection of New Data Elements

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

Phase 1

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

Phase 2

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

Phase 3

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

VI. Summary of Impacted Collection

    The following information is provided for this information 
collection: (1) Title of the information collection, (2) OMB control 
number, (3) Current expiration date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract 
of the information collection activity, (6) Description of affected 
public, (7) Frequency of collection, and (8) Estimate of total annual 
reporting and recordkeeping burden. PHMSA requests comments on the 
following information collection:

[[Page 52093]]

    Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Expiration Date: 6/30/2016.
    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Approved Information 
Collection.
    Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution 
lines and gathering lines) must provide PHMSA geospatial data for their 
pipeline system and contact information. The provided information is 
incorporated into the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) to 
support various regulatory programs, pipeline inspections, and 
authorized external customers. Following the initial submission of the 
requested data, the operator must make a new submission to the NPMS if 
any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and improve the accuracy of the 
NPMS's information.
    Respondents: Operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and 
liquefied natural gas pipelines.
    Number of Respondents: 1,211.
    Number of Responses: 1,211.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 335,124 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the Department's 
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the 
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the 
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized 
without reducing the quality of the collected information.
    The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the 
request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 
chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 21, 2015, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-21238 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P



                                               52084                       Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices

                                               applications as well as amendments to                   System (NPMS) Program (OMB Control                    Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between
                                               existing awards.                                        No. 2137–0596)’’ seeking comments on                  9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
                                                 B. Recipients of open American                        proposed changes to the NPMS data                     through Friday, except Federal holidays.
                                               Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)                    collection. During the comment period,                If you wish to receive confirmation of
                                               grants should be aware that, as a matter                PHMSA received several comments and                   receipt of your written comments,
                                               of law, all remaining ARRA funds                        suggestions on ways to improve this                   please include a self-addressed,
                                               MUST be disbursed from grants by the                    data collection. We are publishing this               stamped postcard with the following
                                               end of the 5th fiscal year (FY) after                   notice to address the many comments                   statement: ‘‘Comments on PHMSA–
                                               funds were required to be obligated.                    received and to request additional                    2014–0092.’’ The Docket Clerk will date
                                               (See 31 U.S.C. 1552.) For FTA ARRA                      comments on PHMSA’s proposed path                     stamp the postcard prior to returning it
                                               projects, that requirement takes affect at              forward. We are required to publish this              to you via the U.S. mail. Please note that
                                               the end of FY 2015. Accordingly, once                   notice in the Federal Register by the                 due to delays in the delivery of U.S.
                                               FTA’s ECHO grant payment system                         Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,                      mail to Federal offices in Washington,
                                               closes for disbursement payments on                     Public Law 104–13.                                    DC, we recommend that persons
                                               September 25, 2015, all remaining                       DATES: A public meeting to discuss the                consider an alternative method
                                               unliquidated funds within FTA ARRA                      revisions to the NPMS will be held on                 (Internet, fax, or professional delivery
                                               funded grants will no longer be                         the afternoon of September 10, 2015.                  service) of submitting comments to the
                                               available to the grantee, will be                          Written comments on this information               docket and ensuring their timely receipt
                                               deobligated from the grant, and returned                collection should be submitted by                     at DOT.
                                               to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.                 October 26, 2015.                                     FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                               Even if a grantee has incurred costs or                 ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be                 Amy Nelson, GIS Manager, Program
                                               disbursed funds prior to the close of                   held at the Crystal City Marriott located             Development Division, U.S. Department
                                               ECHO, if the grantee has not actually                   at 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway in                    of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
                                               drawn down the funds by 2:00 p.m. EDT                   Arlington, Virginia. Details regarding                Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by
                                               on September 25, 2015 FTA would be                      the meeting can be found at https://                  phone at 202–493–0591, or email at
                                               unable to reimburse the grantee.                        primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/                        amy.nelson@dot.gov.
                                               Therefore, grantees with open ARRA                      MtgHome.mtg?mtg=106.                                  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                               grants must ensure project activities are                  You may submit written comments
                                               completed and all funds are drawdown                                                                          I. Background
                                                                                                       identified by Docket No. PHMSA–2014–                  II. Dropped Attributes
                                               by 2:00 p.m. EDT on September 25,                       0092 through one of the following                        A. Installation Method if Pipe Segment
                                               2015. For ARRA TIGER I projects, the                    methods:                                                    Crosses Water Body Which is 100 Feet in
                                               same requirement will be in effect for                     • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://                    Width or Greater
                                               the end of FY 2016.                                     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online                   B. Year of Last Direct Assessment
                                                                                                       instructions for submitting comments.                    C. Type of Leak Detection
                                               Therese W. McMillan,
                                                                                                          • Fax: 1–202–493–2251                                 D. Special Permit Segment and Permit
                                               Acting Administrator.                                                                                               Number
                                                                                                          • Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket
                                               [FR Doc. 2015–21242 Filed 8–26–15; 8:45 am]                                                                      E. Offshore Gas Gathering Line (Y/N)
                                                                                                       Management Facility, U.S. Department                     F. Average Daily Throughput
                                               BILLING CODE P
                                                                                                       of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey                       G. Refineries
                                                                                                       Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12–                     H. Gas Processing and Treatment Plants
                                               DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION                            140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9                  III. Kept Attributes
                                                                                                       a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through                          A. Positional Accuracy (changed from
                                               Pipeline and Hazardous Materials                        Friday, except on Federal holidays.                         previous 60-day notice)
                                               Safety Administration                                      • Instructions: Identify the docket                   B. Pipe Diameter
                                                                                                       number PHMSA–2014–0092 at the                            C. Wall Thickness
                                               [Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0092]                                                                                     D. Commodity Detail
                                                                                                       beginning of your comments. Note that
                                                                                                                                                                E. Pipe Material
                                                                                                       all comments received will be posted                     F. Pipe Grade
                                               Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision
                                                                                                       without change to http://                                G. Pipe Join Method
                                               of a Previously Approved Information
                                                                                                       www.regulations.gov, including any                       H. Highest Percent Operating SMYS
                                               Collection: National Pipeline Mapping
                                                                                                       personal information provided. You                       I. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/
                                               System Program (OMB Control No.
                                                                                                       should know that anyone is able to                          Maximum Operating Pressure
                                               2137–0596)                                                                                                       J. Seam Type
                                                                                                       search the electronic form of all
                                               AGENCY:  Pipeline and Hazardous                         comments received in any of our                          K. Year or Decade of Installation
                                               Materials Safety Administration                         dockets by the name of the individual                    L. Onshore/Offshore
                                                                                                                                                                M. Inline Inspection
                                               (PHMSA), DOT.                                           submitting the comment (or signing the
                                                                                                                                                                N. Class Location
                                               ACTION: Notice of public meeting and                    comment, if submitted on behalf of an                    O. Gas HCA Segment
                                               request for comments.                                   association, business, labor union, etc.).               P. Segment Could Affect an HCA
                                                                                                       Therefore, you may want to review                        Q. Year of Last ILI
                                               SUMMARY:   PHMSA invites public                         DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement                     R. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic
                                               comments on our intention to request                    in the Federal Register published on                        Protection
                                               the Office of Management and Budget’s                   April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or visit                   S. Type of Coating
                                               (OMB) approval to revise this                           http://www.regulations.gov before                        T. FRP Control Number and Sequence
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               information collection. On July 30,                     submitting any such comments.                               Number, if Applicable
                                               2014, (79 FR 44246) PHMSA published                        • Docket: For access to the docket or                 U. Year and Pressure of Last and Original
                                                                                                                                                                   Pressure Test
                                               a notice and request for comments in                    to read background documents or                          V. Abandoned Pipelines
                                               the Federal Register titled: ‘‘Pipeline                 comments, go to http://                                  W. Pump and Compressor Stations
                                               Safety: Request for Revision of a                       www.regulations.gov at any time or to                    X. Mainline Block Valves
                                               Previously Approved Information                         Room W12–140 on the ground level of                      Y. Gas Storage Fields
                                               Collection: National Pipeline Mapping                   DOT’s West Building, 1200 New Jersey                     Z. Breakout Tanks



                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00059   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices                                          52085

