Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Notices 61937 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2014–0086] 

Pipeline Safety: Guidance for 

Strengthening Pipeline Safety Through 

Rigorous Program Evaluation and 

Meaningful Metrics 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory 

Bulletin. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA published Advisory 

Bulletin ADB–2012–10 in the Federal 

Register on December 5, 2012, to 

remind operators of gas transmission 

and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities 

of their responsibilities under current 

regulations to perform evaluations of 

their Integrity Management (IM) 

programs using meaningful performance 

metrics. PHMSA is issuing this 

Advisory Bulletin to expand that 

reminder by informing owners and 

operators of gas and hazardous liquid 

pipelines that PHMSA has developed 

guidance on the elements and 

characteristics of a mature program 

evaluation process that uses meaningful 

metrics. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris McLaren by phone at 281–216– 

4455 or by email at chris.mclaren@

dot.gov. All materials in this docket may 

be accessed electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov. Information about 

PHMSA may be found at http://

www.phmsa.dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

PHMSA has long recognized and 

communicated the critical importance 

of operator self-evaluation as part of an 

effective safety program. PHMSA has 

promoted and required the development 

and implementation of processes to 

perform program evaluations, including 

the regular monitoring and reporting of 

meaningful metrics to assess operator 

performance. 

PHMSA further communicated this 

expectation in Advisory Bulletin ADB– 

2012–10, which was published in the 

Federal Register on December 5, 2012. 

That Advisory Bulletin explicitly 

reminded operators of gas transmission 

and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities 

of their responsibilities under current 

regulations to perform evaluations of 

their IM programs using meaningful 

performance metrics. 

PHMSA has also recognized and 

emphasized the importance of operator 

senior management responsibilities to 

fully understand and acknowledge the 

implications of these program 

evaluations and to take the necessary 

steps to address deficiencies and make 

necessary program improvements. As 

these responsibilities are so important, 

PHMSA requires senior executives of 

operators to certify the IM program 

performance information they annually 

submit to PHMSA. 

As required by the IM rules, operators 

must have a process to measure the 

effectiveness of their programs; a 

process that determines whether the 

program is effective in assessing and 

evaluating pipeline integrity and in 

improving the integrity of pipeline 

systems. Program evaluations can help 

organizations make better management 

decisions and support continual process 

improvement. These evaluations should 

include an assessment gauging how an 

operator’s performance satisfies its 

identified safety performance goals. 

Program and other evaluations may be 

conducted at different levels, including 

the company or corporate level, at a 

system level to gauge one pipeline 

system’s performance against that of 

other systems within the organization or 

for selected assets with similar 

characteristics. Effective program 

evaluations should include all aspects 

of an operator’s organization, not just 

the integrity group. 

Incident/accident investigations and 

abnormal operations and root cause 

analysis frequently reveal that 

management systems and organizational 

program deficiencies or failures are 

important contributors to pipeline 

accidents. For this reason, it is 

important that program evaluations also 

identify potential organizational or 

programmatic deficiencies and failures 

that could have the potential to lead to 

pipeline incidents/accidents. 

Operators should take effective 

corrective measures addressing IM 

program evaluation outcomes to 

improve programmatic activity as well 

as pipeline system performance and 

integrity. IM program evaluation 

processes should be formally controlled 

by operators and be an integral part of 

the operator’s quality control and 

quality assurance program. The formal 

process should include management’s 

commitment to monitor and evaluate 

performance metrics. 

Specific sections in the Federal IM 

regulations that directly require the 

need for operator program evaluation 

and the use of meaningful performance 

metrics include the following: 

• For hazardous liquid pipelines, 

§§ 195.452(f)(7) and 195.452(k) require 

methods to measure program 

effectiveness. Appendix C to 49 CFR 

195 provides specific guidance on 

establishing performance measures, 

including the need to select measures 

based on the understanding and 

analysis of integrity threats to each 

pipeline segment. API Standard 1160, 

‘‘Managing Integrity for Hazardous 

Liquid Pipelines,’’ also provides 

additional guidance on the program 

evaluation process and the use of 

performance measures in improving 

performance. 

