30 Day FR Notice

58616

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2012–0024]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities, Revision to Gas
Transmission and Gathering Pipeline
Systems Annual Report, Gas
Transmission and Gathering Pipeline
Systems Incident Report, and
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems
Accident Report
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

On April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) published a
notice in the Federal Register of its
intent to make several minor revisions
to the ‘‘Accident Report—Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Systems’’ and the
‘‘Incident Report—Natural and Other
Gas Transmission and Gathering
Pipeline Systems.’’ In addition, PHMSA
proposed a number of revisions to the
‘‘Annual Report for Gas Transmission
and Gathering Systems.’’ PHMSA
received 12 comments in response to
that notice. PHMSA is publishing this
notice to respond to the comments,
provide the public with an additional 30
days to comment on the proposed
revisions to the forms and the
instructions, and announce that the
revised Information Collections will be
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for approval.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by October 22, 2012 to be
assured of consideration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Blaine Keener by telephone at 202–366–
0970, by fax at 202–366–4566, by email
at [email protected].
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2012–00024 by any of the
following methods:
• Fax: 1–202–395–5806.
• Mail: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Records
Management Center, Room 10102
NEOB, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk
Officer for the U.S. Department of
Transportation\PHMSA.
• Email: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, at the
following email address:
[email protected].

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:05 Sep 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

Requests for a copy of the Information
Collection should be directed to Angela
Dow by telephone at 202–366–1246, by
fax at 202–366–4566, by email at
[email protected], or by mail at
U.S. Department of Transportation,
PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
PHP–30, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide
interested members of the public and
affected agencies an opportunity to
comment on information collection and
recordkeeping requests. This notice
identifies two revised information
collection requests that PHMSA will
submit to OMB for approval. The
information collections are titled:
‘‘Incident and Annual Reports for Gas
Pipeline Operators’’ (2137–0522) and
‘‘Transportation of Hazardous Liquids
by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and
Accident Reporting’’ (2137–0047). The
comments are summarized and
addressed below as specified in the
following outline:
I. Background
II. Summary of Topic Comments/Responses
A. Annual Report for Gas Transmission
and Gathering Systems
B. Gas Transmission Pipeline and
Gathering Systems Incident Report
C. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems
Accident Report
D. General Comments
III. Proposed Information Collection
Revisions and Request for Comments

I. Background
PHMSA published a notice in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2012, (77
FR 22387) titled ‘‘Pipeline Safety:
Information Collection Activities,
Revision to Gas Transmission and
Gathering Pipeline Systems Annual
Report, Gas Transmission and Gathering
Pipeline Systems Incident Report, and
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems
Accident Report.’’ The notice
announced minor revisions to the
hazardous liquid pipeline systems
accident report and the gas transmission
and gathering pipeline systems incident
report to collect additional information
relative to incidents involving girth
welds. The notice also announced
revisions to the annual report for gas
transmission and gathering systems to
address certain National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations
and the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011.
II. Summary of Topic Comments/
Responses
During the two month response
period, PHMSA received 12 comments
from the following stakeholders:

PO 00000

Frm 00107

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

(1) Alliance Pipeline—Operator
(2) Energy Transfer—Operator
(3) National Grid—Operator
(4) Paiute—Operator
(5) SCANA Corporation—Operator
(6) Southwest Gas—Operator
(7) Jack Wilson—Public
(8) American Gas Association (AGA)—
Trade Association
(9) American Petroleum Institute (API)
and American Oil Pipelines
Association (AOPL);—Trade
Associations
(10) Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America (INGAA)—Trade
Association
(11) Northeast Gas Association (NGA)—
Trade Association
(12) Texas Pipeline Association—Trade
Association
The comments are summarized and
addressed below by topic
A. Annual Report for Gas Transmission
and Gathering Systems
PHMSA solicited comments on
proposed revisions to the current
version of the ‘‘Annual Report for
Natural and Other Gas Transmission
and Gathering Pipeline Systems’’
(PHMSA F 7100.2–1, revised 06–2011,
Gas Transmission Annual Report).
These proposed revisions were
referenced in a Federal Register notice
published on April 13, 2012, (77 FR
2387). This 30-day notice responds to
the comments, which may be found at
http://www.regulations.gov, at docket
number PHMSA–2012–0024. The
docket also contains the form and
instructions as amended in response to
the comments. In general, the comments
made by INGAA were supported in
writing by Alliance Pipeline and Energy
Transfer and the comments made by
AGA were supported in writing by
National Grid, Northeast Gas
Association, Paiute, and Southwest Gas.
A1: PHMSA proposed to remove Part
A, section 3 which asks operators to list
contact information under the category
‘‘INDIVIDUAL WHERE ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED’’
and reserve the section. AGA
commented that they did not
understand why this action was taken,
as the information requested should be
beneficial. Northeast Gas Association
commented that the removed
information should be added to Part N
of the form.
A1. Response: PHMSA believes that
the request for additional contact
information is not necessary. As it
stands, Part N of the report requests
contact information for the person who
prepared the report. In an effort to
reduce the potential for duplicative
information, PHMSA has removed and

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Notices
reserved Part A, section 3 and will
contact the preparer of the report for
further information as necessary.
A2: Part A, section 5 allows for
operators to identify a single
predominate ‘‘COMMODITY GROUP’’
(e.g., Natural Gas, Synthetic Gas, and
Hydrogen Gas) for which the report
applies. PHMSA proposed to add
‘‘Landfill Gas’’ as a ‘‘COMMODITY
GROUP.’’ INGAA commented that they
were opposed to the addition of
‘‘Landfill Gas’’ as a ‘‘COMMODITY
GROUP.’’ INGAA’s basis for this
opposition is that landfill gas is
indistinguishable from natural gas,
unlike hydrogen and propane, which
are transported in dedicated pipelines.
INGAA stated that requiring the
identification of landfill gas would
create difficulties at interconnection
points of the pipeline for gas recipients
who have no means of distinguishing
the receipt of landfill gas.
INGAA also cited some confusion
regarding the instructions for filing
reports for multiple commodities.
INGAA interpreted the instructions for
Part A, section 5 to mean that in the
case of an operator having a 5,000-mile
pipeline for natural gas and a 50-mile
hydrogen pipeline, the operator would
have to file a separate report for each
pipeline. INGAA suggested that PHMSA
clarify its instructions if this
interpretation is accurate.
A2. Response: In regard to INGAA’s
concern about landfill gas being
indistinguishable from natural gas, an
operator would not be required to report
information regarding landfill gas if the
operator does not select landfill gas as
the predominate commodity transported
in the pipeline facility. The addition of
‘‘Landfill Gas’’ as a ‘‘COMMODITY
GROUP’’ will only collect mileage for
pipelines that predominately transport
landfill gas.
In response to INGAA’s comment
regarding the instructions for filing
reports for multiple commodities,
PHMSA has revised the instructions to
provide examples. As detailed in the
previous paragraph, an operator with a
pipeline facility that is used to transport
multiple commodities (e.g., landfill gas
and natural gas) should only file a
report for the commodity that is
predominately transported in the
pipeline facility. If an operator has two
pipeline facilities with different
commodities (e.g., a 5,000-mile pipeline
facility containing predominately
natural gas and a 1,500-mile pipeline
facility containing predominately
hydrogen), the operator must file a
separate report for both pipeline
facilities.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:05 Sep 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

A3: Part A, section 7 requires
operators to identify ‘‘INTERstate’’ and
‘‘INTRAstate’’ pipeline facilities. Under
the ‘‘INTERstate’’ portion, operators
identify the states in which the pipeline
exists. PHMSA revised the
‘‘INTERstate’’ portion to include ‘‘OCS
portions.’’ INGAA commented that
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) portions
should refer to the affected water body
(e.g., Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Coast)
and not the OCS block, which would
require significant effort.
A3. Response: PHMSA agrees with
INGAA and has revised the form and
instructions to identify the OCS
portions available for selection when
submitting annual reports as: OCSAlaska, OCS-Atlantic, OCS-Gulf of
Mexico, and OCS-Pacific.
A4: PHMSA proposed to remove Part
A, section 8 titled: ‘‘DOES THIS
REPORT REPRESENT A CHANGE
FROM LAST YEAR’S FINAL
REPORTED NUMBERS FOR ONE OR
MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTs:
PART B, D, E, H, I, J, K, or L?’’ AGA
opposed this removal and suggested that
Part A, section 8 be revised to allow
operators the option of checking the box
to say that the only change from last
year’s report was the information in the
newly proposed Parts Q and R.
A4. Response: The intent of Part A,
section 8 was to reduce the burden on
operators who have little or no changes
to the data that was reported in their
previous annual report. PHMSA has
found that Part A, section 8 posed a
number of technical challenges to
implement in regard to ensuring data
quality and has removed this section.
However, to reduce the burden on
operators, PHMSA allows operators to
pre-populate their report with the data
from the previous year’s annual report
(excluding volume transported; integrity
inspections; failures, leaks, and repairs;
and preparer’s information).
Furthermore, 49 CFR 191.22 supersedes
the last portion of Part A, section 8 by
requiring the reporting of changes such
as mergers, acquisitions, divestitures,
and new construction.
A5: Part F collects information
regarding integrity inspection and
subsequent actions. These inspection
methods include in-line inspections,
pressure testing, and direct assessments,
with an option to identify ‘‘other’’
methods. INGAA commented that
‘‘Direct Examination’’ should be added
as a distinct method of inspection, as
direct examination is a rigorous and
recognized inspection technique which
should not be aggregated with the
‘‘other’’ methods.
A5. Response: PHMSA is not certain
how many alternative inspection

