Department of Transportation
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Supporting Statement
Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Program Certifications
INTRODUCTION
This is to request the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) approval of the information collection “Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Program Certifications” under OMB Control No. 2137-0584. This information collection is being revised to account for changes made to the Pipeline Safety regulations by the following action:
Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0192
Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Damage Prevention Programs
This action adds 51 new respondents and 612 burden hours to this information collection as a result of the excavation damage recordkeeping requirement of this rule.
Part A. Justification
1. Circumstances that make collection of information necessary.
Chapter 601, Title 49, United States Code (49 U.S.C.) authorizes the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to regulate pipeline transportation. While DOT is primarily responsible for developing, issuing, and enforcing minimum pipeline safety regulations, Chapter 601, 49 U.S.C., provides for state assumption of all or part of the regulatory and enforcement responsibility for intrastate pipelines.
Section 60105 of 49 U.S.C. sets forth specific requirements a state must meet to qualify for certification status to assume regulatory and enforcement responsibility for intrastate pipelines, i.e., state adoption of minimum federal safety standards, state inspection of pipeline operators to determine compliance with the standards, and state provision for enforcement sanctions substantially the same as those authorized by Chapter 601, 49 U.S.C. A participating state must annually submit a Section 60105(a) Gas Pipeline Safety Program Certification and/or a Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Program Certification to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) signifying compliance with the terms of the certification.
This information collection request supports DOT’s safety performance goal of reducing total incidents for gas and hazardous liquid pipelines which directly supports the DOT’s safety strategic objective of enhancing public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries.
2. How, by whom, and for what purpose is the information used.
The information provided by a state annually on the certification/agreement instruments is used by OPS for the following purposes:
As confirmation that the state wishes to continue to participate in the pipeline safety program for another year.
As a source of information for preparation and submission of the Annual Report on Pipeline Safety due to Congress August 15 each year as mandated in Chapter 601, 49 U.S.C. These sections require that the annual report include a compilation of the certifications/agreements in effect during the year, along with information on the number and qualifications of state pipeline safety inspectors, pipeline accidents, research activities, judicial actions, and information dissemination efforts.
As a measure of state program performance that can be used to calculate the state grant allocation each year. (The certification/agreement attachments are used primarily to determine the State agency’s compliance with program requirements (e.g., extent of jurisdiction, inspector qualifications, number of inspectors, number of inspection person-days, adoption of applicable Federal regulations and attendance at Federal/State meetings). A State agency’s performance is the major factor considered in allocating grant-in-aid funds each year.)
As a means of demonstrating to Congress the value of the cooperative Federal/state pipeline safety program and of justifying the appropriation of funds for pipeline safety grants.
If this information were not collected on the certification/agreement instruments, there would be no way of systematically knowing if a state intends to continue its participation in the pipeline safety program. Additionally, a major source of information for preparation of the annual report to Congress would not be available. Information indicating state program performance for calculating state grant allocations would be limited. And finally, there would be no readily available basis for estimating appropriation levels for grant funding.
3. Extent of automated information collection.
States are required to complete the application for certification via FedSTAR - an online tool. All applications must be certified by signature prior to submission. Although PHMSA is capable of receiving digital signatures, not all states delegate signature authority to the person completing the application. PHMSA estimates that 10 respondents will completely submit electronically.
4. Efforts to identify duplication.
OPS is not aware of any other entity or effort to collect this information.
5. Efforts to minimize the burden on small businesses.
Because this information collection applies only to states and not individual businesses, this question is not applicable.
6. Impact of less frequent collection of information.
If this information was collected less frequently, information used to calculate the annual state grant allocations would not be timely or accurate, possibly resulting in an inequitable distribution of funds.
7. Special circumstances.
This collection of information is generally conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).
8. Compliance with 5 CFR 1320.8.
PHMSA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register on July 23, 2015 (80 FR 43836).
9. Payments or gifts to respondents.
There is no payment or gift provided to respondents associated with this collection of information.
10. Assurance of confidentiality.
PHMSA does not have the authority to grant confidentiality.
11. Justification for collection of sensitive information.
The recordkeeping requirements of this information collection do not involve questions of a sensitive nature.
12. Estimate of burden hours for information requested.
Currently Approved: 67 responses and 3,920 hours
New Burden Request: 118 responses and 4532 burden hours.
In addition to the burden associated with the currently approved collection, PHMSA estimates 51 will take approximately 12 hours to compile and maintain records associated with the damage prevention recordkeeping requirement resulting in an increased burden of 612 hours (12 hours * 51 respondents.)
The total overall burden associated with this collection is 118 responses (67 currently approved+51newly required) and 4,532 hours (3920 currently approved+612newly required)
13. Estimate of total annual costs to respondents.
There is no additional cost to respondents to comply with the new recordkeeping requirements.
14. Estimate of cost to the Federal Government.
There is no additional cost to the Federal government associated with this recordkeeping requirement.
15. Explanation of program changes or adjustments.
On July 23, 2015, PHMSA published a Final Rule [80 FR 43836] revising the Pipeline Safety Regulations to establish criteria and procedures for determining the adequacy of state pipeline excavation damage prevention law enforcement programs. A state must submit an annual certification to assume responsibility for regulating intrastate pipelines, and certain records must be maintained to demonstrate that the state is ensuring satisfactory compliance with the pipeline safety regulations. PHMSA uses that information to evaluate a state’s eligibility for Federal grants.
As a result of this final rule, PHMSA will require states who receive Federal grant funding to have adequate damage prevention plans in place. These plans may be reviewed during scheduled inspections. PHMSA understands that retaining this information will result in an additional recordkeeping burden. The currently approved collection accounts for an overall burden of 3,920 hours. As a result of this program change, PHMSA estimates an additional 612 hours will be added to that burden for an overall burden of 4,532 hours.
16. Publication of results of data collection.
The information will not be published for statistical purposes.
17. Approval for not displaying the expiration date for OMB approval.
OPS is not seeking approval to not display the expiration date.
18. Exceptions to certification
There is no exception.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | Supporting Statement |
| Author | pchandle |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-24 |