[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44246-44249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17865]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092]
Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved
Information Collection--National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB
Control No. 2137-0596).
AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites public comments on our intent to request the Office of
Management and Budget's approval to revise and renew an information
collection currently under OMB Control Number 2137-0596 titled:
``National Pipeline Mapping System Program.'' The collection currently
requires operators to submit geospatial data, attributes, metadata,
public contact information and a transmittal letter to the National
Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program. The proposed revisions will
require operators to submit additional information to the NPMS.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on or
before September 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2014-
0092 through one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2014-0092,
at the beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to 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 the DOT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nelson, Geospatial Information
Systems Manager, Program Development Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by
phone at 202-493-0591 or email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The NPMS is a geospatial dataset that contains information about
PHMSA-regulated gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines,
and hazardous liquid low-stress gathering lines. The NPMS also contains
data layers for all liquefied natural gas plants and a partial dataset
of PHMSA-regulated breakout tanks.
The original standards for the NPMS data collection were drafted in
1998 by a joint government/industry committee comprised of members from
PHMSA's predecessor agency the Research and Special Programs
Administration, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas
Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. With
the passage of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (codified at
49 U.S.C. 60132), gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline
operators are required to submit their geospatial data, attributes,
metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter to the
NPMS program. While the standards reflected the state of geospatial
data and positional accuracy at that time, they do not reflect the
current state of geospatial data and positional accuracy. PHMSA
requires more accurate and complete information about each pipeline,
liquefied natural gas plant or breakout tank than the minimal set of
attributes it receives with NPMS submissions. Collecting enhanced data
will strengthen PHMSA's ability to fulfill its strategic goals to
improve public safety, protect the environment and ensure
infrastructure is well-maintained. More accurate and complete NPMS data
will also help emergency responders and government officials create
better, more appropriate emergency response plans.
Specifically, the new data will:
Aid the industry and all levels of government, from
Federal to municipal,
[[Page 44247]]
in promoting public awareness of hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
in improving emergency responder outreach. Currently, 787 Federal
officials, 1,208 state officials and 4,791 county officials have access
to the online mapping application. Providing these officials with an
improved NPMS containing system-specific information about local
pipeline facilities can help ensure emergency response agencies and
communities are better prepared and can better execute response
operations during incidents.
Permit more powerful and accurate tabular and geospatial
analysis, which will strengthen PHMSA's ability to evaluate existing
and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or
procedures.
Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
Allow for more effective assistance to emergency
responders by providing them with a more reliable, complete dataset of
pipelines and facilities.
Provide better support to PHMSA's inspectors by providing
more accurate pipeline locations and additional pipeline-related
geospatial data that can be linked to tabular data in PHMSA's
inspection database.
PHMSA discussed its NPMS information needs at the joint meeting of
the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, also known as the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory
Committee, also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, on August 9, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. Having
discussed with the joint committee some of the challenges involved with
gathering positional accuracy data for certain lines, PHMSA devised a
proposal that will allow us to gather crucial NPMS data for lines that
are in areas of the greatest consequence.
The proposed changes to the NPMS Operator Standards Manual detailed
below can be found at: www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Draft_Operator_Standards.pdf. The proposed changes to the attributes will be
part of an operator's annual NPMS submission. Unless otherwise marked,
all attributes will be linked to the geospatial pipeline file as
attributes at the pipe segment level.
PHMSA understands that operators, through their annual report
submissions, are currently collecting and have the following
information and attributes that PHMSA specifically proposes to collect
as additional parts of the NPMS submission. Collecting this geospatial
information could lead to eliminating duplicate data requests from the
annual reports. PHMSA invites comment on how this expanded collection
of information could affect the annual report:
Positional Accuracy: PHMSA proposes that for pipeline
segments located within Class 3, Class 4, High Consequence Areas (HCA),
or ``could-affect'' HCAs, operators submit data to the NPMS with a
positional accuracy of five feet. The degree of positional accuracy
needed is more stringent and important in these areas because of the
potential for greater consequence in the event of a pipeline incident.
PHMSA further proposes that for all pipeline segments located within
Class 1 or Class 2 locations, operators submit data to the NPMS with a
positional accuracy of 50 feet. PHMSA believes that a large number of
operators already have access to data with this degree of accuracy
within their GIS systems. The current accuracy requirement of 500 feet
does not allow PHMSA to effectively locate a pipeline to the degree
needed to respond to environmental and integrity threats. It also
hinders PHMSA in identifying special features on the pipeline that may
be relevant for emergency response considerations. The new degree of
accuracy will help emergency responders more effectively locate a
pipeline to the degree needed to respond to environmental and integrity
threats and help in emergency planning.
Pipe Diameter: PHMSA proposes to require operators to
submit data on the nominal diameter of a pipe segment. Knowing the
diameter of a pipeline can help emergency responders determine the
impact area of a pipeline. This attribute also gives PHMSA the
opportunity to gain a broader understanding of the diameters of pipe
being operated in any given geographical region and to further assess
potential impacts to public safety and the environment.
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP), Maximum
Operating Pressure (MOP): PHMSA proposes operators submit the maximum
MAOP or MOP for a pipeline segment in pounds per square inch gauge.
This information is critical because it affects important risk-ranking
algorithms and the potential impact radius of a pipeline, which can
influence emergency response planning.
Pipe Grade: PHMSA proposes operators submit information on
the predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. This information is
essential in issues regarding pipe integrity and is a necessary
component in determining the allowable operating pressure of a
pipeline.
Percent Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS): PHMSA
proposes operators submit information pertaining to the percent at
which the pipeline is operating to SMYS. Specifically, operators would
submit hoop stress caused by the highest operating pressure during the
year as a percentage of SMYS. PHMSA uses the percentage of operating
SMYS to determine low- and high-stress pipelines, class locations, test
requirements, inspection intervals, and other requirements in the
pipeline safety regulations.
Leak Detection: PHMSA proposes operators submit
information on the type of leak detection system used. The type of leak
detection used can drastically alter effective response times for
operators and emergency responders. Knowing the type of leak detection
system used during an incident will help emergency responders respond
appropriately in the event of a release.
Pipe Coating/Type of Coating: PHMSA proposes operators
indicate the level of and types of coating on a pipeline segment. The
type of coating relates to the level of protection from external
corrosion a pipe has while in the ground. Understanding the level of
coating helps PHMSA assess pipe integrity and perform better risk
assessments.
Pipe Material: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the
type of pipe material. Knowing the pipe material helps PHMSA determine
the level of potential risk from excavation damage and external
environmental loads. These can also be factors in emergency response
planning.
Pipe Join Method: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on
the pipe joining method. PHMSA uses this information to identify high-
risk joining methods and will be used in PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
Year of Construction/Installation: PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the predominant year of original construction
(or installation). The year of construction determines which
regulations apply to a pipeline for enforcement purposes. The data
requested pertains to the year of construction and not the year the
pipe was manufactured. On the annual report, operators have the option
of selecting categories of years to report the year of installation. As
a result of this revised collection, operators will be able to submit
data on the specific year of construction or installation. Although
[[Page 44248]]
this information is currently collected in the annual report,
collecting this information geospatially rather than tabularly allows
PHMSA to run better risk-ranking algorithms through pattern analysis
and relating pipe attributes to surrounding geographical areas.
Class Location: PHMSA proposes operators of gas
transmission pipeline segments submit information on class location at
the segment level. Class location is based upon number of dwellings
within 220 yards on either side of the pipeline in a one-mile segment
level. This data will help PHMSA determine whether operator IM plans
are adequate and complete.
High Consequence ``Could Affect'' Areas: PHMSA proposes
hazardous liquid and gas transmission operators identify pipe segments
which could affect HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 192.903 and 195.450. Pipe
segments can be classified as affecting a populated area, an
ecologically sensitive area, or a sole-source drinking water area. This
information will increase the awareness emergency responders have of
potential areas of significant impact.
Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA proposes operators designate
whether a pipe segment is onshore or offshore. As there is no
universally accepted onshore/offshore boundary, comparisons between the
NPMS (PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage statistics and operator-
generated annual report offshore mileage statistics do not match. This
collection will allow PHMSA to standardize and compare the statistics
for regulatory purposes.
Inline Inspection: PHMSA proposes operators indicate
whether their system is capable of accommodating an inline inspection
(ILI) tool. PHMSA considers inline inspections of pipelines to be
better, safer, and more cost-effective than other inspection methods.
Knowing this information will help PHMSA determine the percentage of
the pipeline industry already employing this practice and could help
PHMSA address concerns related to NTSB recommendation P-11-17.
Year of Last Inline Inspection and Year of Last Direct
Assessment: PHMSA proposes operators submit data detailing the year of
a pipeline's last corrosion, dent, crack or ``other'' ILI inspection.
PHMSA also proposes to collect the year of the last direct assessment.
This information is used to verify integrity of the pipeline and is a
key metric in PHMSA's pipeline risk calculations, which are used to
determine the priority and frequency of inspections.
Year and Pressure of Original and Last Hydrostatic Test:
PHMSA proposes to collect data on a pipeline's original and most recent
hydrostatic test years and pressures. This information is used to
verify a pipeline's integrity and is a key metric in pipeline risk
calculations.
Commodity Detail: PHMSA proposes operators submit
commodity details for pipelines if that commodity is crude oil, product
or natural gas. The choices for crude oil will be ``sweet crude'' or
``sour crude.'' The choices for product will be refined non-ethanol
blended gasoline, refined fuel oil or diesel, refined kerosene or jet
fuel, other refined and/or non HVL petroleum products, ethanol blended
gasoline, biodiesel blend and other biofuels. The choices for natural
gas will be pipeline-quality or tariff-quality natural gas, wet but
non-sour natural gas, sour but non-wet natural gas, and wet, sour
natural gas. Other choices may be added as the need arises. This level
of detail is required because of potential differences in leak
characteristics, rupture-impacted hazardous areas and a pipeline's
internal integrity. Emergency responders would also be able to better
respond to and be better prepared for pipeline incidents if they knew
what commodities were being transported in which locations.
Special Permit: PHMSA proposes operators denote whether a
pipe segment is part of a PHMSA Special Permit and thus would have a
different maximum operating pressure than would otherwise be allowed.
The Special Permit number is also needed. This information allows PHMSA
to more easily locate these pipe segments and could help emergency
responders respond adequately in the event of an emergency.
Wall Thickness: PHMSA proposes to collect data on the
nominal wall thickness of a pipe. This is a fundamental piece of
information about a pipe that is used for risk calculations.
Seam Type: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the
seam type of each pipe segment. This is a fundamental piece of
information about a pipe that is used for risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
PHMSA understands that operators may or may not have the following
attributes in their GIS systems and therefore, operators may need to do
additional research to compile this information:
Abandoned Pipelines: PHMSA proposes that all gas
transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines abandoned after the
effective date of this information collection be mandatory submissions
to the NPMS. Abandoned lines are not currently required to be submitted
to the NPMS. Based on a recent incident in Wilmington, CA, where
confusion as to whether a pipeline was abandoned or not was a factor,
abandoned pipelines need to be identified to help ensure that they are
maintained in the proper manner in accordance with pipeline safety
regulations. Abandoned lines are at higher risk for excavation damage
and are a critical integrity management issue. Operators only need to
submit this data in the calendar year after the abandonment occurs.
Offshore Gas Gathering Lines: PHMSA proposes operators of
offshore gas gathering pipelines make NPMS data submissions. This
information is not currently collected, but due to a rising rate of
incidents involving offshore gas gathering lines, PHMSA believes this
information is necessary to develop risk calculations and accurate
response measures for incidents involving such pipelines.
Installation Method if Pipe Crosses Body of Water Greater
Than 100 Feet in Width: Due to recent incidents involving washed-out
pipelines, including the incident that occurred near Laurel, MT, PHMSA
proposes operators submit data on the installation methods of pipe
segments that cross bodies of water greater than 100 feet in width.
This information will give pipeline inspectors the ability to verify
the depth of cover of pipeline segments under water. PHMSA will also
use this information in risk-ranking algorithms. Operators will be able
to select from options such as open cut, trenchless technologies, pipe
spans, etc.
Facility Response Plan: PHMSA proposes operators submit
the Facility Response Plan control number and sequence number for
applicable liquid pipeline segments. This information will be used by
PHMSA inspectors to verify compliance with PHMSA requirements and to
aid in emergency response efforts.
Throughput: Throughput is used to denote a pipeline's
capacity by stating the pipelines ability to flow a measured amount of
product per unit of time. PHMSA proposes operators submit average daily
throughput so States can better identify shortages and implement
contingency plans for potential widespread pipeline service outages to
maintain an uninterrupted flow of energy supplies.
Mainline Block Valve Locations: PHMSA proposes operators
submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of mainline
block valves, the type of valves and the type of valve operators. This
information is essential for first responders, as the extent and
[[Page 44249]]
severity of property damage and life-threatening risks during high-
consequence incidents can be reduced if the appropriate valves on
affected segments are located and used more quickly. This information
will also assist PHMSA in accurate risk assessment.
Storage Field Locations and Type of Storage: PHMSA
proposes operators submit a geospatial polygon file containing the
locations of storage fields and the field type. The footprint of the
storage field helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and
helps PHMSA provide accurate information to first responders.
Refinery Locations/Gas Process/Treatment Plant Locations:
PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial point file containing the
locations of refineries (for liquid operators) and gas process/
treatment plants (for gas transmission operators). The location of
these facilities helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and
helps PHMSA provide accurate information to first responders.
Breakout Tanks: PHMSA proposes to require the submission
of breakout tank data. As PHMSA regulates these tanks, knowing their
locations and attributes is an essential piece of knowledge.
LNG Plants: PHMSA proposes to collect additional data
attributes for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. These new attributes
include type of plant, capacity, impoundments, exclusion zones and year
constructed.
Pump and Compressor Stations: PHMSA proposes operators
submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of pump (for
liquid operators) and compressor (for gas transmission operators)
stations. Pump and compressor stations are vulnerable areas, and
emergency responders need to know their locations for adequate
emergency planning. Additionally, the stations are often referenced as
inspection boundaries for PHMSA's inspectors.
B. Summary of Impacted Collections
The following information is provided for this information
collection: (1) Title of the information collection, (2) OMB control
number, (3) Current expiration date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract
of the information collection activity, (6) Description of affected
public, (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden, and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA requests comments on the
following information collection:
OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
Form Numbers: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution
lines and gathering lines) must provide PHMSA geospatial data for their
pipeline system and contact information. The provided information is
incorporated into NPMS to support various regulatory programs, pipeline
inspections and authorized external customers. Following the initial
submission of the requested data, the operator must make a new
submission to NPMS if any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and
improve the accuracy of NPMS's information.
Respondents: Operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and
liquefied natural gas pipelines.
Number of Respondents: 1,211.
Frequency: Annual.
Number of Responses: 1,211.
Total Annual Burden: 420,516 hours.
Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for the
Office of Management and Budget's clearance of this information
collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-17865 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P