PO 00000

Frm 00108

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58617

techniques are currently used by
operators. Therefore, PHMSA has
revised Part F, section 5(a) to
incorporate a text box that will allow for
the identification of ‘‘other’’ inspection
techniques to determine if additional
categories should be added in the
future.
A6: PHMSA proposed to revise the
introductory text of Parts F and G to add
the following disclaimer: ‘‘Part F
‘‘WITHIN AN HCA SEGMENT’’ data
and Part G may be completed only if
HCA Miles are greater than zero in Part
L.’’ Paiute and Southwest Gas
commented that the proposed language
is confusing and needs further
clarification.
A6. Response: PHMSA has revised the
instructions to clarify the intent of the
disclaimer.
A7: Part F is used to collect data on
integrity inspections, including the
identification of the various types of
inspections (e.g., in-line inspections,
inspections based on pressure testing
and direct assessment) and a description
of actions that were taken as a result of
the inspection. PHMSA proposed to
revise Part F, section 6, which is used
to accumulate data from the various
inspections identified in the other
sections of Part F, to collect additional
information on pipe replacement and
abandonment in High Consequence
Areas (HCAs). This additional
information included the number of
conditions eliminated by pipeline
repairs or abandonment that are
categorized as immediate, one-year, or
monitored conditions. Paiute and
Southwest Gas commented that this
information appears to be repetitive and
that the instructions should be revised
to include ‘‘replacement’’ and
‘‘abandonment’’ as a reportable ‘‘repair’’
in the existing inspection methods and
eliminate the proposed revision. NGA is
opposed to the proposed revision and
commented that the operator’s priorities
should be focused on replacing pipe and
meeting certain criteria and not
counting all defects removed. NGA
further commented that this revision
would result in a waste of resources,
huge burdens on operators, and no
substantive value. INGAA also
commented that separate categories
should not be added for conditions
eliminated by pipe abandonment. AGA
commented that PHMSA should add a
category for other scheduled conditions
to the proposed revision in Part F to
align with the other sections in Part F.
INGAA suggested that shorter pipe
replacements (replacements made when
directly examining pipe as repairs) be
addressed as ‘‘repairs’’ under Part F,
section 6(b) and (c). INGAA further

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

58618

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Notices

commented that the instructions for the
proposed ‘‘replacement’’ language be
revised to only address long term
replacements (class changes). In
addition, AGA commented that the
instructions should be revised to clarify
that a ‘‘replacement’’ does not qualify as
a repair.
A7. Response: PHMSA disagrees with
the suggestion made by Paiute and
Southwest Gas to include
‘‘replacement’’ and ‘‘abandonment’’ as a
reportable ‘‘repair’’ in the existing
inspection methods. PHMSA believes
that the information regarding the
number of actionable anomalies
eliminated from the system by removing
pipe from service is an important
benefit of an integrity management
program that should be quantified.
PHMSA notes NGA and INGAA’s
concern by acknowledging that
anomalies handled by replacement or
abandonment may not be directly
examined and therefore, would not be
able to be categorized by immediate,
one-year, and monitored conditions as
proposed. Therefore, PHMSA has
revised the proposed Part F, section 6(d)
and (e), both in the form and
instructions, to remove the categories
and collect only actionable anomalies
eliminated by pipe replacement or
abandonment. As a result, the comment
by AGA to add another category for
other scheduled conditions is no longer
applicable. PHMSA agrees with
INGAA’s comment pertaining to short
pipe replacements that typically occur
after directly examining anomalies and
are limited to several joints of pipe.
PHMSA has revised the instructions to
specify that these anomalies should be
reported in Part F, section 6 (b) and (c),
which compiles the sum total of the
anomalies and conditions that were
repaired for the calendar year. In an
effort to address INGAA and AGA’s
requests for clarification regarding the
use of ‘‘replacement,’’ PHMSA has
revised the instructions to clarify that
the anomalies collected for
‘‘replacement’’ under Part F, section
6(d) only apply to a pipeline facility in
an HCA that has been abandoned and its
transportation functionality replaced by
the operator with a new pipeline
facility. PHMSA has further revised the
instructions to specify that if the
transportation functionality is not
replaced by the operator, then the
anomalies should be identified as
‘‘abandonment’’ under Part F, section
6(f).
A8: Part G addresses mileage of
baseline assessments and reassessments
completed in a calendar year for HCA
segment miles. PHMSA did not propose
any revisions to Part G. INGAA

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:05 Sep 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

recommended that PHMSA eliminate
the distinction between baseline
assessments and reassessments since all
baseline assessments should be
completed by 2012, with the exception
of new HCAs.
A8. Response: Baseline assessments
may not have been completed for gas
transmission pipelines placed in service
any time after 2005. Therefore, PHMSA
will retain the baseline assessment
category.
A9: Part J allows for the identification
of pipeline mileage installed by decade.
PHMSA proposed to revise Part J to
separate the column listed as ‘‘Pre 40 or
Unknown’’ into two separate columns;
one for ‘‘Pre 40’’ and one for
‘‘unknown.’’ AGA commented that the
column listed as ‘‘Pre 40’’ should be
revised to ‘‘Pre 1940’’ for consistency
purposes.
A9. Response: PHMSA will make the
suggested change.
A10: Part K collects mileage of
transmission pipe by specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS).
PHMSA did not propose any revisions
to Part K. Northeast Gas Association
(NGA) commented that the second row
in Part K should include all pipe greater
than or equal to 20% SMYS up through
pipe equal to 30% SMYS inclusively,
and the third row should be changed to
include pipe greater than 30% SMYS
but less than or equal to 40% SMYS.
NGA further commented that this
revision would capture the correct
delineation of pressures specified on
page 22388 of the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice. This
delineation (untested gas transmission
pipelines in HCAs operating at a
pressure greater than 30% SMYS) is
based on the pressure range detailed in
section 23 of the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation
Act of 2011. NGA also commented that
Part K does not provide information on
whether the pipe had a post
construction pressure test and will
probably require another box to separate
the mileage by class and HCA as
detailed in Part R.
A10. Response: PHMSA does not plan
on using the information collected
under Part K to address the issue
regarding untested gas transmission
pipelines in HCAs. PHMSA is planning
on capturing data to address that issue
under the proposed Part R. Therefore,
the SMYS ranges in Part K will not
require amendment.
A11: Part M requests specific
information regarding incidents, leaks,
and repairs. PHMSA did not propose
any revisions to this Part. AGA
suggested that the cause definitions
listed in this Part match the definitions

PO 00000

Frm 00109

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

listed in the Gas Transmission Incident
Report. Northeast Gas Association
suggested that the cause definitions
match the definitions listed in the gas
distribution annual report, except for
the threat of stress corrosion cracking.
A11. Response: At this time, PHMSA
is focusing on the proposed revisions
identified in the April 13, 2012 (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice. This
issue falls outside of the scope of those
revisions. However, PHMSA will
consider this suggestion during the next
review of the form which is scheduled
to take place in 2013.
A12: Part M requests specific
information regarding incidents, leaks,
and repairs. PHMSA did not propose
any revisions to this Part. INGAA
commented that the columns for
‘‘Incidents in HCA Segments’’ and
‘‘Failures in HCA Segments’’ are
redundant and should be removed
because they collect the same
information which owners or operators
already provide on the Incident Reports.
A12. Response: INGAA correctly
notes that incidents in HCAs are
required on both the Gas Transmission
Annual Report and individually on
incident reports. PHMSA has collected
this data through two separate reporting
requirements since 2004. As predicted
by INGAA, these two data sets are
inconsistent for most years. The largest
discrepancy occurred in 2010 when Gas
Transmission Annual Report data
indicated five incidents and incident
report data indicated nine incidents.
Accordingly, PHMSA has removed the
‘‘Incidents in HCA’s’’ column in Part M
of the Gas Transmission Annual Report
form. The definitions that serve as the
basis for collecting ‘‘Failures in HCA
Segments’’ data do not correlate with
the definitions used to collect
‘‘Incidents in HCA Segments’’ data.
Therefore, PHMSA will continue to
collect ‘‘Failures in HCA Segments’’
data on the Gas Transmission Annual
Report.
A13: PHMSA proposed the new Part
Q to collect mileage and record
information categorized by the methods
used to determine the Maximum
Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP).
Northeast Gas Association commented
that PHMSA should provide the full text
of the applicable methodology sections
or a hyperlink to the sections.
Commenters also suggested that the use
of the term ‘‘segments’’ be restricted
since it has no uniform measure.
A13. Response: The instructions
include the specific regulation and a
synopsis of the regulation contents.
Operators can readily find the full text
in the regulations. PHMSA will

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Notices
eliminate the use of the term
‘‘segments.’’
A14: PHMSA proposed the new Part
Q to collect mileage and record
information by the MAOP
determination method. SCANA
Corporation commented that
clarification is necessary because they
are unable to determine whether or not
reporting is required for every
methodology identified regardless of
whether that methodology was used to
determine the MAOP.
A14. Response: PHMSA intends for
operators to report mileage under the
single code section heading used to
establish the MAOP. In some scenarios,
49 CFR 192.619(a)(1) through (4) may all
have been considered when establishing
MAOP. In such cases, PHMSA expects
for the mileage to be reported under the
section heading for the final
methodology that was used to determine
the MAOP value. PHMSA has revised
the instructions to include this
clarification.
A15: AGA, NGA, Texas Pipeline
Association, and SCANA Corporation
suggested that PHMSA allow for
reporting relative to the proposed Parts
Q and R be extended, thereby, coming
closer to the congressional mandate of
July 3, 2013, (18 months from signing
date of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011).
AGA, National Grid, NGA, and Texas
Pipeline Association also suggested that
PHMSA revise the table to include a
‘‘miles yet to be verified’’ column to
allow for the reporting of pipeline
segments where operators have yet to
verify mileage.
A15. Response: PHMSA does not
agree with the commenters’ suggestion
to extend the calendar year 2012
reporting requirements for the newly
proposed Parts Q and R in the Gas
Transmission Annual Report. Section 23
(MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRESSURE)
of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011
requires that each owner or operator
report, not later than 18 months, on
each pipeline segment for which they
do not have sufficient records to
validate the MAOP of the pipeline
segment. PHMSA has determined that
the most appropriate method to collect
this information is by the next Gas
Transmission Annual Report which has
a due date of March 15, 2013. PHMSA
is planning for owners or operators to
submit the newly requested information
in Parts Q and R in the Gas
Transmission Annual Report by March
15, 2013, to ensure that owners or
operators comply with the ‘‘not later
than 18 months’’ provision in the
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:05 Sep 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

and Job Creation Act of 2011. PHMSA
does not agree with the comments from
AGA, National Grid, NGA, and Texas
Pipeline Association to include a
separate column for ‘‘miles yet to be
verified.’’ PHMSA has determined that
such mileage should be identified as
mileage without records to avoid
confusion and comply with the
reporting requirements. Therefore,
PHMSA has revised the instructions to
specify that pipeline segments that have
not been verified be reported under the
appropriate ‘‘w/out Recds’’ column.
Owners or operators that find
verification records after filing their Gas
Transmission Annual Report may file a
supplemental report to update their
submission. The Gas Transmission
Annual Report instructions contain the
procedure for filing a supplemental
report.
A16: AGA, NGA, National Grid,
Paiute, Southwest Gas, and Texas
Pipeline Association suggested that the
tables in Parts Q and R be revised to
adhere to Section 23 of the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011 and collect mileage
in Class 1 and 2 locations in HCAs and
all Class 3 and 4 locations. AGA also
suggested that the total miles each of the
eight class/HCA locations should be
totaled for accuracy validation.
A16. Response: In the April 13, 2012
(77 FR 22387) Federal Register notice
for this information collection revision,
PHMSA expressed intent to collect Part
Q data only for Class 1 and 2 HCAs and
all Class 3 and 4 locations. All of the
Class 1 and 2 not in HCA rows should
have been blacked-out in the ‘‘w/out
Recds’’ column. PHMSA has revised the
report form and instructions to not
collect the reporting of mileage without
complete records in Class 1 and 2
locations which are not within HCAs.
A17: PHMSA proposed the new Part
R to collect pipeline mileage that has
not been subjected to a pressure test and
pipeline mileage that is not able to
accommodate the passage of an
instrumented internal inspection
device. AGA commented that PHMSA
should collect pipeline mileage of lines
that have been subjected to postconstruction tests of at least 1.1, 1.2, and
≥ 1.25 times the MAOP, regardless of
the testing medium. AGA suggested that
this information would be helpful to
comply with the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation
Act of 2011 and the address NTSB
recommendation P–11–17. AGA,
SCANA Corporation, and INGAA also
suggested collection of information
regarding pressure tests at or above
110% and less than 125% of MAOP,

PO 00000

Frm 00110

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58619

since the regulations currently allow it
for certain class locations.
A17. Response: PHMSA agrees with
the commenters and has expanded Part
R to collect data about the mileage of
pipe in three bands of pressure tests;
miles tested to more than 1.25 times the
MAOP, miles tested to less than 1.25
times the MAOP but greater than or
equal to 1.1 times the MAOP, and miles
with a pressure test less than 1.1 times
the MAOP or no pressure test. Operators
are required to report in each pressure
test band the number of miles able to
accommodate internal inspection and
the number of miles not able to
accommodate internal inspection.
A18: PHMSA proposed the new Part
R to collect pipeline mileage that has
not been subjected to a hydrostatic
pressure test. Several commenters
including NGA and Texas Pipeline
Association recommended that the table
be revised to not restrict reporting to
hydrostatic pressure testing.
A18. Response: PHMSA agrees that
the test medium is irrelevant and has
amended the form and instructions
accordingly.
A19: PHMSA proposed the new Part
R to collect pipeline mileage that has
not been subjected to a pressure test and
pipeline mileage that is not able to
accommodate the passage of an
instrumented inline inspection device.
Several commenters, including AGA
and Texas Pipeline Association,
suggested that PHMSA expand the rows
and columns in Part R to collect
information separately by the 30%
SMYS criterion, the different pressure
test percentages and the vintage of
pipeline as pre- or post-1970 regulation.
A19. Response: Although section 23
of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011
refers to gas transmission pipelines
operating over 30% SMYS, PHMSA
does not consider the SMYS level and
pipeline vintage to be relevant to
whether a pipeline has been pressure
tested or is able to be internally
inspected. PHMSA does not find this
information to be relevant since all
pipelines placed in service after the
effective date of Part 192 are required to
be subjected to a post-construction
pressure test and will be reported in
either the ‘‘tested to more than 1.25
MAOP,’’ ‘‘less than 1.25 MAOP but
greater than or equal to 1.1 MAOP,’’ or
‘‘tested to less than 1.1 MAOP or not
subjected to a pressure test’’ bands
specified in Part R.
A20: PHMSA proposed the new Part
R to collect pipeline mileage that has
not been subjected to a pressure test and
pipeline mileage that is not able to
accommodate the passage of an

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

58620

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Notices

instrumented internal inspection
device. Several commenters, including
AGA, National Grid, Paiute, SCANA,
Southwest Gas, and Northeast Gas
Association suggested that PHMSA
clarify the phrase ‘‘not able to
accommodate the passage of
instrumented internal inspection
devices.’’ Most of the commenters
specified that operators will have
varying interpretations of this language
that will result in poor data if
clarification is not provided. Several
definitions were proposed by the
commenters. AGA suggested that a line
that is able to accommodate the passage
of an internal inspection device be
defined as a ‘‘pipe of appropriate
physical and operational characteristics
to allow successful inspection via
current commercially available in-line
inspection tools within the specified
tool requirements and tolerances.’’
Northeast Gas Association suggested
that a line that is able to accommodate
the passage of an internal inspection
device be defined as a ‘‘pipe of
appropriate physical and operational
characteristics to allow successful
inspection via currently available inline inspection tools either meeting the
requirements of Subpart O 192.921(1) in
conjunction with ASME/B31.8S or
acceptable to PHMSA via 180 day
notification to them including tethered
or un-tethered devices.’’
A20. Response: PHMSA has amended
the form and instructions for Part R in
response to comments to clarify the
phrase ‘‘not able to accommodate the
passage of instrumented internal
inspection devices.’’ As a result,
PHMSA has revised Part R to collect
‘‘Miles Internal Inspection ABLE’’ and
‘‘Miles Internal Inspection NOT ABLE.’’
The instructions include the following
definition for ‘‘Internal Inspection
ABLE’’—‘‘A length of pipeline through
which commercially available devices
can travel, inspect the entire
circumference and wall thickness of the
pipe, and record or transmit inspection
data in sufficient detail for further
evaluation of anomalies.’’
A21: AGA commented that a section
for ‘‘Additional Information’’ should be
added to report to allow for operators to
include any additional information
which would assist in clarifying or
classifying the reported data. AGA
suggested that this section could be
become a new Part S and be
incorporated in the same manner as Part
H in the Gas Distribution Systems
Annual Report (PHMSA F 7100.1–1).
A21. Response: At this time, PHMSA
is focusing on the proposed revisions
identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:05 Sep 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