• For gas transmission pipelines, 

§§ 192.911(i) and 192.945 define the 

requirements for establishing 

performance metrics and evaluating IM 

program performance. The gas 

requirements invoke ASME B31.8S– 

2004, Managing System Integrity of Gas 

Pipelines. Section 9 of this standard 

provides guidance on the selection of 

performance measures. 

• For gas distribution systems, 

§ 192.1007(e) requires development and 

monitoring of performance measures to 

evaluate the effectiveness of IM 

programs. An operator must consider 

the results of its performance 

monitoring in periodically reevaluating 

threats and risks. Guidance from ANSI/ 

GPTC Z380, ‘‘Guide for Gas 

Transmission and Distribution Piping 

Systems, 2012 Edition’’ and Section 9 of 

ASME B31.8S–2004, ‘‘Managing System 

Integrity of Gas Pipelines’’ can also be 

used for the selection of performance 

measures that can be applied to gas 

distribution systems. 

When performing routine pipeline 

system inspections, PHMSA noted 

weaknesses in the development and 

implementation of program evaluations, 

including weaknesses in using 

meaningful metrics to identify 

opportunities for program 

improvements and corrective actions. 

Additionally, NTSB Recommendation 

P–11–19, which was generated 

following the San Bruno, CA, failure 

investigation, recommended PHMSA 

develop and implement standards for 

IM and other performance-based safety 

programs that require operators of all 

types of pipeline systems to assess the 

effectiveness of their programs using 

clear and meaningful metrics and 

identify and then correct deficiencies. 

In response to PHMSA’s selfidentified concerns and the NTSB 

recommendation, PHMSA developed a 

guidance document titled ‘‘Guidance for 

Strengthening Pipeline Safety Through 

Rigorous Program Evaluation and 

Meaningful Metrics,’’ which is available 

at http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/

PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Pipeline/

Regulations/IMPEG.pdf. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
61938 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Notices 

Major topic areas addressed in the 

guidance document include: 

• Establishing Safety Performance 

Goals. 

• Identifying Required Metrics. 

• Selecting Additional Meaningful 

Metrics. 

• Metric Monitoring and Data 

Collection. 

• Program Evaluation Using Metrics. 

The guidance document includes 

tables listing regulation-required metrics 

and other programmatic and threatspecific metrics that operators could 

include in their documented IM 

program evaluations. 

• Table 1 lists the IM-related metrics 

documented in pipeline operators’ 

annual reports. 

• Table 2 lists the threat-specific 

metrics required by § 192.945 for gas 

transmission and required by 

§ 192.1007(g) for gas distribution 

systems. 

• Table 3 provides guidance for 

operators and inspectors to identify 

meaningful metrics to help understand 

and measure the effectiveness of the 

individual program elements and 

processes used in an IM program. 

• Table 4 provides guidance for 

operators and inspectors to identify 

meaningful threat-specific metrics that 

may be required to effectively measure 

the performance of gas transmission, 

hazardous liquid transmission and gas 

distribution pipeline IM programs. 

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–2014–05) 

To: Owners and Operators of Natural 

Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines. 

Subject: Guidance for Strengthening 

Pipeline Safety Through Rigorous 

Program Evaluation and Meaningful 

Metrics. 

Advisory: The Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) is issuing this 

Advisory Bulletin to inform owners and 

operators of natural gas and hazardous 

liquid pipelines that PHMSA has 

developed guidance on the elements 

and characteristics of a mature IM 

program evaluation process using 

meaningful metrics. This guidance 

document titled ‘‘Guidance for 

Strengthening Pipeline Safety Through 

Rigorous Program Evaluation and 

Meaningful Metrics,’’ is available on 

PHMSA’s public Web site at http://

phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/

DownloadableFiles/Pipeline/

Regulations/IMPEG.pdf, and should be 

used when operators develop and 

perform IM program evaluations. This 

guidance document provides additional 

specificity to several of the topics 

detailed in a previously issued Advisory 

Bulletin, ADB–2012–10, ‘‘Using 

Meaningful Metrics in Conducting 

Integrity Management Program 

Evaluations.’’ 

Operators under the current 

regulations are required to perform 

program evaluations and use 

meaningful metrics. PHMSA’s 

‘‘Guidance for Strengthening Pipeline 

Safety Through Rigorous Program 

Evaluation and Meaningful Metrics’’ 

builds on existing standards and 

regulations to provide a more detailed 

and comprehensive description of the 

steps involved in program evaluations 

as well as the selection of meaningful 

performance metrics to support these 

evaluations. The guidance expands and 

clarifies PHMSA’s expectations for 

operator processes when measuring IM 

program effectiveness. 

PHMSA inspectors will use the 

program evaluation guidance within 

‘‘Guidance for Strengthening Pipeline 

Safety Through Rigorous Program 

Evaluation and Meaningful Metrics’’ as 

criteria when evaluating the 

effectiveness of operator IM program 

evaluations to assure operators are 

developing sound program evaluation 

processes and are developing and 

applying a robust and meaningful set of 

performance metrics in their program 

evaluations. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 

CFR 1.97. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 09, 

2014. 

Jeffrey D. Wiese, 

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24439 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Departmental Offices; Debt 

Management Advisory Committee; 

Meeting 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(a)(2), that a meeting 

will be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel, 

16th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC, on November 4, 

2014 at 11:30 a.m. of the following debt 

management advisory committee: 

Treasury Borrowing Advisory 

Committee of The Securities Industry 

and Financial Markets Association. 

The agenda for the meeting provides 

for a charge by the Secretary of the 

Treasury or his designate that the 

Committee discuss particular issues and 

conduct a working session. Following 

the working session, the Committee will 

present a written report of its 

recommendations. The meeting will be 

closed to the public, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. App. 2, § 10(d) and P.L. 103–202, 

§ 202(c)(1)(B) (31 U.S.C. § 3121 note). 

This notice shall constitute my 

determination, pursuant to the authority 

placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. 

App. 2, § 10(d) and vested in me by 

Treasury Department Order No. 101–05, 

that the meeting will consist of 

discussions and debates of the issues 

presented to the Committee by the 

Secretary of the Treasury and the 

making of recommendations of the 

Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to 

P.L. 103–202, § 202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this 

information is exempt from disclosure 

under that provision and 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting 

is concerned with information that is 

exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest 

requires that such meetings be closed to 

the public because the Treasury 

Department requires frank and full 

advice from representatives of the 

financial community prior to making its 

final decisions on major financing 

operations. Historically, this advice has 

been offered by debt management 

advisory committees established by the 

several major segments of the financial 

community. When so utilized, such a 

committee is recognized to be an 

advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 

2, § 3. 

Although the Treasury’s final 

announcement of financing plans may 

not reflect the recommendations 

provided in reports of the Committee, 

premature disclosure of the Committee’s 

deliberations and reports would be 

likely to lead to significant financial 

speculation in the securities market. 

Thus, this meeting falls within the 

exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552b(c)(9)(A). 

Treasury staff will provide a technical 

briefing to the press on the day before 

the Committee meeting, following the 

release of a statement of economic 

conditions and financing estimates. This 

briefing will give the press an 

opportunity to ask questions about 

financing projections. The day after the 

Committee meeting, Treasury will 

release the minutes of the meeting, any 

charts that were discussed at the 

meeting, and the Committee’s report to 

the Secretary. 

The Office of Debt Management is 

responsible for maintaining records of 

debt management advisory committee 

meetings and for providing annual 

reports setting forth a summary of 

Committee activities and such other 

matters as may be informative to the 

public consistent with the policy of 5 

U.S.C. 552(b). The Designated Federal 

Officer or other responsible agency 

official who may be contacted for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES