
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44246-44249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 amy.nelson@dot.gov.

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