Although the proposed revision from
AGA may be indirectly related, PHMSA
would like more time to evaluate this
suggestion and will consider it during
the next review of the form which is
scheduled to take place in 2013.
A22: Energy Transfer commented that
PHMSA’s estimate of two hours of
additional reporting burden should be
increased by two or three orders of
magnitude.
A22. Response: PHMSA’s estimate of
two hours is based on the amount of
time it takes to report the requested
information. Although PHMSA believes
that two hours is appropriate for
additional information requested in the
proposed report, PHMSA acknowledges
that it may take each operator varying
amounts of time to report this
information. In consideration of this
point and the commenter’s suggestion,
PHMSA is revising the estimated
amount of time to collect the proposed
information at four hours.
A23: INGAA commented that the
proposed reporting should be amended
to enable the use of a Fitness-ForService approach for pre-regulation
pipe. INGAA specifies that this process
focuses on pre-regulation pipe,
information on pipelines that have been
subjected to a pressure test other than
125% of MAOP, and pipelines that
operate at or below 30% SMYS.
A23. Response: PHMSA
acknowledges the potential value of a
Fitness-For-Service approach to address
the proposed reporting of pre-regulation
pipe. However, such an approach
requires further assessment and
discussion with stakeholders prior to its
actual implementation, and therefore
would not be appropriate to apply at
this time.
A24: INGAA commented that the
instructions for Part H ‘‘MILES OF
TRANSMISSION PIPE BY NOMINAL
PIPE SIZE (NPS)’’ and Part I ‘‘MILES OF
GATHERING PIPE BY NOMINAL PIPE
SIZE (NPS)’’ should specify that NPS
data be based on the most common
nominal pipe sizes and reported as
integers (e.g., 6.625 inches should be
reported as NPS 6).
A24. Response: PHMSA agrees and
has revised the instructions accordingly.
A25: INGAA suggested that the
definitions, detailed in their comment,
for the terms ‘‘Actionable Anomaly,’’
‘‘Direct Examination,’’ ‘‘OCS Portion,’’
and ‘‘Repair’’ be incorporated into the
instructions. INGAA commented the
suggested definitions for these terms are
commonly accepted industry
definitions.
A25. Response: PHMSA has
incorporated the definition of actionable
anomaly and included some aspects of

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

the repair definition suggested by
INGAA. There is no need to define
direct examination or OCS portion.
A26: Commenter Jack Wilson asked
why hazardous liquid pipelines are not
being subjected to the same or similar
annual reporting requirements as gas
transmission and gathering pipeline
systems.
A26. Response: The major revisions
(the addition of Parts Q and R) to the
Gas Transmission Annual Report have
been incorporated to collect information
that will be used to address portions of
the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011
that require certain actions applicable to
gas transmission pipelines. These
actions include record verification and
pressure testing for pipelines that have
not been subjected to a pressure test
greater than 1.25 times the MAOP. In
2013, PHMSA will solicit comments in
the Federal Register on all aspects of
the Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Systems (PHMSA F 7000–1.1)
which is authorized under OMB Control
Number 2137–0614 with an expiration
date of January 31, 2014.
B. Gas Transmission Pipeline and
Gathering Systems Incident Report
PHMSA proposed to revise the
‘‘Incident Report—Natural and Other
Gas Transmission and Gathering
Pipeline Systems’’ (PHMSA F 7100.2,
Gas Transmission Incident Report) to
make minor edits and to collect
additional information relating to
incidents involving girth welds. The
form and instructions proposed by
PHMSA in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice and
comments received in response to the
notice may be found at
www.regulations.gov at docket number
PHMSA–2012–0024. The docket also
contains the form and instructions as
amended in response to the comments.
B1. PHMSA proposed revisions to
Part C of the Gas Transmission Incident
Report to collect more information
regarding incidents involving girth
welds. INGAA commented that this
additional information should be
collected for all pipe and joint weld
types.
B1. Response: At this time, PHMSA is
focusing on the proposed revisions
identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice.
Expanding the data collection beyond
girth welds would require significant
additional resources. PHMSA will
consider this suggestion during the next
review of the form which is scheduled
to take place in 2013.
B2: Part G of the Gas Transmission
Incident Report asks for the apparent

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Notices

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

cause of the incident. Section G5 of Part
G requests information relating to an
apparent cause of material failure of the
pipe or weld, including ‘‘Environmental
Cracking-related.’’ INGAA commented
that ‘‘Stress Corrosion Cracking’’ (SCC),
which is currently a subcategory under
‘‘Environmental Cracking-related,’’
should be returned to Part G, section G1
(‘‘Corrosion Failure’’). INGAA noted
that their review of the latest incident
data revealed that no incident reports
have identified SCC as the apparent
cause in Part G, section G5. INGAA
noted that operators have continued to
identify SCC as the apparent cause in
Part G, section G1.
B2. Response: PHMSA moved SCC
from section G1 to section G5 in 2010.
This change was made at the suggestion
of industry to reflect the fact that SCC
is not truly corrosion. The SCC failure
mechanism is more appropriately
reported under the material and weld
failure category. PHMSA has contacted
those operators that have reported SCC
as a ‘‘Corrosion Failure’’ and asked them
to submit supplemental reports
identifying SCC as ‘‘Environmental
Cracking-related’’ in Part G, section G5.
B3: INGAA commented that the Gas
Transmission Incident Report used to
require operators to identify the manner
in which the MAOP was determined.
INGAA suggested that this is a useful
data element that should be added back
to the Gas Transmission Incident
Report.
B3. Response: At this time, PHMSA is
focusing on the proposed revisions
identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice. This
issue falls outside of the scope of those
revisions. PHMSA will consider this
suggestion during the next review of the
form which is scheduled to take place
in 2013.
B4: INGAA commented that
definitions for the common industry
terms ‘‘Explode,’’ ‘‘Rupture,’’ and
‘‘Shutdown’’ should be included within
the Gas Transmission Incident Report or
instructions.
B4. Response: PHMSA agrees and has
included these definitions in the
instructions.
C. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems
Accident Report
PHMSA proposed to revise the
‘‘Accident Report—Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Systems’’ (PHMSA F 7000–1,
Hazardous Liquid Accident Report) to
make minor edits and to collect
additional information relating to
accidents involving girth welds. The
form and instructions proposed by
PHMSA in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:05 Sep 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

comments received in response to the
notice may be found at
www.regulations.gov at docket number
PHMSA–2012–0024. The docket also
contains the form and instructions as
amended in response to the comments.
C1: On page 15 of the current
Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
instructions, PHMSA provides guidance
on reporting shutdowns. API and AOPL
commented that the previous version of
the instructions provided additional
guidance regarding how and when
shutdowns of pipeline facilities must be
reported, and that this guidance should
be reinstated to allow for uniform
reporting amongst operators.
C1. Response: PHMSA agrees and has
incorporated the revision as suggested.
C2: On page 1 of the current
Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
instructions, PHMSA provides guidance
on reporting pipeline failures or releases
involving secondary ignition. API and
AOPL commented that this guidance is
confusing and should be removed since
operators must report any release when
a fire not intentionally set by the
operator is involved, irrespective of
which party initiated the release or the
amount of damage.
C2. Response: PHMSA agrees and has
incorporated the revision as suggested.
C3: On page 13 of the current
Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
instructions, PHMSA provides an
‘‘Important Note’’ regarding Part A,
Questions 9 and 10 to require the
inclusion of commodity volumes
consumed by fire or explosion in the
estimated volumes reported. API and
AOPL commented that this guidance is
contrary to previous guidance and will
result in data that does not correlate
with previous data. API and AOPL
further requested that PHMSA note this
change to avoid misinterpretation or
incorrect analysis of the data.
C3. Response: PHMSA has amended
the instructions for Part A, Questions 9
and 10 to remove the ‘‘Important Note’’
and to specify that the volumes
consumed by fire should only be
reported as a dollar value under Part D,
Question 8.
C4: Part A, Question 7 of the
Hazardous Liquid Accident Report asks
for the local time and date of the initial
telephonic report of the accident to the
National Response Center (NRC). The
Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
instructions specify that the time
reported should reflect the time zone
where the accident was physically
located. API and AOPL commented that
the NRC puts a time stamp on each
report based on the Eastern Time Zone,
and not the local time at the accident
location, and that PHMSA should note

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58621

this discrepancy in the Hazardous
Liquid Accident Report instructions in
order to reduce confusion.
C4. Response: PHMSA will add the
note suggested by API to warn operators
that the NRC report time stamp must be
converted to local time. PHMSA will
also make this change in the Gas
Transmission Incident Report.
C5: API and AOPL commented that
the ‘‘Supplemental Report’’ section on
Page 8 of the Hazardous Liquid
Accident Report instructions incorrectly
cites 49 CFR 191.15(c) from the natural
gas regulations and should be corrected
to reference 49 CFR 195.54(b) from the
hazardous liquid regulations.
C5. Response: PHMSA has corrected
the regulation referenced in the
instructions.
C6: Part G of the Hazardous Liquid
Accident Report allows for the reporting
of ‘‘Apparent Cause’’ and Part G, section
G6 applies to ‘‘Equipment Failure.’’
PHMSA did not propose revisions to
this Part. API and AOPL recommended
that PHMSA revise Part G, section G6 to
add ‘‘abnormal wear’’ as a sub-cause in
an effort to reduce operator use of the
option ‘‘other,’’ thereby increasing the
accuracy and specificity of PHMSA’s
data. API and AOPL further
recommended that the option ‘‘none’’ be
added to Part G, section G6, and that the
phrase ‘‘Complete the following if any
Equipment Failure sub-cause is
selected’’ be deleted. API and AOPL
suggested that these proposed revisions
will further substantiate PHMSA’s data.
C6. Response: At this time, PHMSA is
focusing on the proposed revisions
identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice. This
issue falls outside of the scope of those
revisions. PHMSA will consider this
suggestion during the next review of the
form which is scheduled to take place
in 2013.
C7: Part D of the hazardous liquid
accident report allows for the reporting
of ‘‘ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCE
INFORMATION.’’ PHMSA proposed to
revise Part D, Question 8(a), to delete
the phrase ‘‘paid/reimbursed by the
Operator.’’ API and AOPL commented
that PHMSA should not implement the
proposed deletion. API and AOPL
suggested that the proposed deletion
would create a misleading impression
that private individuals must pay, or
have paid, damages resulting from a
release. They further specified that it is
only in extremely rare instances that an
entity other than the operator incurs any
cost and, in those rare instances, the
operator is unlikely to know the costs
incurred by other parties, rendering
them unable to provide an accurate
response.

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

58622

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Notices

C7. Response: PHMSA removed
‘‘paid/reimbursed by the Operator’’ from
the form in response to questions from
operators about whether they should
report total property damage or just the
dollar amount paid for by the operator.
PHMSA expects operators to report total
property damage, regardless of whether
the operator paid for the damage. In
cases where the operator has not paid
for the damage, the dollar amount must
be estimated. PHMSA will remove
‘‘paid/reimbursed by the Operator’’ from
the form.
C8: PHMSA proposed revisions in
Part C of the report to collect more
information for incidents involving girth
welds. API and AOPL suggest that
PHMSA restructure the form so that all
the data will be collected in a data field
within Part C, rather than in the
narrative where it is unavailable for
public examination and proper analysis.
C8. Response: The revision proposed
by the commenters would require
extensive modifications to the form and
to the methods of data analysis. PHMSA
will consider this suggestion during the
next review of the form which is
scheduled to take place in 2013.
C9: API and AOPL commented that
PHMSA should ensure that all proposed
changes are reflected in the instructions.
C9. Response: PHMSA has revised the
instructions to reflect the proposed
revisions.
C10: Part A of the hazardous liquid
accident report allows for the reporting
of ‘‘Key Report Information.’’ PHMSA
did not propose any changes to this
Part. API and AOPL suggested that Part
A, Question 10 be revised from
‘‘Estimated volume of intentional and/or
controlled release/blowdown’’ to
‘‘Estimated volume of intentional and/or
controlled release/blowdown (HVL/CO2
releases only).’’ API and AOPL specified
that adoption of the proposed
modification would be consistent with
the original objective of the question —
to differentiate information on HVL/
CO2 releases where product is vented or
flared under the operator’s control to
facilitate repair following a release, as
opposed to what was released
unintentionally during the release
event. API and AOPL further suggested
that this revision be detailed in the
instructions as well.
C10. Response: PHMSA agrees with
the comment from API and AOPL and
has revised the form and instructions as
suggested.
D. General Comments
D1: AGA commented that PHMSA
should involve industry more in the
deliberation process for implementing
changes to the forms.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:05 Sep 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

D1. Response: In compliance with the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, PHMSA involves
industry by seeking comments and
suggestions on proposed recordkeeping
and reporting activities and will
continue to do so.
III. Proposed Information Collection
Revisions and Request for Comments
The following information is provided
for each revised information collection:
(1) Title of the information collection;
(2) OMB control number; (3) Type of
request; (4) Abstract of the information
collection activity; (5) Description of
affected public; (6) Estimate of total
annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden; and (7) Frequency of collection.
PHMSA will request a three-year term of
approval for each information collection
activity. PHMSA is only focusing on the
revisions detailed in this notice and will
request revisions to the following
information collection activities.
1. Title: Incident and Annual Reports
for Gas Pipeline Operators.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0522.
Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2014.
Type of Request: Revision.
Abstract: PHMSA is looking to revise
the Gas Transmission Annual Report
(PHMSA F 7100.2–1) to collect
additional information in response to
recent NTSB recommendations and the
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty,
and Job Creation Act of 2011. In
addition, PHMSA is revising the Gas
Transmission Incident Report Form
(PHMSA F 7100.2) to allow for the
submission of additional information
regarding the pipe in relation to girth
weld failures.
Affected Public: Gas transmission/
gathering pipeline operators.
Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
Burden:
Total Annual Responses: 21,864.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 83,144
(increase of 5,760).
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
2. Title: Transportation of Hazardous
Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and
Accident Reporting.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0047.
Current Expiration Date: 12/31/2013.
Type of Request: Revision.
Abstract: PHMSA is looking to revise
the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
Form (PHMSA F 7000–1) to allow for
the submission of additional
information regarding the pipe in
relation to girth weld failures.
Affected Public: Hazardous liquid
pipeline operators.
Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
Burden:
Total Annual Responses: 847.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,329.

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Comments Are Invited On
(a) The need for the proposed
collection of information for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September
18, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012–23335 Filed 9–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA—PHMSA–2012–0137]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
PHMSA invites comments on a new
information collection (IC) to help
determine the effectiveness of PHMSA’s
811 Public Service Announcement
(PSA) campaign. A Federal Register
Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on this information
collection was published on July 5, 2012
(77 FR 39797). No comments were
received.

SUMMARY:

Send comments regarding
the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for
PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before October 22, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Dow by telephone at 202–366–
1246, by fax at 202–366–4566, or by
ADDRESSES:

E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM

21SEN1