                                                 AA. LNG Attributes                                    Texas Pipeline Association                              • Strengthen the effectiveness of
                                               IV. General Comments                                    Vectren                                               PHMSA’s risk rankings and evaluations,
                                                 A. Reporting                                             PHMSA is publishing this notice to                 which are used as a factor in
                                                 B. Burden                                                                                                   determining pipeline inspection priority
                                                                                                       address and respond to the comments
                                                 C. Legality
                                                 D. Data Security                                      received. Please note that technical                  and frequency.
                                                 E. INGAA Counter-Proposal                             details pertaining to the new data                      • Allow for more effective assistance
                                                 F. Definitions                                        elements such as domains and reporting                to emergency responders by providing
                                               V. Timeline for Collection of New Data                  requirements for each attribute can be                them with a more reliable, complete
                                                    Elements                                           found in the NPMS Operator Standards                  dataset of pipelines and facilities.
                                               VI. Summary of Impacted Collection                      Manual.                                                 • Provide better support to PHMSA’s
                                                                                                          The data being requested is the first              inspectors by providing more accurate
                                               I. Background                                                                                                 pipeline locations and additional
                                                                                                       substantial update to NPMS submission
                                                  On July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246)                      requirements since the NPMS standards                 pipeline-related geospatial data that can
                                               PHMSA published a notice and request                    were developed in 1998. The NPMS is                   be linked to tabular data in PHMSA’s
                                               for comments in the Federal Register                    PHMSA’s only dataset which tracks                     inspection database.
                                               titled: ‘‘Pipeline Safety: Request for                  where pipe characteristics occur,                       • Better support PHMSA’s research
                                               Revision of a Previously Approved                       instead of how much/how many of                       and development programs by helping
                                               Information Collection: National                        those characteristics are in PHMSA’s                  to predict the impact of new technology
                                               Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS)                          regulated pipelines. In PHMSA’s last                  on regulated pipelines.
                                               Program (OMB Control No. 2137–0596)’’                   Congressional reauthorization, Section                II. Dropped Attributes
                                               seeking comments on proposed changes                    60132(a) stated that PHMSA has the
                                               to the NPMS data collection. Within this                power to collect ‘‘any other geospatial or               PHMSA received wide-ranging
                                               notice, PHMSA laid out its intentions to                technical data, including design and                  comments that provided various points
                                               revise the currently approved NPMS                      material specifications, which the                    of view on the proposed attributes and
                                               data collection to expand the data                      Secretary determines are necessary to                 the effect the collection of this data
                                               attributes collected and to improve the                 carry out the purposes of this section.               would have on the Pipeline Safety
                                               positional accuracy of NPMS                             The Secretary shall give reasonable                   program, the pipeline industry, and the
                                               submissions. On November 17, 2014,                      notice to operators that the data are                 general public. After much research and
                                               PHMSA held a public meeting to grant                    being requested.’’ The National                       consideration, PHMSA has decided not
                                               the public an opportunity to learn more                 Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)                    to move forward with the following
                                               about PHMSA’s proposal, to ask                          recommendation P–11–8 states that                     attributes at this time. PHMSA reserves
                                               pertinent questions about the collection,               PHMSA should ‘‘require operators of                   the right to reconsider including these
                                               and to offer suggestions regarding the                  natural gas transmission and                          attributes in the future.
                                               path forward. Details about the meeting,                distribution pipelines and hazardous                  A. Installation Method if Pipe Segment
                                               including copies of the meeting’s                       liquid pipelines to provide system-                   Crosses Water Body Which is 100 Feet
                                               presentation files, can be found at                     specific information about their pipeline             in Width or Greater
                                               http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/                   systems to the emergency response
                                                                                                       agencies of the communities and                          PHMSA originally proposed that
                                               MtgHome.mtg?mtg=101. PHMSA                                                                                    operators submit data on the installation
                                               encouraged participants of the meeting                  jurisdictions in which those pipelines
                                                                                                       are located. This information should                  method of pipe segments that cross
                                               to submit comments on the proposed                                                                            bodies of water greater than 100 feet in
                                               attributes to docket PHMSA–2014–0092.                   include pipe diameter, operating
                                                                                                       pressure, product transported, and                    width. Operators would have selected
                                               During the 60-day comment period,                                                                             from options such as open cut,
                                               PHMSA received input from 28                            potential impact radius.’’ Other NTSB
                                                                                                       recommendations are cited below with                  trenchless technologies, pipe spans, etc.
                                               different commenters comprised of                                                                             The Pipeline Safety Trust and COGENT
                                               pipeline operators, industry and interest               the attributes they address.
                                                                                                          Specifically, the new data elements                supported including this information as
                                               groups, and the general public.                                                                               originally proposed. Energy Transfer
                                               Commenters include:                                     will:
                                                                                                          • Aid the industry and all levels of               Partners submitted comments indicating
                                               Ameren Illinois                                                                                               a willingness to provide this
                                                                                                       government, from Federal to municipal,
                                               Ameren Missouri                                                                                               information but noted that for many
                                                                                                       in promoting public awareness of
                                               American Fuel & Petrochemical                                                                                 lines this information may not exist.
                                                                                                       hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
                                                  Manufacturers                                                                                              The American Gas Association (AGA),
                                                                                                       in improving emergency responder
                                               American Gas Association                                                                                      the Texas Pipeline Association (TPA),
                                               Anonymous                                               outreach. Currently, 787 Federal
                                                                                                       officials, 1,208 state officials and 4,791            TransCanada, InterMountain Energy
                                               APGA via John Erickson
                                                                                                       county officials have access to the                   Company, and the American Petroleum
                                               CenterPoint Energy
                                               Chuck Lesniak                                           online mapping application. Providing                 Institute commenting jointly with
                                               COGENT                                                  these officials with an improved NPMS                 Association of Oil Pipelines (API/AOPL)
                                               Consumers Energy Company                                containing system-specific information                noted that the installation method does
                                               Dan Ferguson for Enbridge Pipelines                     about local pipeline facilities can help              not provide a reliable estimate for the
                                               INGAA                                                   ensure emergency response agencies                    depth of cover. Spectra Energy Partners
                                               Intermountain Gas Company                               and communities are better prepared                   and Vectren submitted comments
                                               MidAmerican Energy Company                              and can better execute response                       suggesting that this attribute would not
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               Northern Natural Gas                                    operations during incidents.                          be useful for risk assessments. Avista
                                               Pipeline Safety Trust                                      • Permit more powerful and accurate                commented that they did not possess
                                               Questar Gas Company                                     tabular and geospatial analysis, which                this information within their
                                               Questar Pipeline Company                                will strengthen PHMSA’s ability to                    Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
                                               Rodney Begnaud                                          evaluate existing and proposed                        infrastructure. PHMSA has decided not
                                               Southwest Gas Corporation                               regulations as well as operator programs              to move forward with including this
                                               Spectra Energy Partners                                 and/or procedures.                                    attribute in the NPMS at this time.


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00060   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                               52086                       Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices

                                               B. Year of Last Direct Assessment                       permits, requiring operators to submit                attribute. These groups primarily
                                                  PHMSA originally proposed to collect                 this information would be duplicative.                claimed that these facilities are outside
                                               the year and type of last direct                        At this time PHMSA believes it would                  of PHMSA’s regulatory jurisdiction and
                                               assessment, as it is used to verify the                 be better to collect this information via             that pipeline operators do not control
                                               integrity of the pipeline and is used in                inspections or the special permitting                 them. Due to potential jurisdictional
                                                                                                       and reporting process itself rather than              issues, PHMSA is not moving forward
                                               pipeline risk calculations. Comments
                                                                                                       in this revision to the NPMS.                         with this attribute for this revision to
                                               received from the Pipeline Safety Trust
                                                                                                                                                             the NPMS.
                                               supported including this attribute while                E. Offshore Gas Gathering Line (Y/N)
                                               those from TransCanada, Vectren,                           PHMSA proposed that operators of                   H. Gas Processing and Treatment Plants
                                               Energy Transfer, TPA, and AGA were                      offshore gas gathering pipelines make                    PHMSA proposes gas transmission
                                               opposed. PHMSA has determined that                      NPMS data submissions. PHMSA                          operators submit a geospatial point file
                                               the year and type of the last Inline                    received comments from COGENT and                     containing the locations of gas process/
                                               Inspection Instrument (ILI) assessment                  Energy Transfer Partners, whom were                   treatment plants. PHMSA received a
                                               and last pressure test were most                        not opposed to including this attribute               comment from COGENT in support of
                                               valuable for integrity evaluation.                      to NPMS. COGENT requested all                         including this attribute and another
                                               Further, PHMSA determined that the                      onshore gathering lines be required to                comment from Energy Transfer
                                               data regarding which lines have been                    submit data to NPMS. TPA submitted                    indicating a willingness to provide this
                                               subject to direct assessment can be                     comments claiming that this attribute                 information. Critical comments from
                                               deduced. As a result, PHMSA has                         would create a new class of pipelines                 AFPM,1 0474147Spectra Energy
                                               decided not to move forward with this                   and is therefore not an appropriate                   Partners, API/AOPL, TPA, and AGA
                                               attribute at this time.                                 action for an information collection                  strongly opposed the inclusion of this
                                               C. Type of Leak Detection                               revision. PHMSA has decided not to                    attribute. These groups claimed these
                                                                                                       move forward with including this                      facilities are outside of PHMSA’s
                                                  PHMSA proposed that operators                        attribute in the NPMS at this time.                   regulatory jurisdiction and that pipeline
                                               submit information on the type of leak                                                                        operators do not control them. Due to
                                               detection system used. Comments                         F. Average Daily Throughput
                                                                                                                                                             potential jurisdictional issues, PHMSA
                                               submitted by the Pipeline Safety Trust                    Throughput is used to denote a                      is not moving forward with this
                                               and COGENT supported including the                      pipeline’s capacity by stating the                    attribute for this revision to the NPMS.
                                               attribute. The American Petroleum                       pipeline’s ability to flow a measured
                                               Institute, commenting jointly with                      amount of product per unit of time.                   III. Retained Attributes
                                               Association of Oil Pipelines (API/                      PHMSA received a positive comment                        After careful consideration of the
                                               AOPL), did not oppose including this                    from COGENT supporting the inclusion                  comments received, along with the
                                               attribute. However, API/AOPL                            of this attribute in the NPMS. PHMSA                  agency’s Pipeline Safety goals, PHMSA
                                               requested delayed compliance as part of                 received comments from 13 major                       has decided to move forward with the
                                               a three-phase implementation and that                   industry trade associations and                       proposal to collect geospatial data on
                                               PHMSA include the option to submit                      operators strongly opposed to collecting              the following pipeline attributes:
                                               more than one type of leak detection                    this attribute. Those opposed primarily
                                               technology. The remaining comments                      argued that this attribute exceeds                    A. Positional Accuracy
                                               from TransCanada, Spectra Energy                        PHMSA’s regulatory authority, and that                   PHMSA originally proposed that for
                                               Partners, Vectren, Energy Transfer                      the data requested poses a security and               pipeline segments located within Class
                                               Partners, Energy Transfer, DTE Gas                      commercial risk. AGA, TPA, Avista,                    3, Class 4, High Consequence Areas
                                               Company, TPA, and AGA were critical                     Spectra Energy Partners, and                          (HCA), or ‘‘could affect’’ High
                                               of including this attribute. These                      InterMountain Gas Company further                     Consequence Areas (HCAs), operators
                                               comments focused primarily on the lack                  noted that this information is difficult to           submit data to the NPMS with a
                                               of a perceived safety or risk benefit for               measure, collect, and report due to                   positional accuracy of five feet. PHMSA
                                               knowing what leak detection                             constant fluctuations in market forces                further proposed that for all pipeline
                                               technologies were in place.                             and pipeline flow. American Fuel and                  segments located within Class 1 or Class
                                               InterMountain Gas Company and Avista                    Petrochemical Manufacturers, TPA, and                 2 locations, operators submit data to the
                                               noted that they did not have this                       InterMountain questioned the risk                     NPMS with a positional accuracy of 50
                                               information on a geospatial level within                assessment and emergency response                     feet.
                                               their GIS infrastructure. PHMSA has                     value of collecting this information.                    PHMSA received 24 comments on
                                               decided not to move forward with                        PHMSA has decided not to proceed                      positional accuracy. COGENT’s
                                               including this attribute in the NPMS at                 with this attribute as proposed, due to               comments supported the original
                                               this time.                                              potential jurisdictional conflict with the            proposal of five foot positional
                                                                                                       Department of Energy.                                 accuracy. The Pipeline Safety Trust
                                               D. Special Permit Segment and Permit                                                                          echoed this support, and noted many
                                               Number                                                  G. Refineries                                         states already require more stringent
                                                 PHMSA proposed that operators                            PHMSA proposes liquid pipeline                     accuracy standards though did not cite
                                               denote whether a pipe segment is part                   operators submit a geospatial point file              a specific figure. PHMSA received a
                                               of a PHMSA special permit and report                    containing the locations of refineries.               number of comments from industry
                                               the special permit number. PHMSA                        PHMSA received a comment from                         associations and operators which
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               received comments from COGENT and                       COGENT in support of including this                   recognized the need for improved
                                               Spectra Energy Transfer supporting                      attribute and another comment from                    positional accuracy, but were highly
                                               including this attribute as well as                     Energy Transfer indicating a willingness              critical of the five foot positional
                                               critical comments from API/AOPL,                        to provide this information. Critical                 accuracy standard. Commenters noted
                                               TPA, Energy Transfer, and                               comments from AFPM, Spectra Energy                    that the vast majority of mileage was not
                                               TransCanada. Those opposed argued                       Partners, API/AOPL, TPA, and AGA                      mapped to this level of precision, and
                                               that since PHMSA issues special                         strongly opposed the inclusion of this                that some portions of this mileage may


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00061   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices                                            52087

                                               be impossible to survey to the requested                Pipeline Mapping System.’’                            over time. Energy Transfer requested
                                               accuracy. API/AOPL’s comment                            Additionally, PHMSA needs to improve                  clarification on whether this attribute
                                               suggested a positional accuracy of fifty                its ability to identify pipe segments                 would be reported on a predominate
                                               feet would be reasonable, while INGAA                   which cross water. Many recent                        basis. AGA commented that an attribute
                                               proposed requiring fifty foot accuracy in               pipeline accidents, such as the                       indicating whether a pipeline was
                                               70% of mileage and 100 foot elsewhere.                  Yellowstone River accident earlier this               operating above 30% SMYS would
                                               INGAA’s comments were supported by                      year, have occurred at or near water                  capture most rupture risk. TPA and
                                               AGA, Questar, DTE Gas Company,                          crossings. Pipeline right-of-ways                     Vectren submitted comments arguing
                                               Energy Transfer, Spectra Energy                         frequently run alongside water bodies                 that this attribute is not a necessary risk
                                               Partners, a representative of Enbridge,                 and PHMSA requires better positional                  measure if percentage of SMYS is
                                               and Questar Pipeline. These operators                   accuracy to determine whether a pipe is               measured. Spectra Energy Partners
                                               proposed requiring fifty-foot accuracy in               running alongside water or under the                  commented that many interstate gas
                                               70% of mileage and 100-foot elsewhere.                  water body.                                           lines have many changes in wall
                                               TransCanada suggested a positional                                                                            thickness; therefore, capturing this
                                                                                                       B. Pipe Diameter
                                               accuracy of 100-foot was sufficient.                                                                          information on an actual basis would
                                               Texas Pipeline Association commented                       PHMSA originally proposed requiring                greatly increase segmentation of the
                                               that the average positional accuracy                    operators to submit data on the nominal               data. PHMSA intends to collect this
                                               reported by its members was 200-foot.                   diameter of a pipe segment. Knowing                   information as originally proposed. For
                                               MidAmerican, APGA, SW Gas, and                          the diameter of a pipeline can help                   clarification, PHMSA is requesting the
                                               Avista noted that the current                           emergency responders determine the                    nominal wall thickness. This
                                               requirement reflects the technical                      impact area of a pipeline in the event of             information will not be collected on a
                                               capability of their GIS data and the Gas                a release. This attribute also gives                  predominant basis. PHMSA analysts
                                               Producers Association stated that                       PHMSA the opportunity to gain a                       and inspectors identified this as a
                                               several hundred feet was sufficient for                 broader understanding of the diameters                fundamental piece of descriptive
                                               emergency response and planning.                        of pipe being operated in any given                   information for pipeline risk. This
                                                                                                       geographical region, and to further                   information is especially critical for
                                                  PHMSA proposes that hazardous                        assess potential impacts to public safety
                                               liquid pipeline operators submit data                                                                         determining the relative risk of
                                                                                                       and the environment.                                  corrosion.
                                               with a positional accuracy of ± 50 feet.                   PHMSA received eleven comments in
                                               Gas transmission operators are required                 support of including mandatory                        D. Commodity Detail
                                               to submit data at ± 50 feet accuracy for                reporting of pipe diameter in the revised                PHMSA proposed operators submit
                                               all segments which are in a Class 2,                    information collection. This included                 commodity details for pipelines if the
                                               Class 3, or Class 4 area; are within a                  industry associations, public interest                transported commodity is crude oil,
                                               HCA or have one or more buildings                       groups, and individual operators. Most                product or natural gas, and
                                               intended for human occupancy; an                        concerns centered on clarification                    subcategories of each. The list of
                                               identified site (See 49 CFR 192.903); a                 regarding whether PHMSA was                           commodity choices is available in the
                                               right-of-way for a designated interstate;               requesting nominal or actual diameter.                NPMS Operator Standards Manual
                                               freeway, expressway, or other principal                 Those commentators included Questar,                  (Appendix A). Other choices may be
                                               4-lane arterial roadway as defined in the               TransCanada, Spectra, SW Gas, PST,                    added as the need arises.
                                               Federal Highway Administration’s                        COGENT, INGAA, API, TPA, and AGA.                        The Pipeline Safety Trust, COGENT
                                               ‘‘Highway Functional Classification                     Energy Transfer was critical of the safety            INGAA, AGA, Questar Pipeline
                                               Concepts’’ within its potential impact                  benefit of incorporating this attribute,              Company, Spectra Energy Partners,
                                               radius. All other gas pipeline segments                 but was willing to provide the                        Energy Transfer Partners, and
                                               must be mapped to a positional                          information.                                          Southwest Gas supported including this
                                               accuracy of ± 100 feet. PHMSA                              PHMSA proposes to move forward                     attribute. Energy Transfer requested
                                               concedes that ± five feet may be                        with this attribute as originally                     clarification, and API/AOPL and
                                               unobtainable for certain locations and is               proposed. This attribute measures the                 TransCanada supported a more limited
                                               difficult to maintain when GIS data is                  nominal pipe diameter in inches to                    version of this attribute as the
                                               reprojected as part of its processing, but              three decimal places. The primary                     commodity in hazardous liquid lines
                                               reiterates its need for a high level of                 benefit for incorporating this attribute is           can change day to day.
                                               positional accuracy. Any accuracy                       that a larger pipe may pose a greater                    PHMSA will move forward with this
                                               standard coarser than 100 feet would                    hazard during a rupture. Knowing the                  collection with minor modifications
                                               not achieve the level of detail required                location of large lines in relation to                from the original proposal. Please see
                                               to make basic estimates of where a                      populated areas will help PHMSA                       the NPMS Operator Standards Manual
                                               pipeline is located with relation to                    effectively prioritize inspections and                for more detailed information on how
                                               communities, infrastructure, and                        emergency response planning.                          this information is to be reported. This
                                               landmarks. These risk-based                                                                                   level of detail is required because of
                                               requirements require greater levels of                  C. Wall Thickness
                                                                                                                                                             potential differences in leak
                                               stringency for locations with the highest                 PHMSA originally proposed to collect                characteristics, rupture-impacted
                                               potential consequences of pipeline                      data on the nominal wall thickness of a               hazardous areas and a pipeline’s
                                               incidents, while reducing the data                      pipe. PHMSA intends to collect this                   internal integrity. Emergency
                                               collection burden for remote pipelines.                 information as originally proposed. The               responders will also be able to better
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               These revisions to the positional                       Pipeline Safety Trust and COGENT                      respond to pipeline incidents if they
                                               accuracy requirements help satisfy the                  supported collecting this information as              know the specific type of commodity
                                               recommendations issued in NTSB                          proposed. API/AOPL submitted                          being transported.
                                               recommendations P–15–4, ‘‘Increase the                  comments expressing a willingness to
                                               positional accuracy of pipeline                         collect this information but requested                E. Pipe Material
                                               centerlines and pipeline attribute details              clarifications of PHMSA’s expectation                   PHMSA originally proposed that
                                               relevant to safety in the National                      and that this requirement be phased in                operators submit data on pipe material.


