Document ID: PHMSA-2008-0291-0061
Agency: phmsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals
Posted Date: 2011-11-10T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70217-70220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29084]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2008-0291]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

ACTION: Request for public comments and OMB approval of new Information 
Collection.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
SUMMARY: On December 13, 2010, 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 create a national registry of pipeline and liquefied 
natural gas (LNG) operators. PHMSA received one comment in response to 
that notice. PHMSA is publishing this notice to respond to the comment, 
to provide the public with an additional 30 days to comment on the 
proposed revisions to the operator registry forms, including the form 
instructions, and to announce that the revised Information Collections 
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by December 12, 2011 to 
be assured of consideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Dow by telephone at (202) 366-
1246, by fax at (202) 366-4566, by email at Angela.Dow@dot.gov, or by 
mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number 
PHMSA-2008-0291 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1 (202) 395-6566.
     Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, 726 Jackson Place NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
ATTN: Desk Officer for the U.S. Department of Transportation.
     Email: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, at the following address: oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov.
    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 Angela.Dow@dot.gov, 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 a new 
information collection request that PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for 
approval. The information collection will be titled: ``National 
Registry of Pipeline and Liquefied Natural Gas Operators.'' PHMSA 
published a final rule in the Federal Register on November 26, 2010 (75 
FR 72878), titled ``Pipeline Safety: Updates to Pipeline and Liquefied 
Natural Gas Reporting Requirements.'' That final rule added two new 
sections, 49 CFR 191.22 and 195.64, to the pipeline safety regulations 
for the establishment of a ``National Registry of Pipeline and 
Liquefied Natural Gas Operators,'' which will be used by operators to 
obtain an Operator Identification (OPID) number. The following 
information is provided for each information collection: (1) Title of 
the information collection; (2) Office of Management and Budget (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.
    The comments are summarized and addressed below as specified in the 
following outline:

I. Background
II. Summary of Comments/Topics
III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for 
Comments

I. Background

    PHMSA published a final rule in the Federal Register on November 
26, 2010, (75 FR 72878), titled ``Pipeline Safety: Updates to Pipeline 
and Liquefied Natural Gas Reporting Requirements.'' That final rule 
added two new sections, 49 CFR 191.22 and 195.64, to the pipeline 
safety regulations for the establishment of a national pipeline 
operator registry, which will be used by operators to obtain an 
Operator Identification (OPID) number. PHMSA is proposing to use two 
forms as part of this information collection. When an operator requests 
an initial OPID number, an online form titled ``OPID Assignment Request 
(PHMSA F 1000.1)'' will be used. For an operator notifying PHMSA of 
certain required changes associated with an OPID (see 49 CFR 191.22 and 
195.64) or for operators updating their OPID information, a form titled 
``Operator Registry Notification (PHMSA F 1000.2)'' will be used. 
Copies of these forms have been placed in the docket and are available 
for comment.

II. Summary of Comments/Topics

    During the two month response period, PHMSA received a combined 
comment from American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Oil 
Pipelines Association (AOPL) on the proposal outlined in the December 
2010 Federal Register notice.

A. OPID Assignment Request (Form PHMSA F 1000.1)

    A1. API-AOPL noted that Step 1, ``Enter Basic Information,'' 
incorrectly implies that some rural low-stress hazardous liquid 
pipelines are not subject to part 195 although they are required to 
submit reports under Subpart B. They noted that being subject to 
Subpart B is being subject to Part 195. They also note that this step 
incorrectly implies that unregulated rural gathering lines are subject 
to reporting requirements.
    Response: PHMSA agrees and has revised and reordered the elements 
of Question 1 in this step to better align these elements with the 
degree to which pipelines are subject to part 195.
    A2. In Step 2, API-AOPL requested clarification of the term 
``vessels'' in the item ``Hazardous Liquid Breakout Tanks [rarr] Total 
Number of Tanks/Caverns/Vessels.''
    Response: This item meant to indicate that the operator should 
report the total number of tanks, caverns, or other containers (i.e., 
vessels) that serve as breakout tanks. PHMSA agrees that the term 
``vessels,'' is not used elsewhere and could cause confusion. PHMSA 
also concludes that the intended clarification is unnecessary and has 
revised this item to indicate only that operators should report the 
total number of breakout tanks.

[[Page 70218]]

    A3. API-AOPL commented that identifying all counties through which 
a pipeline passes will be an additional reporting burden. They 
suggested that a drop-down list including all counties in each state be 
provided as part of the online reporting system.
    Response: PHMSA agrees and will include drop-down lists in the 
online reporting system to facilitate providing this information.
    A4. API-AOPL pointed out a formatting error in that the statement 
at the bottom of each page indicating that a step continues did not 
always refer to the correct question number.
    Response: PHMSA has revised the form to fix this error.
    A5. API-AOPL asked that PHMSA clarify the reason for requesting 
right-of-way miles as well as pipeline miles (Step 2, Question 3). They 
noted that not all companies calculate right-of-way miles for business 
purposes and that reporting this information could result in additional 
burden.
    Response: PHMSA has agreed to remove the question concerning right-
of-way miles.
    A6. Step 2, Question 4, asks for a brief description of the 
pipelines/facilities covered by an OPID assignment request. API-AOPL 
noted that the amount of detail to be provided in this description is 
not clear and suggested that PHMSA include examples in the 
instructions. They noted that this form is applicable to hazardous 
liquid pipelines and gas pipelines as well as LNG facilities and 
requested that the examples address all of these types of facilities.
    Response: PHMSA agrees that examples for each facility type would 
be useful and has included them in the revised instructions.
    A7. Step 3 collects information concerning PHMSA-required safety 
programs. Pipeline operators with systems covered by multiple OPIDs 
often manage these as common programs covering all (or multiple) OPIDs. 
This step asks that the operator designate the ``primary'' OPID for 
each program. API-AOPL requested clarification as to how the 
designation of an OPID as ``primary'' is to be made.
    Response: This ``primary'' OPID designation is intended to 
represent the OPID that should be the focus of PHMSA inspection 
activities covering the specific safety program in question. As such, 
it should be the OPID under which that particular safety program is 
managed or administered, and typically will be associated with the 
physical location where the main documentation and description of the 
safety program exist. (For example, if the pipelines covered by an OPID 
assignment request for OPID 67890 are part of an Integrity Management 
Program that is administered by the operator under its existing OPID 
12345, then the primary OPID would be 12345). The designation of which 
multiple OPIDs is ``primary'' is at the operator's discretion, but it 
is important that once a particular OPID is selected as ``primary,'' 
the operator continue to list this same OPID as ``primary'' in future 
notifications concerning the safety program in question. PHMSA has 
clarified this in the instructions.
    A8. Step 4, Question 1, asks for information about the ``operator 
contact responsible for assuring compliance'' with PHMSA regulations. 
API-AOPL noted that several personnel could fit this description and 
requested additional clarification.
    Response: PHMSA agrees that this description was vague. Ultimately, 
any operator personnel who perform or manage work required by the 
regulations have some responsibility for assuring compliance. This 
question was intended to collect information regarding the person who 
oversees compliance and typically is the principal contact with PHMSA 
to discuss regulatory issues. This would include such titles as 
``Manager of Compliance,'' ``Regulatory Compliance Officer,'' ``DOT 
Compliance Supervisor,'' ``Pipeline Safety Manager,'' etc. PHMSA has 
revised the form to state ``operator contact responsible for overseeing 
compliance'' and has included these position titles as examples in the 
instructions.
    A9. API-AOPL requested that the contact information collected in 
Step 4 be kept confidential.
    Response: PHMSA does not intend to make this information publicly 
available. It could be subject to release under a Freedom of 
Information Act request, but all such releases are subject to privacy 
exemptions in that Act and the Privacy Act.
    A10. API-AOPL noted that the various ``contacts'' included in Step 
4 are often located at a common address and asked that the form allow 
for entering this information only once.
    Response: PHMSA has revised the online reporting system to allow 
designation of a common address for multiple contacts.
    A11. API-AOPL requested that the online reporting system provide a 
simple mechanism for updating contact information for an OPID.
    Response: PHMSA agrees that such a mechanism will be useful and has 
plans to incorporate such a mechanism in the near future.
    A12. API-AOPL questioned whether this same form would be used to 
validate/collect information for existing OPIDs and requested that any 
such information collection be delayed until the on-line reporting 
system is available.
    Response: 49 CFR 191.22(b) and 195.64(b) require validation of 
information for existing OPIDs by gas pipeline/LNG operators and 
hazardous liquid pipeline operators, respectively. This same form will 
be used for that purpose. PHMSA is planning for the on-line reporting 
system to be available to operators for validation purposes before 
validation is required.

B. Operator Registry Notification (Form PHMSA F 1000.2)

    B1. API-AOPL noted that Step 1, Question 7, indicates the operator 
is to select only one type of facility and asked whether the form was 
to be completed multiple times for an operator with more than one type 
of facility covered by the same OPID. They also noted that Step 3, 
Question 1, allows operators to select all pipeline facility types that 
apply, in apparent contradiction to this limitation to one facility 
type.
    Response: PHMSA has modified the form to allow operators to select 
all facility types that apply.
    B2. API-AOPL requested that PHMSA clarify whether a separate form 
is required for each type of change listed in Step 2.
    Response: No. Operators may report multiple types of changes in a 
single notification.
    B3. API-AOPL requested clarification as to whether one or both 
operators must file a notification in the case of a transfer of assets. 
They also questioned whether the date to be reported should be the date 
on which ownership or operating responsibility is transferred in cases 
where they do not occur simultaneously.
    Response: Both operators are required to file a notification in the 
event of a transfer of assets, each reporting the change affecting 
their OPID(s). The date should be the date operating responsibility is 
transferred. The instructions have been revised to clarify this.
    B4. For changes involving the name of an operator (TYPE A) or the 
entity responsible for operation (TYPE B), the form asks an operator to 
enter the reason for the change. API-AOPL asked for justification for 
requiring this information and why reports are needed for this type of 
change when there is no simple mechanism for reporting smaller changes 
such as address or name of Senior Executive Officer.

[[Page 70219]]

    Response: The operator of a pipeline facility is responsible for 
compliance with pipeline safety regulations. Accordingly, PHMSA's 
regulatory activities are focused on the operating entity. PHMSA thus 
needs to know whether changes of this type reflect a new operating 
entity. A change in name of operator can, for example, reflect a 
corporate re-branding or it can mean a more significant change in the 
operating company. A change in responsible entity could be due to a 
sale of assets or to a shift in responsibility from one subsidiary of a 
common parent company to another. The potential effect of these changes 
on continuity in responsibility for compliance would vary, and 
determine PHMSA's follow-up to the notification. This form only 
requires reporting of those changes where the regulations require that 
an operator notify PHMSA. Changes in address or contact information for 
key personnel are not required to be reported. PHMSA plans, however, to 
provide on-line means to report such changes in basic information in 
the near future.
    B5. For several change types which involve changes in operating 
responsibility, the draft form included a question on whether the 
operator wanted PHMSA to deactivate the existing OPID. API-AOPL noted 
that only the holder of a specific OPID should be able to request 
deactivation.
    Response: PHMSA agrees that only the holder of an OPID should be 
able to request deactivation and that this question should not be 
included on a form that will be completed by both parties involved in a 
transfer of responsibilities. PHMSA has deleted this question from the 
form. The question was not intended to result in automatic 
deactivation, but rather to prompt PHMSA to follow-up with the 
reporting operator. PHMSA will instead address the question of OPID 
deactivation as part of its normal contact with operators.
    B6. API-AOPL asked for clarification concerning changes of TYPE D 
(acquisition/divestiture of 50 or more miles of pipe) and TYPE E 
(acquisition/divestiture of a pipeline facility). They noted, for 
example, that a ``pipeline facility'' may consist of only a few miles 
of pipe and questioned whether acquisition/divestiture of such a 
facility should be reported as TYPE E when a transaction involving the 
same mileage would not be reported as TYPE D.
    Response: ``Pipeline facility'' is defined in both Parts 192 and 
195 and includes ``new and existing pipelines, right-of-ways, and any 
equipment, facility, or building used in the transportation'' of the 
commodity. (Both definitions are included in the instructions under 
TYPE E.) API-AOPL is correct that the acquisition/divestiture of an 
entire pipeline consisting of only a few miles would need to be 
reported as TYPE E while acquisition/divestiture of the same amount of 
pipe that did not involve sale of a complete facility would not need to 
be reported. The difference reflects PHMSA's need for the information. 
PHMSA regulates the operator of a facility. If a complete facility 
changes hands, then PHMSA needs to update its records, inspection 
plans, etc., to assure that appropriate attention is paid to the new 
operator. If, on the other hand, a larger operator acquires or divests 
itself of a few miles of pipe, significant changes in PHMSA oversight 
plans are not needed. PHMSA will obtain information about these changes 
through routine inspections and update its records/plans as 
appropriate. To reduce the aggregate reporting burden associated with 
this form, we will not require that operators report acquisition/
divestiture of small amounts of pipe (< 50 miles). PHMSA has made 
changes to clarify these distinctions.
    B7. Change TYPE F involves ``rehabilitation, replacement, 
modification, upgrade, uprate, or update of facilities, other than a 
section of line pipe that costs $10 million or more.'' API-AOPL 
requested clarification, including the basis for the stated exclusion. 
They asked if rehabilitation of line pipe costing more than $11 million 
would need to be reported.
    Response: Construction-type changes are reported as either TYPE F 
or G. Pipeline operators continually construct/rehabilitate facilities, 
and routine activities of this type are addressed as part of PHMSA's 
routine inspection program. These notifications are to collect 
information on larger changes for which special inspections may be 
required. Thus, a reporting threshold was needed. For line pipe, a 
threshold based on miles of pipe to be constructed is appropriate. Cost 
is not an appropriate threshold for changes in line pipe because per-
mile construction costs vary significantly depending on the environment 
in which construction is to occur (e.g., rural vs. urban). A mileage 
threshold alone, however, would not identify other significant changes 
(e.g., construction of a new pump/compressor station) for which 
construction inspections would be appropriate. Changes not involving 
construction of line pipe and which are expected to cost $10 million or 
more should be reported as TYPE F. Construction of 10 miles or more of 
line pipe, (including replacement of 10 or more miles of an existing 
pipeline) should be reported as TYPE G. Construction of line pipe 
costing more than $10 million but involving less than 10 miles need not 
be reported.
    B8. Changes of TYPES F and G must be submitted 60 days before 
planned start of construction. API-AOPL noted that construction dates 
often slip. They questioned whether reported dates for anticipated 
start of work would need to be updated.
    Response: No. As described above, the purpose of these 
notifications is for PHMSA to plan for inspections to be conducted 
during construction. Notifications of this type will prompt PHMSA to 
contact the operator to arrange for such inspections. PHMSA expects 
that the operator will keep PHMSA informed of changes in the 
anticipated date of field operations as part of these pre-inspection 
interactions.
    B9. API-AOPL commented that it was inappropriate to include an 
operations question referring to maximum allowable operating pressure 
(MAOP) in an OPID data form (TYPE G).
    Response: PHMSA disagrees. This question applies only to gas 
transmission pipelines and asks whether the new pipeline will use 
alternate MAOP under 49 CFR 192.620. Pipe to be operated at alternate 
MAOP is subject to many requirements not applicable to other pipelines 
and for which special inspections by PHMSA may be required. As noted 
above, the purpose for notifications of this type is for PHMSA to 
manage its inspection resources.
    B10. API-AOPL commented that it was not clear which portions of 
Step 3 need to be completed for each change ``Type'' in Step 2.
    Response: The on-line reporting system will be configured so that 
only those questions applicable to the change types selected in 
Question 2 will be presented for answers. This should resolve the 
confusion.
    B11. Step 3, Question 4, asks for a brief description of the 
pipelines/facilities covered by this notification. API-AOPL asked that 
examples be included indicating the level of detail that PHMSA expects 
in these notifications.
    Response: PHMSA has included examples in the instructions.

C. Comments Applicable to Both Forms

    C1. API-AOPL noted that the paper forms are confusing, in large 
part because it is difficult to track which questions in later steps 
apply to specific change types selected in earlier steps. They 
suggested that PHMSA make

[[Page 70220]]

maximum use of on-line reporting, with the on-line system limiting the 
questions presented for completion, making maximum use of drop-down 
menus, etc.
    Response: PHMSA agrees. The new regulation requires on-line 
reporting. The purpose of the paper form is to collect public comments. 
The on-line system will use ``smart navigation'' that will screen later 
questions based on information entered earlier. Drop down menus will be 
used whenever possible.
    C2. API-AOPL expects the time it takes to complete the form to 
exceed the 15 minutes PHMSA proposed by up to three times as much.
    Response: Completion of the OPID Assignment Request form is 
intended to be a one-time effort to collect as much as possible of the 
operator's information that PHMSA needs. Once this information is 
completed, PHMSA does not require the operator to undertake this effort 
again. The Operator Registry Notification form will be used to update 
any pertinent information that may have changed based on PHMSA's 
notification requirements since the OPID was originally issued. 
Operators will not have to complete the entire form. They will only 
update the section that is applicable to the change for which PHMSA is 
being notified. Given that most companies know this information prior 
to informing PHMSA, we estimate that the average time for completing 
these forms will be 15 minutes.
    C3. API-AOPL commented that the forms request information not 
specified in the rule or discussed in the rulemaking (e.g., the 
counties through which involved pipeline is routed). They noted that 
this could be construed as rulemaking without notice and comment.
    Response: The rule did not specify the particular information that 
must be submitted for each type of notification. That is the purpose of 
these forms, and the forms have been subjected to notice and comment.
    C4. API-AOPL suggested that PHMSA expand the instructions, where 
possible, to include more detail and specific examples. They noted that 
operators want to submit all of the information the agency needs and 
that more detailed instructions would help facilitate this.
    Response: PHMSA appreciates API-AOPL's comments on these forms and 
pipeline operators' efforts to submit information as needed. PHMSA has 
revised the instructions to include more specificity and details. PHMSA 
invites stakeholders to submit suggestions for additional changes at 
any time, which will be considered for future revisions of these 
instructions.

D. Master Meter and Small Petroleum Gas Systems

    The form will specify that operators of master meter systems or 
operators that solely operate petroleum gas systems which serve fewer 
than 100 customers from a single source (small petroleum gas operators) 
do not need to follow the Operator Registry requirements in 49 CFR 
191.22 and 195.64. However, this exception does not extend to operators 
of these systems who also operate other system types. Small petroleum 
gas operators that do not have an OPID and are required to file an 
incident report will be able to request an OPID during the incident 
filing process.

III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for Comments

    The forms to be created as a result of this information collection 
are the OPID Assignment Request form and the Operator Registry 
Notification form. The burden hours associated with these information 
collections are specified as follows:
    Title of Information Collection: National Registry of Pipeline and 
Liquefied Natural Gas Operators.
    OMB Control Number: Pending.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Abstract: PHMSA is requiring each operator to have an OPID number. 
The OPID number will contain detailed information on the operator. In 
addition, PHMSA is requiring that an operator provide PHMSA with update 
notifications for certain changes to information initially provided by 
the operator.
    Affected Public: Pipeline Operators.
    Recordkeeping:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,753.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,506.
    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 November 3, 2011.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011-29084 Filed 11-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P