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00062   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                               52088                       Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices

                                               Operators will be required to submit                    used in PHMSA’s risk rankings and                     I. Maximum Allowable Operating
                                               data on whether a segment was                           evaluations. These models are used to                 Pressure or Maximum Operating
                                               constructed out of cast iron, plastic,                  determine pipeline inspection priority                Pressure (MAOP/MOP)
                                               steel, composite, or other material.                    and frequency.
                                               PHMSA received no opposition from                                                                               PHMSA proposed that operators
                                               commentators. PHMSA proposes to                         H. Highest Percent Operating SMYS                     submit the maximum MAOP or MOP for
                                               move forward with this collection as                                                                          a pipeline segment in pounds per square
                                                                                                          PHMSA proposes operators submit                    inch gauge.
                                               originally introduced. Knowing the pipe                 information pertaining to the percent at
                                               material helps PHMSA determine the                                                                              PHMSA received comments in
                                                                                                       which the pipeline is operating to
                                               level of potential risk from excavation                                                                       support of including this attribute from
                                                                                                       SMYS. Specifically, operators would
                                               damage and external environmental                                                                             COGENT, the Pipeline Safety Trust,
                                                                                                       submit hoop stress corresponding to the
                                               loads. These can also be factors in                                                                           TPA, Energy Transfer Partners, and
                                                                                                       maximum operating pressure (MOP) or
                                               emergency response planning.                                                                                  Spectra Energy Partners. API, AFPM,
                                                                                                       maximum allowable operating pressure
                                                                                                                                                             AGA, Vectren and Southwest Gas
                                               F. Pipe Grade                                           (MAOP) as a percentage of SMYS.
                                                                                                                                                             submitted comments expressing
                                                  PHMSA originally proposed that                       PHMSA uses the established percent                    security concerns. TPA, AGA, and
                                               operators submit information on the                     SMYS to determine low- and high-stress                Vectren suggested that this attribute is
                                               predominant pipe grade of a pipeline                    pipelines, class locations, test                      duplicative of and inferior to percent
                                               segment. The Pipeline Safety Trust                      requirements, inspection intervals, and               SMYS as a risk measure. TransCanada
                                               supported including this attribute and                  other requirements in the pipeline                    suggested replacing this attribute and
                                               API did not oppose its collection. AGA,                 safety regulations.                                   others with one that indicates whether
                                               TPA, and an operator believed this                         AGA, API/AOPL, TPA, Vectren, and                   or not a line is operating below 30
                                               attribute was redundant because                         Southwest Gas raised concerns about                   percent SMYS. PHMSA intends to
                                               percentage of SMYS captured the risk                    securing this information. AGA, TPA,                  collect this information as previously
                                               from pipe grade. TransCanada and                        Intermountain, and DTE Gas Company                    proposed. While superficially similar to
                                               Vectren had concerns about reporting                    further proposed that this attribute                  percent SMYS, MAOP/MOP is not
                                               this attribute on a ‘‘predominant’’ basis.              should be calculated based on                         identical and captures different
                                               Energy Transfer Partners were willing to                Maximum Allowable Operating                           elements of pipeline risk. Specifically,
                                               provide the data but believed the data                  Pressure (MAOP) rather than highest                   PHMSA inspectors identified it as an
                                               format noted is insufficient. This                      observed operating pressure. AGA and a                important element for incident analysis.
                                               information is essential in issues                      number of gas operators proposed to                   MAOP/MOP helps enforce pressure
                                               regarding pipe integrity, and is a                      allow lines operating below 30 percent                levels between segments which are
                                               necessary component in determining                      SMYS be categorized as ‘‘low stress’’                 rated for different pressures. PHMSA
                                               the allowable operating pressure of a                   due to a purported low propensity to                  engineers further noted that it is useful
                                               pipeline. The list of pipe grades is                    rupture. Spectra Energy Partners                      for determining the potential impact
                                               available in the NPMS Operator                          believed that MAOP was a better                       radius. This information will be limited
                                               Standards (Appendix A).                                 measure of pipeline risk and that                     to those with PIMMA access or PHMSA
                                               G. Pipe Join Method                                     PHMSA could calculate either from                     employees.
                                                 PHMSA proposed operators submit                       other attributes submitted via NPMS.
                                                                                                                                                             J. Seam Type
                                               data on the pipe join method. Operators                 API further suggested that this should
                                               will indicate whether pipes within the                  be a ‘‘phase 2’’ action. PHMSA intends                   PHMSA proposed operators submit
                                               segment were welded, coupled,                           to move forward with this attribute as                data on the seam type of each pipe
                                               screwed, flanged, used plastic pipe                     originally proposed. PHMSA uses the                   segment. Options include: SM =
                                               joints, or other.                                       percentage of operating SMYS to                       Seamless, LERW = Low frequency or
                                                 COGENT and the Pipeline Safety                        determine low- and high-stress                        direct current electric resistance
                                               Trust submitted comments supporting                     pipelines, class locations, test                      welded, HERW = High frequency
                                               including this information. Spectra                     requirements, inspection intervals, and               electric resistance welded, DSAW =
                                               Energy Partners and Energy Transfer                     other requirements in the pipeline                    Double submerged arc weld, SAW =
                                               Partners submitted comments opposed                     safety regulations. Percentage of SMYS                Submerged arc weld, EFW = Electric
                                               to incorporating this attribute on a joint-             is required for determining and                       fusion weld, LW = Furnace lap weld,
                                               by-joint basis, though Energy Transfer                  confirming MAOP and Maximum                           FBW = Furnace butt weld, PLAS =
                                               Partners was receptive to reporting this                Operating Pressure (MOP). This                        Plastic or OTHER = Other.
                                               information on a predominant basis.                     information also helps PHMSA to                          The Pipeline Safety Trust, COGENT,
                                               TPA, TransCanada, and Vectren                           determine the regulations applicable to               Southwest Gas supported including this
                                               submitted comments critical of the                      each pipe segment along with the                      attribute as proposed. Vectren, Energy
                                               value of this attribute for risk                        probable toughness of the steel and a                 Transfer, and DTE Gas Company noted
                                               assessment. InterMountain,                              segment’s likelihood of rupturing.                    that information may not always be
                                               MidAmerican, and Avista noted that                         In order to safeguard this information,            available and PHMSA has not allowed
                                               they did not have this information in                   this information will only be available               an ‘‘unknown’’ option. AGA and TPA
                                               their mapping systems, and AGA and                      to individuals with access to the                     were opposed to collecting this
                                               API/AOPL noted that it would be                         password protected Pipeline                           information at this time as it may be
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               burdensome for many operators to                        Information Management Mapping                        part of a pending rulemaking. Spectra
                                               collect and record this information.                    Application (PIMMA) site. PHMSA                       Energy Partners further noted that long
                                               Energy Transfer Partners commented                      needs to collect both percent SMYS and                interstate lines may have many changes
                                               that this information is on the annual                  MAOP because, though technically                      in seam type. TransCanada commended
                                               reports. PHMSA analysts and inspectors                  similar, they encapsulate different                   that this was not as effective of a risk
                                               would use this information to identify                  aspects of the potential risk to the                  measure as some other pipeline
                                               high-risk joining methods and will be                   public.                                               characteristics.


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00063   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices                                          52089

                                                 PHMSA intends to collect this                         API/AOPL, Spectra Energy Partners, and                N. Class Location
                                               information with the possibility of                     Energy Transfer Partners were willing to                 Operators of gas transmission pipeline
                                               limiting it to Classes 3, 4, and HCAs.                  provide this information but requested                segments will be required to submit
                                               This information is used to determine                   guidance on defining ‘‘offshore                       information on class location (49 CFR
                                               which type of integrity management                      pipelines’’ for the purpose of this                   192.5) at the segment level.
                                               inspection assessment should apply, is                  information collection. API/AOPL                         PHMSA received eight comments on
                                               important for risk analysis due to                      further recommended that this                         this attribute which were generally
                                               certain time-dependent risky seam types                 information be password protected                     positive. COGENT, Spectra Energy
                                               (LF–ERW), and is used to confirm                        under PIMMA.                                          Partners, Southwest Gas, TPA, and AGA
                                               MAOP.                                                      PHMSA will move forward with this                  submitted comments supporting
                                               K. Decade of Installation                               attribute as originally proposed. To aid              including this attribute. TransCanada
                                                                                                       compliance and standardization,                       opposed, stating that PHMSA can
                                                  PHMSA originally proposed that                       PHMSA will issue guidance in the
                                               operators submit data on the                                                                                  collect this information at audits and
                                                                                                       NPMS Operator Standards Manual on                     inspections. Avista indicated that they
                                               predominant year of original                            how to determine whether a pipeline is
                                               construction (or installation). The year                                                                      did not have this information within
                                                                                                       offshore or onshore for the purpose of                their GIS infrastructure. Spectra Energy
                                               of construction determines which                        this information collection.
                                               regulations apply to a pipeline for                                                                           Partners and Energy Transfer submitted
                                                                                                       Comparisons between the NPMS                          comments requesting greater clarity and
                                               enforcement purposes. The data                          (PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage
                                               requested pertained to the year of                                                                            guidance on the definition of segments,
                                                                                                       statistics and operator-generated annual              as well as expectations for accuracy for
                                               construction and not the year the pipe                  report offshore mileage statistics do not
                                               was manufactured. On the annual                                                                               the purpose of this collection.
                                                                                                       match. This collection will allow                        PHMSA intends to collect this
                                               report, operators report the decade of                  PHMSA to standardize and compare the
                                               installation. As a result of this revised                                                                     information as originally proposed.
                                                                                                       statistics for regulatory purposes.                   Operators may consult the NPMS
                                               collection, operators will be able to
                                               submit data on the predominant decade                   M. Inline Inspection                                  Operator Standards Manual for help in
                                               of construction or installation.                                                                              defining segments. This information is a
                                                                                                          PHMSA originally proposed that                     critical measure of population risk, and
                                               Predominant is defined as 90 percent or                 operators indicate whether their system
                                               higher of the pipe segment being                                                                              is necessary to ensure that integrity
                                                                                                       is capable of accommodating an ILI tool.              management rules are properly applied
                                               submitted to the NPMS.
                                                  Comments from both public safety                        The Pipeline Safety Trust and                      to high-risk areas. Survey requirements
                                               advocacy groups and pipeline operators                  COGENT strongly supported including                   vary based on class location, and this
                                               were generally positive. AGA and TPA                    this attribute, as did a number of                    data is valuable for prioritizing,
                                               recommended defining this attribute as                  industry entities including                           planning, and conducting inspections.
                                               the year that the segment was placed in                 TransCanada, Spectra Energy Partners,
                                                                                                       and Energy Transfer. INGAA and                        O. Gas HCA Segment
                                               service. Vectren recommended defining
                                               this on a segment-by-segment basis                      Questar proposed a simplified yes/no                     PHMSA proposed gas transmission
                                               rather than on a predominant basis. API                 version of this attribute. API and TPA                operators identify pipe segments which
                                               suggested this be phase 2 in a 3 phase                  were receptive to including this                      ‘‘could affect’’ HCAs as defined by 49
                                               implementation and to allow operators                   information but questioned the safety                 CFR 192.903.
                                               to submit data by decade for lines                      benefit. AGA and DTE Gas Company                         AGA, INGAA, TPA, TransCanada,
                                               installed before 1990. Southwest Gas                    submitted critical comments citing                    Energy Transfer, Questar Pipeline
                                               had security concerns and TransCanada                   difficulty of compliance given the                    Company, and COGENT supported
                                               and Spectra Energy Partners submitted                   ongoing technological development in                  collecting data regarding Gas HCAs.
                                               comments doubting the significance of                   pipeline assessment tools.                            AGA, Vectren, and Intermountain
                                               year of construction on pipeline safety                 InterMountain Gas Company and Avista                  requested clarification on how ‘‘could
                                               risk. TransCanada further noted that this               noted that they did not have this                     affect’’ HCAs impact gas operators.
                                               information is already collected on                     information in their GIS infrastructure.                 PHMSA intends to move forward with
                                               annual reports.                                         Vectren noted their view that the                     the HCA attributes as originally
                                                  Collecting this information                          information was not needed for risk                   proposed. This information will help
                                               geospatially rather than in tabular form                ranking and was already on the annual                 emergency responders identify areas
                                               in the annual reports allows PHMSA to                   report.                                               with greater potential for significant
                                               run better risk-ranking algorithms                         PHMSA intends to collect this                      damage. Additionally, these attributes
                                               through pattern analysis and relating                   information as originally proposed. For               identify areas subject to integrity
                                               pipe attributes to surrounding                          the purpose of this information                       management procedures. PHMSA has
                                               geographical areas. Identifying and                     collection, this attribute denotes                    explicit statutory authority to map high-
                                               protecting aging infrastructure is a DOT                whether a line is capable of accepting an             consequence areas under 49 U.S.C.
                                               priority and collecting this information                inline inspection tool with currently                 60132(d). Gas operators are only
                                               allows PHMSA to better understand and                   available technology. Inline Inspection               expected to submit information on
                                               plan for age-dependent threats.                         methods information is useful for                     whether that segment lies within an
                                                                                                       tracking progress related to NTSB                     HCA as defined in 49 CFR 192.903.
                                               L. Onshore/Offshore                                     recommendations P–15–18 and P–15–20
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                       which recommend that all natural gas                  P. Segment Could Affect an HCA
                                                  Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA proposes
                                               operators designate whether a pipe                      transmission pipelines be capable of                    PHMSA proposed hazardous liquid
                                               segment is onshore or offshore.                         being in-line inspected and that PHMSA                and gas transmission operators identify
                                                  PHMSA received four comments on                      ‘‘identify all operational complications              pipe segments which could affect HCAs
                                               this attribute which were generally                     that limit the use of in-line inspection              as defined by 49 CFR 195.450. Pipe
                                               supportive. COGENT supported                            tools in piggable pipelines’’                         segments can be classified as affecting a
                                               including this information as proposed.                 respectively.                                         populated area, an ecologically sensitive


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00064   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                               52090                       Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices

                                               area, or a sole-source drinking water                   simplified binary yes/no version of this              contains a designation if the operator
                                               area.                                                   attribute, possibly reported on a                     has researched, but not found, the year
                                                  TPA and COGENT supported                             predominant basis. Intermountain and                  of the original pressure test.
                                               including this information as proposed.                 Avista indicated that they did not                       The Pipeline Safety Trust, COGENT
                                               API/AOPL, the American Fuel and                         collect this information in their GIS                 and Energy Transfer Partners supported
                                               Petrochemical Manufacturers, and                        infrastructure.                                       including this attribute. API/AOPL,
                                               TransCanada had security concerns                          PHMSA intends to move forward with                 TPA, and AGA questioned the value of
                                               with including this data element.                       this attribute as proposed. The presence              this attribute, especially the original
                                                  PHMSA intends to move forward with                   and type of coating on a pipeline has a               pressure test, noting that it will greatly
                                               the ‘‘could affect HCA’’ attribute as                   significant impact on corrosion, which                increase segmentation of the dataset.
                                               originally proposed. This information                   remains a major source of risk to both                API further suggested dropping the
                                               will help emergency response planners                   gas transmission and hazardous liquid                 original pressure test information.
                                               identify areas with greater potential for               pipelines.                                            TransCanada, Spectra Energy Partners,
                                               significant damage. Additionally it                                                                           and Vectren were all opposed to
                                               identifies areas subject to integrity                   S. Type of Coating                                    collecting this attribute. Avista noted
                                               management procedures. PHMSA has                          See previous section. The choices for               that they did not have this information
                                               explicit statutory authority to map high-               type of coating (from the NPMS                        in their GIS infrastructure.
                                               consequence areas under 49 U.S.C.                       Operator Standards Manual) are: coal tar                 PHMSA intends to move forward with
                                               60132(d), and NTSB recommendation                       enamel, fusion bonded epoxy, asphalt,                 this attribute as originally proposed
                                               P–15–5 states that PHMSA should                         cold applied tape, polyolefin, extruded               with slight modifications. PHMSA will
                                               ‘‘revise the submission requirement to                  polyethylene, field-applied epoxy,                    allow the more flexible ‘‘pressure test’’
                                               include HCA identification as an                        paint, composite, other, and no coating.              language in recognition of some
                                               attribute data element to the National                                                                        alternative testing methodologies
                                                                                                       T. FRP Control Number and Sequence                    available to liquid operators. This
                                               Pipeline Mapping System.’’ This
                                                                                                       Number, if Applicable                                 information is critical for risk
                                               information will be secured with the
                                               PIMMA system to mitigate potential                        PHMSA proposed operators submit                     assessment. The time elapsed from the
                                               security risks.                                         the Facility Response Plan control                    last hydrostatic test increases risk of
                                                                                                       number and sequence number for                        failure.
                                               Q. Year of Last ILI                                     applicable liquid pipeline segments.
                                                                                                         COGENT, API/AOPL, Spectra Energy                    V. Abandoned Pipelines
                                                  PHMSA proposes operators submit
                                               data detailing the year of a pipeline’s                 Partners, and Energy Transfer Partners                   PHMSA proposed that all gas
                                               last corrosion, dent, crack or ‘‘other’’ ILI            were not opposed to collecting this                   transmission and hazardous liquid
                                               assessment. The Pipeline Safety Trust,                  information; API requested this                       pipelines abandoned after the effective
                                               COGENT, and API/AOPL supported                          information be protected by PIMMA.                    date of this information collection be
                                               including this attribute, though the                    TransCanada viewed it as a potential                  mandatory submissions to the NPMS.
                                               latter suggested protecting this                        security risk, and supported only                     Abandoned lines are not currently
                                               information with PIMMA and delaying                     including the plan number. AGA and                    required to be submitted to the NPMS.
                                               compliance to Phase Two of their three-                 TPA opposed this data element,                        Operators would only need to submit
                                               phase plan. INGAA, AGA, Spectra and                     suggesting that it is not needed for risk             this data in the calendar year after the
                                               Vectren questioned the safety value of                  prioritization and is therefore not                   abandonment occurs. API/AOPL,
                                               including this attribute. Avista noted                  required.                                             Energy Transfer Partners, and Dan
                                               that they did not have this information                   PHMSA intends to move forward with                  Ferguson on behalf of Enbridge
                                               in their GIS infrastructure.                            this attribute as originally proposed.                supported the inclusion of this attribute
                                                  PHMSA intends to move forward with                   Access to the relevant facility response              for newly abandoned lines only. The
                                               this attribute as originally proposed.                  plan number through NPMS would be                     Pipeline Safety Trust noted that the
                                               This information is used to verify                      beneficial to first responders in an                  definition of ‘‘abandoned’’ should
                                               integrity of the pipeline. It is also a key             emergency situation, especially in areas              match the definition in the Pipeline
                                               metric in PHMSA’s pipeline risk                         with multiple pipeline facilities.                    Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 192.3
                                               calculations, which are used to                         Furthermore, this would greatly reduce                and 195.2) to mean permanently
                                               determine the priority and frequency of                 the workload of regional offices and                  abandoned and emptied lines. COGENT
                                               inspections. Inspectors noted that this is              even operators tasked with ensuring                   supported the inclusion of this attribute
                                               important for inspection planning, as a                 compliance with response plan                         but recommended applying the
                                               line which has been recently assessed                   regulations. Since operators are required             requirement retroactively to all
                                               has a statistically lower risk than one                 to have this information, PHMSA                       abandoned pipelines. TPA, DTE Gas,
                                               that has not recently been assessed. This               believes it should be minimally                       and TransCanada submitted comments
                                               information will be protected by being                  burdensome to submit it.                              questioning the need for this
                                               placed in PIMMA.                                                                                              information for risk assessment or
                                                                                                       U. Year and Pressure of Last and                      integrity management calculation. AGA
                                               R. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic                         Original Pressure Test                                had concerns that including this
                                               Protection                                                PHMSA proposed to collect data on a                 attribute would encourage excavators to
                                                  PHMSA proposed operators indicate                    pipeline’s original and most recent                   use NPMS instead of one call in areas
                                               whether a pipe is effectively coated, and               hydrostatic test years and pressures.                 where abandoned lines are expected,
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               if so the type of coating.                              Note that the original pressure test data             noting that there is a potential threat to
                                                  COGENT, Pipeline Safety Trust, TPA,                  will be collected in Phase 3 (see section             telecommunications infrastructure that
                                               TransCanada and Southwest Gas                           V) and the last pressure test data will be            uses abandoned gas lines as cable
                                               Company supported including this                        collected in Phase 1. This is to allow                conduits.
                                               attribute. AGA, INGAA, API/AOPL,                        operators sufficient time to research the                PHMSA intends to move forward with
                                               Questar Pipeline Company, and Spectra                   year of the original pressure test. The               this attribute as originally proposed.
                                               Energy Partners petitioned for a greatly                NPMS Operator Standards Manual also                   This information is important for


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00065   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices                                           52091

                                               PHMSA inspections, particularly to                      Operator Standards Manual. Valve                      zones and year constructed. COGENT
                                               enforce proper abandonment                              location can assist emergency                         and Spectra Energy Partners submitted
                                               procedures. PHMSA inspectors have                       responders when working with pipeline                 comments supporting including this
                                               identified incidents in the past                        operators during an emergency, and it is              attribute. TPA supported making
                                               involving lines which had been                          useful to PHMSA inspectors and                        submitting LNG plant information
                                               mischaracterized as abandoned (i.e. still               partners to identify vulnerable points                mandatory but had security concerns
                                               containing product). Additionally, there                along a pipeline.                                     with the new descriptive attributes
                                               is a high level of public interest in this                                                                    included with this revision. The
                                                                                                       Y. Gas Storage Fields
                                               information. Since operators are already                                                                      American Gas Association claimed that
                                               required to map their lines, identifying                   PHMSA proposes operators submit a                  existing comprehensive risk analyses
                                               recently abandoned segments is not                      geospatial polygon file containing the                performed by the Department of
                                               exceedingly burdensome.                                 locations of and type of gas storage                  Homeland Security means that PHMSA
                                                                                                       fields used in interstate gas transmission            does not need to include this in its risk
                                               W. Pump and Compressor Stations                         systems. PHMSA received comments                      analysis on pipelines.
                                                 PHMSA proposes operators submit a                     from COGENT and Energy Transfer                          PHMSA intends to proceed with this
                                               geospatial point file containing the                    Partners expressing support for                       information as originally proposed.
                                               locations of pump (for liquid operators)                including this attribute. API/AOPL,                   Detailed LNG attributes will be
                                               and compressor (for gas transmission                    AGA, TPA, AFPM, DTE Gas Company,                      protected by access to PIMMA and only
                                               operators) stations. COGENT, Spectra                    and Spectra Energy Partners submitted                 available to PHMSA, state pipeline
                                               Energy Partners, and the Texas Pipeline                 comments strongly opposed to this                     safety officials, and emergency
                                               Association did not oppose this                         proposal. The commenters opposed to                   responders. Geospatial information on
                                               information collection. API/AOPL,                       including this attribute believe it                   the location and characteristics of LNG
                                               TransCanada, and the American Fuel                      exceeds PHMSA’s jurisdiction and                      plants helps PHMSA and emergency
                                               and Petrochemical Manufacturers                         poses a security risk. PHMSA notes that               responders better understand potential
                                               opposed this data collection due to                     the agency has legal jurisdiction over                safety risks on a national and local level
                                               security concerns. PHMSA intends to                     the transportation of gas which includes              respectively.
                                               move forward with this attribute as                     ‘‘storage of gas in or affecting interstate
                                               originally proposed. Pump and                           or foreign commerce’’, by the definition              IV. General Comments
                                               compressor stations are vulnerable                      of transportation of gas in 49 CFR 192.3.             A. Reporting
                                               areas, and emergency responders need                    PHMSA further notes that this
                                               to know their locations for adequate                    information would be available only to                   INGAA, API/AOPL, AGA, and GPA
                                               emergency planning. Proximity to a                      individuals cleared for access to the                 submitted comments indicating that
                                               compressor station has also been known                  PIMMA password protected mapping                      some of the proposed attributes appear
                                               to influence the level of stress on nearby              site. This information would help state               to be duplicative of information that
                                               segments, making this information                       and local emergency response planners                 PHMSA already collects, especially
                                               valuable for prioritizing inspection                    prepare for incidents involving these                 from the annual reports.
                                               resources. Additionally, the stations are               facilities. More details on how to submit             B. Burden
                                               often referenced as inspection                          this data are available in the NPMS
                                               boundaries for PHMSA’s inspectors.                      Operator Standards Manual.                               A number of operators commented
                                               Regarding security concerns, this                                                                             highlighting the expected burden of the
                                               information will be password protected                  Z. Breakout Tanks                                     proposed revisions to the information
                                               under PIMMA, and PHMSA notes that                          PHMSA proposed to require the                      collection. Comments submitted by
                                               this information is already available in                submission of breakout tank data. This                INGAA, API TPA, Ameren, and
                                               commercial datasets.                                    is currently an optional submission; this             MidAmerican claimed that PHMSA
                                                                                                       revision would make it mandatory.                     greatly underestimated the expected
                                               X. Mainline Block Valves                                                                                      burden of this revision. AGA, Ameren
                                                                                                       PHMSA received positive comments
                                                  PHMSA proposes operators submit a                    from COGENT, API/AOPL, Texas                          Illinois, Laclede Gas Co. and
                                               geospatial point file containing the                    Pipeline Association, and Spectra                     TransCanada noted that a high
                                               locations of mainline block valves, the                 Energy Partners. API requested security               regulatory burden could divert
                                               type of valves and the type of valve                    safeguards, and Spectra wanted                        resources from other safety initiatives
                                               operators. PHMSA received comments                      clarification if it was a point file for              such as integrity management and
                                               from Spectra Energy Partners and                        each tank or the boundary of a tank                   infrastructure replacement activities.
                                               Energy Transfer Partners, who were                      farm.                                                 Intermountain, Avista, Ameren
                                               unopposed to the inclusion of this                         PHMSA intends to proceed with this                 Missouri, Ameren Illinois, Southwest
                                               attribute in NPMS. TPA conceded that                    attribute as originally proposed. As                  Gas, AGA, and INGAA noted that many
                                               valve location could be useful for                      detailed in the NPMS Operator                         of the proposed changes were beyond
                                               PHMSA risk evaluation, but that the                     Standards Manual, this information will               the capability of their existing GIS, and
                                               valve type component of the attribute                   be stored as a point file for each tank.              would require resources to upgrade
                                               had no safety benefit. AGA, TPA,                        This helps inspectors locate individual               systems and hire individuals to convert
                                               Energy Transfer Partners, DTE Gas                       tanks as a tank farm may contain both                 non-GIS or paper records to an
                                               Company, Vectren, and TransCanada                       breakout tanks and other tanks.                       appropriate format.
                                               noted that this information is not
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               valuable to emergency responders as                     AA. LNG Attributes                                    C. Legality
                                               they are not permitted to operate block                    PHMSA proposed to collect                            INGAA, AGA, API/AOPL, and
                                               valves. Comments from API/AOPL and                      additional data attributes for liquefied              CenterPoint Energy submitted
                                               Southwest Gas emphasized security                       natural gas (LNG) plants used in or                   comments suggesting that certain
                                               concerns. PHMSA will collect mainline                   affecting interstate commerce. These                  aspects of the proposal exceed what is
                                               block valve locations and associated                    new attributes include type of plant,                 considered acceptable for an
                                               attributes as described in the NPMS                     capacity, impoundments, exclusion                     information collection regulated under


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00066   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                               52092                       Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices

                                               the Paperwork Reduction Act, and that                   • Decade of installation                              V. Timeline for Collection of New Data
                                               it should have been considered as a                     • Wall thickness                                      Elements
                                               rulemaking. API/AOPL further                            • Inline inspection                                      PHMSA has heard operators’ and
                                               commented on their opinion that the                     • Class location
                                                                                                                                                             industry’s concerns regarding the
                                               NPMS is intended for public awareness,                  • Gas HCA segment
                                                                                                       • Year of last ILI inspection                         amount of time needed to compile,
                                               rather than for other roles such as risk                                                                      research, and/or prepare the data
                                               management. PHMSA responds that this                    • Coated/uncoated and cathodic
                                                                                                         protection                                          required for this information collection.
                                               information collection complies with                                                                          PHMSA will collect the new data
                                               the paperwork reduction act, as it was                  • Type of coating
                                                                                                       • FRP control and sequence numbers                    elements in three phases. Phase 1 data
                                               done with the approval of OMB.                                                                                will be collected the first submission
                                               Further, this information collection                    • Year of original and last pressure test
                                                                                                       • Gas storage fields                                  year after the effective date, Phase 2 data
                                               revision was carried out with additional
                                               procedures normally involved in a                       • All new LNG plant attributes                        will be collected the second submission
                                               rulemaking such as the notice and                       • Capacity element for breakout tanks                 year after the effective date, and Phase
                                                                                                         The following elements are proposed                 3 data will be collected the third
                                               comment procedures, public meetings,                                                                          submission year after the effective date.
                                               advisory committee discussions, and a                   to be displayed on the NPMS Public
                                                                                                       Viewer, which can be accessed by the                  The data elements in each phase are
                                               proposed hearing. Regarding the                                                                               listed below.
                                               purpose of the NPMS, the statute makes                  general public.
                                               clear that NPMS has applicability                       Public Viewer Elements                                Phase 1
                                               beyond public awareness, especially for
                                                                                                       •   Pipe grade                                        •   Pipe diameter
                                               emergency response. The Web site itself
                                                                                                       •   Pipe join method                                  •   Commodity detail
                                               states that NPMS is, ‘‘used by
                                                                                                       •   Onshore/offshore                                  •   Pipe material
                                               government officials, pipeline operators,
                                                                                                       •   Abandoned lines                                   •   Pipe grade
                                               and the general public for a variety of
                                                                                                       •   Breakout tanks (excluding capacity)               •   Wall thickness
                                               tasks including emergency response,                                                                           •   Pipe joining method
                                               smart growth planning, critical                         E. INGAA Counter Proposal                             •   MAOP/MOP
                                               infrastructure protection, and                             The Interstate Natural Gas Association             •   Highest percent operating SMYS
                                               environmental protection.’’ See https://                of America submitted comments which                   •   Seam type
                                               www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/About.aspx.                      included an alternative plan for                      •   Onshore/offshore
                                                                                                       revisions to the NPMS. INGAA                          •   Inline inspection
                                               D. Data Security                                                                                              •   Class location
                                                                                                       proposed to collect only pipe material,
                                                  PHMSA understands that the new                                                                             •   Gas HCA segment
                                                                                                       nominal diameter, HCA, pipe coating
                                               data elements have varying degrees of                                                                         •   FRP control number and sequence
                                                                                                       (yes/no), cathodic protection (yes/no),
                                               sensitivity, and that some of the new                                                                             number, if applicable
                                                                                                       ILI capability (yes/no), and commodity
                                               elements are highly sensitive. PHMSA                                                                          •   Abandoned pipelines
                                                                                                       type. INGAA further proposed an                       •   Pump and compressor stations
                                               has discussed the appropriate security
                                                                                                       alternative positional accuracy                       •   Breakout tanks
                                               categorization for the new data elements
                                                                                                       requirement of 50 feet for 70 percent of              •   LNG attributes
                                               with the Transportation Security
                                                                                                       mileage and 100 feet for the remaining
                                               Administration (TSA). The following                                                                           Phase 2
                                                                                                       30 percent. PHMSA has addressed the
                                               new data elements are proposed to be
                                                                                                       positional accuracy standard in the                   •   Decade of installation
                                               classified as SSI (Sensitive Security
                                               Information). These elements would be
                                                                                                       previous section. PHMSA further finds                 •   Segment could affect an HCA
                                               kept in an SSI-compliant environment
                                                                                                       that the set of attributes proposed by                •   Year of last ILI
                                               at PHMSA. They would be released to
                                                                                                       INGAA is inadequate to meet the                       •   Coated/uncoated and cathodic
                                                                                                       agency’s risk assessment and emergency                    protection
                                               no other parties except for government
                                               agencies who can verify they maintain
                                                                                                       planning goals.                                       •   Type of coating
                                               an SSI-compliant environment.                           F. Definitions                                        •   Year and pressure of last pressure test
                                                                                                                                                             •   Mainline block valves
                                               SSI Elements                                               API/AOPL, INGAA, DTE Gas                           •   Gas storage fields
                                               • Highest percent operating SMYS                        Company, the Pipeline Safety Trust has
                                                                                                       serious concerns about the use of the                 Phase 3
                                               • MAOP/MOP
                                               • Segment ‘‘could affect’’ an HCA                       word ‘‘predominant.’’ Other                           • Positional accuracy conforms with
                                               • Pump and compressor stations                          commenters made attribute specific                      new standards
                                               • Mainline block valves                                 comments to a similar effect. These                   • Year and pressure of original pressure
                                                 The following elements are proposed                   criticisms centered on how the usage of                 test
                                               to be restricted to PIMMA, the mapping                  predominant attributes is poorly
                                                                                                       defined, difficult to verify compliance               VI. Summary of Impacted Collection
                                               application on
                                               www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov which is                         with, and risks improper categorization                 The following information is provided
                                               password-protected and available only                   of pipeline risk. For these reasons                   for this information collection: (1) Title
                                               to government officials (who may see                    PHMSA has largely eliminated the                      of the information collection, (2) OMB
                                               their area of jurisdiction) or pipeline                 option to submit data on a predominant                control number, (3) Current expiration
                                               operators (who may see only the                         basis.                                                date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract of
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               pipelines they operate).                                   Spectra Energy Partners requested                  the information collection activity, (6)
                                                                                                       general guidance on the definition of a               Description of affected public, (7)
                                               PIMMA Elements                                          segment. Other commenters had                         Frequency of collection, and (8)
                                               • Diameter                                              attribute-specific comments to a similar              Estimate of total annual reporting and
                                               • Commodity detail                                      effect. This information is defined in                recordkeeping burden. PHMSA requests
                                               • Pipe grade                                            more detail in the NPMS Operator                      comments on the following information
                                               • Seam type                                             Standards Manual.                                     collection:


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00067   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1


                                                                           Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 166 / Thursday, August 27, 2015 / Notices                                           52093

                                                 Title: National Pipeline Mapping                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY                            and any associated instructions, and any
                                               System Program.                                                                                               comments received in response to this
                                                                                                       Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade                     document by contacting Michael Hoover
                                                 OMB Control Number: 2137–0596.
                                                                                                       Bureau                                                at the addresses or telephone number
                                                 Form Numbers: N/A.                                                                                          shown below.
                                                                                                       [Docket No. TTB–2015–0001]
                                                 Expiration Date: 6/30/2016.                                                                                 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                 Type of Review: Revision of a                         Proposed Information Collections;                     Michael Hoover, Alcohol and Tobacco
                                               Previously Approved Information                         Comment Request (No. 55)                              Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street,
                                               Collection.                                                                                                   NW., Box 12, Washington, DC 20005;
                                                                                                       AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
                                                                                                                                                             telephone 202–453–1039, ext. 135; or
                                                 Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline                 Trade Bureau (TTB); Treasury.
                                                                                                                                                             email informationcollections@ttb.gov
                                               facility (except distribution lines and                 ACTION: Notice and request for                        (please do not submit comments on this
                                               gathering lines) must provide PHMSA                     comments.                                             notice to this email address).
                                               geospatial data for their pipeline system
                                                                                                       SUMMARY:    As part of our continuing                 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                               and contact information. The provided
                                               information is incorporated into the                    effort to reduce paperwork and                        Request for Comments
                                               National Pipeline Mapping System                        respondent burden, and as required by
                                                                                                       the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,                     The Department of the Treasury and
                                               (NPMS) to support various regulatory                                                                          its Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
                                               programs, pipeline inspections, and                     we invite comments on the proposed or
                                                                                                       continuing information collections                    Bureau (TTB), as part of their
                                               authorized external customers.                                                                                continuing effort to reduce paperwork
                                                                                                       listed below in this notice.
                                               Following the initial submission of the                                                                       and respondent burden, invite the
                                               requested data, the operator must make                  DATES: We must receive your written
                                                                                                                                                             general public and other Federal
                                               a new submission to the NPMS if any                     comments on or before October 26,
                                                                                                                                                             agencies to comment on the proposed or
                                               changes occur so PHMSA can maintain                     2015.
                                                                                                                                                             continuing information collections
                                               and improve the accuracy of the                         ADDRESSES:    As described below, you                 listed below in this notice, as required
                                               NPMS’s information.                                     may send comments on the information                  by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
                                                 Respondents: Operators of natural gas,                collections listed in this document                   (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
                                                                                                       using the ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ online                     Comments submitted in response to
                                               hazardous liquid, and liquefied natural
                                                                                                       comment form for this document, or you                this notice will be included or
                                               gas pipelines.
                                                                                                       may send written comments via U.S.                    summarized in our request for Office of
                                                 Number of Respondents: 1,211.                         mail or hand delivery. TTB no longer                  Management and Budget (OMB)
                                                 Number of Responses: 1,211.                           accepts public comments via email or                  approval of the relevant information
                                                                                                       fax.                                                  collection. All comments are part of the
                                                 Frequency: Annual.
                                                                                                          • http://www.regulations.gov: Use the              public record and subject to disclosure.
                                                 Estimate of Total Annual Burden:                      comment form for this document posted                 Please do not include any confidential
                                               335,124 hours.                                          within Docket No. TTB–2015–0001 on                    or inappropriate material in your
                                                 Public Comments Invited: You are                      ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal e-                   comments.
                                               asked to comment on any aspect of this                  rulemaking portal, to submit comments                    We invite comments on: (a) Whether
                                               information collection, including (a)                   via the Internet;                                     this information collection is necessary
                                               Whether the proposed collection of                         • U.S. Mail: Michael Hoover,                       for the proper performance of the
                                               information is necessary for the                        Regulations and Rulings Division,                     agency’s functions, including whether
                                               Department’s performance; (b) the                       Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade                     the information has practical utility; (b)
                                               accuracy of the estimated burden; (c)                   Bureau, 1310 G Street NW., Box 12,                    the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of
                                                                                                       Washington, DC 20005.                                 the information collection’s burden; (c)
                                               ways for the Department to enhance the
                                                                                                          • Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of                 ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
                                               quality, utility and clarity of the
                                                                                                       Mail: Michael Hoover, Alcohol and                     clarity of the information collected; (d)
                                               information collection; and (d) ways
                                                                                                       Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G                  ways to minimize the information
                                               that the burden could be minimized                      Street NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC                 collection’s burden on respondents,
                                               without reducing the quality of the                     20005.                                                including through the use of automated
                                               collected information.                                     Please submit separate comments for                collection techniques or other forms of
                                                 The agency will summarize and/or                      each specific information collection                  information technology; and (e)
                                               include your comments in the request                    listed in this document. You must                     estimates of capital or start-up costs and
                                               for OMB’s clearance of this information                 reference the information collection’s                costs of operation, maintenance, and
                                               collection.                                             title, form or recordkeeping requirement              purchase of services to provide the
                                                                                                       number, and OMB number (if any) in                    requested information.
                                                 Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
                                               of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended;
                                                                                                       your comment.
                                                                                                          You may view copies of this                        Information Collections Open for
                                               and 49 CFR 1:48.                                                                                              Comment
                                                                                                       document, the information collections
                                                 Issued in Washington, DC on August 21,                listed in it and any associated                         Currently, we are seeking comments
                                               2015, under authority delegated in 49 CFR               instructions, and all comments received               on the following forms, recordkeeping
                                               1.97.                                                   in response to this document within                   requirements, or questionnaires:
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                               Jeffrey D. Wiese,                                       Docket No. TTB–2015–0001 at http://                     Title: Authorization to Furnish
                                               Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.            www.regulations.gov. A link to that                   Financial Information and Certificate of
                                               [FR Doc. 2015–21238 Filed 8–26–15; 8:45 am]             docket is posted on the TTB Web site at               Compliance.
                                               BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
                                                                                                       http://www.ttb.gov/forms/comment-on-                    OMB Number: 1513–0004.
                                                                                                       form.shtml. You may also obtain paper                   TTB Form Number: F 5030.6.
                                                                                                       copies of this document, the                            Abstract: The TTB regulations require
                                                                                                       information collections described in it               applicants for alcohol and tobacco


                                          VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:08 Aug 26, 2015   Jkt 235001   PO 00000   Frm 00068   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\27AUN1.SGM   27AUN1



Document Created: 2015-12-15 10:52:52
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 10:52:52
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice of public meeting and request for comments.
DatesA public meeting to discuss the revisions to the NPMS will be held on the afternoon of September 10, 2015.
ContactAmy 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 [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 52084 

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR