Document ID: PHMSA-2015-0205-0029
Agency: phmsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals
Posted Date: 2016-12-27T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95294-95301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2015-0205]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), 
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2016, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
(PHMSA) published a notice in the Federal Register to invite comments 
on an information collection under Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) Control No. 2137-0522 to revise three forms: (1) PHMSA F 7100.1 
Incident Report--Gas Distribution System; (2) PHMSA F 7100.2 Incident 
Report--Natural and Other Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline 
Systems; and (3) PHMSA F 7100.3 Incident Report--Liquefied Natural Gas 
(LNG) Facilities, and the instructions associated with the Forms. PHMSA 
also invited comments on PHMSA F 7000-1 Accident Report-Hazardous 
Liquid Pipeline Systems and its associated instruction under OMB 
control number 2137-0047.
    During the 60-day comment period, PHMSA received 10 comments from 
stakeholders in response to the proposed form revisions. All 
commenters, except one, supported the overall proposed changes to 
enhance pipeline safety. PHMSA is publishing this notice to respond to 
the specific comments received and to announce that the information 
collection will be submitted to OMB for approval.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer 
for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20503. You may also send comments by email to OIRA-submission@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-
1246, by fax at 202-366-4566, or by mail at U.S. Department of 
Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, Washington, 
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires 
PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected entities 
an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping 
requests. This notice identifies proposed changes to information 
collections that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval. In order to 
streamline and improve the data collection processes, PHMSA is revising 
the incident report forms for both hazardous liquid and gas operators.
    OMB Control Number 2137-0047, which covers the collection of 
hazardous liquid incident data, expires on December 31, 2016. OMB 
Control Number 2137-0522, which currently covers the collection of both 
annual report and incident data for gas operators, expires on October 
31, 2017. To simplify the renewal process of these data collections in 
the future, PHMSA proposes collecting gas incident and gas annual 
reports under separate OMB control numbers. To achieve this, PHMSA 
plans to request a new OMB control number for the three gas incident 
forms currently under OMB Control No. 2137-0522. The remaining reports 
under this information collection--the Gas Transmission, LNG, and 
Mechanical Fitting Failure annual reports--will remain under their 
current OMB control number.
    The 10 comments that PHMSA received in response to the May 13, 
2016, Federal Register notice and request for comment, 81 FR 29943, 
came from the following parties: one public interest group (Pipeline 
Safety Trust (PST)); five from industry organizations (American 
Petroleum Institute (API)-Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL) joint 
submission, API, American Gas Association (AGA), Interstate Natural Gas 
Association of America (INGAA), and Common Ground Alliance (CGA)); 
three natural gas operators (DTE Gas Company (DTE), Southwest Gas 
Corporation (SW), Paiute Pipeline Company (PPC)); and one manufacturer 
of compression fitting (Norton

[[Page 95295]]

McMurray Manufacturing Company (NORMAC)).

A. PHMSA F 7100.1 Incident Report--Gas Distribution System

    AGA, DTE, and, SW commented on PHMSA F 7100.1, Gas Distribution 
Incident Report. The comments are summarized and addressed below.
    1. DTE noted that ``Day Light Savings'' in A4.b should be ``Day 
Light Saving.'' PHMSA has made the correction.
    2. In response to removing the questions about ``Incident Resulted 
From'' (previous A8), DTE recommended retaining the ability for 
operators to report ``NO RELEASE OF GAS'' or a volume of zero in the 
form, particularly Parts A7 and A8. PHMSA has ensured the electronic 
submittal of the gas distribution form accepts ``zero'' in Parts A7 and 
A8.
    3. DTE noted that there does not appear to be a data entry field 
provided for the ``Initial Operator NRC Report Number'' in Part A18 and 
suggested adding one. PHMSA confirms that Part A19 reads ``Initial 
Operator National Response Center Report Number'' and the electronic 
submission will allow the entry of the report number or the operator 
can choose ``NRC Notification Required But Not Made.''
    4. DTE noted that ``the statement in the Federal Register Notice 
for this Information Collection Activity inferring that gas 
distribution systems are not typically shut down during an incident is 
inaccurate. While it is true that operators generally wish to minimize 
the effect of incidents on customer supply, portions of the gas 
distribution system may be isolated and shut down to make repairs by 
closing valves or by squeezing pipe on both sides of the damage. 
However, there are infrequent occurrences of having to shut down an 
entire distribution system.'' In acknowledgement to the ``infrequent 
occurrence'' of having to shut down distribution systems, PHMSA has 
proposed to remove those specific questions for ``shut downs.'' PHMSA 
acknowledges that pipeline operators typically control the flow of gas 
in the smallest possible portion of the system. This change would allow 
stakeholders to understand the actions taken by the operator to control 
the flow of gas during incident response and Part A20 should provide a 
more complete understanding of the operator's response.
    5. DTE recommended adding ``unknown'' to Parts A21a and A21c. AGA 
recommended adding ``unknown'' to Part A21c. PHMSA does not believe 
``unknown'' should be an option in Part A21 ``Did the gas ignite?'' 
Operators should have that information during a reportable incident. SW 
recommended revising Part A21c to ``Estimated Volume of Gas Consumed by 
Fire'' from ``Volume of Gas Consumed by Fire.'' PHMSA agrees and 
revised the form to accommodate estimation rather than precise volume 
information. PHMSA understands that the calculation of gas consumed by 
fire requires some assumptions and estimates. However, PHMSA believes 
this information is important to understand the consequence of gas 
releases.
    6. DTE commented that it will be unduly burdensome to determine the 
number of persons evacuated and the duration of each person's 
evacuation in order to provide a mathematical average length of 
evacuation for Part A23. On the current form, PHMSA collects the number 
of persons evacuated from buildings. To estimate the impact of 
evacuations, it is necessary to determine their length. This data would 
enable a more thorough determination of the benefit of proposed 
regulations. When an incident includes evacuations, pipeline operators 
may have to estimate the length of evacuation for each building and 
estimate the number people evacuated from each building. PHMSA revised 
Part A23 to say ``Estimated Average Length of Evacuation.''
    7. DTE recommended that PHMSA allow the ability to report ``zero'' 
for ``Depth of Cover'' in Part B3a. PHMSA confirms that operators will 
be able to enter ``zero'' for the ``Depth of Cover'' in Part B3a.
    8. PHMSA will add ``unable to determine'' as an option to Part C2e 
``Did the EFV activate?'' as DTE recommended. Actions taken by persons 
other than the operator may not leave sufficient evidence to discern if 
an EFV activated.
    9. DTE recommended the cost of gas in Part D7 should be the unit 
cost rather than the billed unit costs, exclusive of operator overheads 
and taxes. PHMSA is seeking market price of gas to calculate the 
consequence of the incident. The unit cost should include all operator 
overheads, but not taxes. PHMSA has revised the instructions 
accordingly.
    10. DTE recommends retaining the cost of ``operator's emergency 
response'' in Part D2c. PHMSA is seeking to capture the consequence of 
an incident in Part D2 where Part D2a is the cost of public and non-
operator property damage and Part D2b is the estimated cost of 
operator's property damage and repairs. AGA recommends that the 
question be re-worded to ``estimated cost of emergency response 
incurred by operator.'' PHMSA understands that emergency responses are 
provided by both non-operator resources (city/town) and operator's 
resources and sometimes operators reimburse the non-operator emergency 
response portion. Therefore, PHMSA is proposing to collect one 
emergency response cost irrespective of who provides the service. PHMSA 
does not believe it should add ``incurred by operator'' since it is 
requesting the estimated cost of emergency response for the incident. 
PHMSA understands it is an estimated cost.
    11. SW recommends ``Total Cost'' be revised to ``Estimated Total 
Cost'' in D2i to remain consistent with the ``estimated'' costs used to 
calculate this total. PHMSA agrees and has made the changes on the 
form.
    12. In Part D PHMSA is proposing to collect number of persons 
injured, but not requiring overnight inpatient hospitalization, in two 
categories. The category proposed in D4 is for persons treated in a 
medical facility, but not admitted overnight. The category proposed in 
D5 is for persons treated by emergency medical technicians at the scene 
of an incident. These additional categories would more fully capture 
the consequences of an incident. DTE is concerned that PHMSA would 
``expect a gas operator to chase ambulances to determine how many on-
site treatments were administered by EMT.'' Currently, operators report 
the number of overnight, inpatient hospitalizations resulting from an 
incident. In order to accurately report, operators must communicate 
with injured parties or medical providers to determine the number of 
overnight, inpatient hospitalizations. Operators need this same 
communication to determine the number of persons treated at a medical 
facility but not admitted overnight. Under the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, medical providers are 
permitted, but not required, to disclose protected health information 
without an individual's authorization in a number of situations. PHMSA 
encourages operators to communicate directly with injured parties and 
seek disclosure from medical providers as a last resort. PHMSA expects 
the number of persons treated on scene, but not in a medical facility, 
will be readily available. AGA suggested allowing ``Unknown'' to be 
reported instead of the number of injuries. When an operator has no 
knowledge of injuries in the new proposed categories, PHMSA expects the 
operator to report zero, not unknown.

[[Page 95296]]

    13. DTE requested that PHMSA remove Parts D6 and D7 to report the 
number of residential buildings and business buildings affected. SW 
requests PHMSA to define ``affected.'' In the instructions, PHMSA 
proposes to define ``affected'' as ``evacuated or required repair.'' 
PHMSA has added ``Evacuated or Required Repair'' next to ``Buildings 
Affected'' on the form.
    14. AGA recommended that PHMSA add Sec.  192.621 (MAOP High 
pressure distribution system) and Sec.  192.623 (MAOP Low pressure 
distribution systems) as sections listed under Part E3a. PHMSA agrees 
and revised the form to remove the option for ``Other'' and add code 
references Sec.  192.621 and Sec.  192.623.
    15. DTE noted that the threshold of 110 percent of the MAOP in Part 
E4 is not appropriate for all distribution systems and recommended 
incorporating the pressure limits allowed in Sec.  192.201(a). PHMSA 
agrees and has revised Part E4 by removing ``110% MAOP'' and adding 
``the applicable allowance in Sec.  192.201.''
    16. DTE questioned the relevance of the type of odorization system 
used for gas at the point of failure. PHMSA believes types of 
odorization in E5 is important information it needs in its incident 
report because it will help PHMSA and its state partners to correlate 
incident investigation findings with the information submitted by the 
operator on the form. PHMSA also notes this information is easily 
available to operators.
    17. DTE noted that information regarding the type and source of 
stray current required in Parts G1.2a and G1.2b may not be easily 
obtained and readily available within the 30-day reporting period. 
PHMSA already collects information regarding whether ``Stray Current'' 
was the ``Type of Corrosion.'' When an operator determines stray 
current is the type of corrosion, it will also know the data required 
in Parts G1.2a and G1.2b. PHMSA agrees with DTE that determining the 
type of corrosion typically requires metallurgical analysis and 
comprehensive investigation of the pipe environment. PHMSA expects that 
operators would report the type of corrosion in a supplemental report. 
PHMSA does not believe this information will cause any undue hardship 
for gas distribution operators since only one out of 701 gas 
distribution incident reports submitted to PHMSA since 2010 indicated 
stray current as the type of corrosion.
    18. DTE asks PHMSA to clarify Part G2. PHMSA's instruction on Part 
G2 says ``High Winds'' includes damage caused by wind induced forces. 
Select this category if the damage is due to the force of the wind 
itself. Damages caused by impact from objects blown by wind are to be 
reported under Part G4--Other Outside Force Damage. PHMSA provided 
Tree/Vegetation Root as a separate category under Part G2 and as per 
the instruction ``Tree/Vegetation Roots includes damages caused by tree 
and vegetation roots.'' Therefore, if high winds topple trees or 
vegetation and cause tree/vegetation roots to pull and damage 
distribution mains or service lines, the cause should be reported Under 
Part G2 ``Trees/Vegetation Roots,'' not under Part G4 ``Other Outside 
Force Damage.''
    19. PHMSA agrees with AGA's recommendation that ``Damage from Snow/
Ice Impact or Accumulation'' should be added to Part G2, Natural Force 
Damage.
    20. DTE was unable to identify new reporting requirements for 
excavation damage. The redlined form and instructions in the docket 
reflect the proposed addition of Parts E3b and E3c, which address 
reporting requirements for excavation damage.
    21. API/AOPL recommended that PHMSA add two additional fields to 
Part G3 of the hazardous liquid accident report form. The two 
additional fields are ``exempting authority'' and ``exempting 
criteria.'' PHMSA agrees this additional information would be valuable 
on all PHMSA incident forms, so it proposes adding them to the gas 
distribution incident report as Parts G3.3d and G3.3e.
    22. While AGA commends PHMSA for collecting additional information 
on ``Damage by Car, Truck, or Other Motorized Vehicle/Equipment NOT 
Engaged in Excavation'' in Part G4, DTE alleges that it is not an 
operator's responsibility to investigate and determine whether a driver 
violated laws. PHMSA understands that operators may not have answers to 
all questions about driver conduct, and points out that ``unknown'' is 
an option. PHMSA will accept AGA's recommendation and clarify in the 
instruction for Part G4.8 to note that operator should answer ``no'' if 
the driver was experiencing a medical condition at the time of 
incident.
    23. AGA noted that Part G4.12 should refer to Part G4.11 and not 
Part G4.10. PHMSA has revised the question.
    24. AGA and DTE advised PHMSA to consider Part G5 mechanical 
fitting failure data in light of requirements under Sec.  192.1009, 
which requires the submittal of PHMSA F 7100.1-2 Mechanical Fitting 
Failures after an incident. In response, PHMSA proposes to replace all 
data about ``Mechanical Fitting'' and ``Compression Fitting'' failures 
in Part G5 with the report ID for PHMSA F 7100.1-2 Mechanical Fitting 
Failures. If the PHMSA F 7100.1-2 report has not been submitted before 
the incident report, ``Report Pending'' can be submitted in Part G5. 
This change will alleviate the concern of SW about the lot number and 
model number for mechanical fittings.
    25. DTE requested an option of ``Unknown'' in Part G6.4b for 
``manufactured by'' and in Part G6.4c for ``Year Manufactured.'' Part 
G6.4b is a text field and operators can type unknown in the field. 
PHMSA has added ``Unknown'' as an option in Part G6.4c.
    26. DTE requested PHMSA remove the ``Contributing Factors'' in Part 
J and does not believe that the National Transportation Safety Board's 
(NTSB) recommendation is applicable to gas distribution system. PHMSA 
believes this information would help stakeholders develop a more 
thorough understanding of the incident and ways to prevent future 
incidents in all pipeline systems. PHMSA agrees with AGA's 
recommendation to clarify that Part J pertains only to the contribution 
factor(s) while the apparent cause is reported in Part G.
PHMSA F 7100.2 Incident Report--Natural and Other Gas Transmission and 
Gathering Pipeline Systems
    PST, AGA, DTE, SW, PPC, and INGA, and API commented on PHMSA F 
7100.2, Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems Incident Report. The 
comments are summarized and addressed below.
    1. DTE noted that ``Day Light Savings'' in Part A4b should be ``Day 
Light Saving.'' PHMSA has made the correction.
    2. INGAA recommended that PHMSA incorporate logic in the online 
form to require all times to be later than the time entered in Part A4 
for time and date of the incident. API indicated it believes ``PHMSA is 
requesting the same information in both A4 and A13'' and requested that 
Part A4 be deleted. PHMSA believes there are certain cases where Part 
A4 will not represent the earliest time reported. Part A4 represents 
the earliest date and time when one or more definitions of an incident 
in Sec.  191.3 is met. Part A13 represents the earliest time the 
operator identified the failure. In some cases, the operator may become 
aware of a failure before an incident reporting criteria is met. In 
other cases, one or more incident reporting criteria may be met before 
the operator becomes aware of the failure.

[[Page 95297]]

    3. API questioned whether the time zone specified in Part A4a is 
the default time zone for the remaining questions in the form. PHMSA 
confirms that the time zone identified in Part A4a is the default time 
zone (including day light saving time in Part A4b) for the rest of the 
form.
    4. INGAA and DTE recommended retaining Part A8 ``Incident resulted 
from'' since those incidents that do not involve a release of gas can 
be analyzed separately. DTE recommended that PHMSA should retain the 
ability for operators to report ``NO RELEASE OF GAS'' or a volume of 
zero in the form, particularly Parts A7 and A8. PHMSA has ensured the 
electronic submittal of the form accepts zero in Parts A7 and A8. INGAA 
recommended that PHMSA keep Part A8 so that those incidents without 
release of gas can be analyzed separately from those that involve 
release of gas. As PHMSA noted before, volumes of zero in Parts A7 and 
A8 will accomplish that goal.
    5. API opined that the term ``identified'' is vague in Part A12 and 
requested that it be replaced with ``initial indication.'' PHMSA does 
not have any evidence that Part A12 wording ``How was the incident 
initially identified by the operator'' is confusing to operators as 
this question has been in place since 2010 without issue. PHMSA does 
not think API's recommendation ``What was the Operator's initial 
indication of the Accident'' would add value to the data collected.
    6. API recommended replacing the phrase ``Local/State/Federal 
Emergency Responders'' with ``Emergency Responders (local/state/
federal)'' in Part A17a-c. PHMSA does not believe this change would add 
value to the data collected.
    7. API suggests that PHMSA define ``Confirmed Discovery'' in Part 
A19. On July 10, 2015, PHMSA published a proposed rule that includes 
defining ``Confirmed Discovery'' and adding it to the form. 80 FR 
39916. PHMSA is currently reserving Part A19 for ``Confirmed 
Discovery'' until a Final Rule is published.
    8. DTE noted that there does not appear to be a data entry field 
provided for the Initial Operator NRC Report Number in Part A20b and 
suggested that PHMSA add one. PHMSA confirms that Part A20 reads 
``Initial Operator National Response Center Report Number'' and the 
electronic submission will allow the data entry for the report number 
or the operator can choose ``NRC Notification Required But Not Made.''
    9. DTE recommends adding ``UNKNOWN'' to Parts A21a and A21c. AGA 
recommends PHMSA adds ``unknown'' to A21c. PHMSA does not believe 
``unknown'' should be an option in A21a ``Did the gas ignite?'' 
Operators should have that information during a reportable incident. 
PPC and SW recommend that PHMSA revise A21c to ``Estimated Volume of 
Gas Consumed by Fire'' from ``Volume of Gas Consumed by Fire.'' PHMSA 
agrees and revised the form to accommodate estimation rather than 
precise volume information. PHMSA understands it is sometimes difficult 
for operators to accurately determine the volume of gas consumed by 
fire. However, PHMSA believes an estimate is important to understand 
the consequences of a gas release.
    10. DTE recommended adding ``Not Applicable--One Way Feed,'' and 
``Not Applicable--No Downstream Valve'' or similar language in Parts 
22d through 22f. PHMSA believes the option for Operator Control (and 
associated mandatory text field) in Parts A22a and A22d will allow 
operators to enter an explanation more efficiently than adding an 
exhaustive list of options.
    11. DTE noted that it has experienced situations where a pipeline 
facility was involved that had no unique milepost or survey station 
associated with it, or had multiple mileposts or survey stations 
associated with it due to it being a junction of several pipelines. DTE 
requests PHMSA to expand Part B6 to allow for a free entry of a 
facility name. Part B6 is free text entry. PHMSA has added an option to 
choose ``Not Applicable'' in Part B6, which would require no data in 
Part B7.
    12. PHMSA does not believe INGAA's suggestion to change ``Area of 
Incident (as found)'' in Part B10 to ``Area of Incident (at the time of 
incident)'' would improve the quality of the data collected. ``As 
found'' ensures that operators report what they found upon arrival at 
the incident site.
    13. API noted there should be additional questions and 
clarifications on Part B11. API requested PHMSA to add the option to 
select ``Bored/Drilled'' for water crossing under Part B11, and also to 
add ``Is this water crossing 100 feet or more in length from high water 
mark to high water mark?'' PHMSA agrees with the API suggestions and 
has revised the form accordingly.
    14. DTE recommended adding ``Unknown'' as a response option for 
Parts C2 through C5. In Part C2, operators can choose ``Material other 
than Carbon Steel or Plastic'' and specify ``Unknown'' in the text 
field. PHMSA does not believe ``Unknown'' should be an option for Part 
C3. If the operator is reporting an incident, it will know within 30 
days which Part C3 option is applicable. Operators already have the 
option to choose ``Unknown'' for Part C5 and PHMSA has added the option 
for ``Unknown'' in Part C4.
    15. PHMSA incorporated API's suggestion to add ``Was this a Puddle/
Spot Weld?'' when ``Pipe'' is chosen in Part C3. API also recommended 
removing ``auxiliary piping'' from all items listed in C3 and keeping 
the term as a separate item. PHMSA understands that removing auxiliary 
piping will impact long term trending, but is proposing to look at the 
items, such as compressor and regulator/control valve, as whole items 
that include auxiliary piping, connections, valves, and equipment.
    16. INGAA recommended entering the original test pressure at the 
time of construction in Part C3 if ``Pipe or Weld/Fusion, including 
heat affected zone'' is selected. PHMSA is proposing to collect the 
``Post- construction pressure test value'' in Part G5.4. PHMSA does not 
want to collect the same data in multiple places.
    17. INGAA recommended removing ``Not Flammable'' as an option in 
Part D3. PHMSA believes the option for ``Not Flammable'' is necessary 
since not all pipelines subject to reporting on the form transport 
flammable gas.
    18. DTE recommended the cost of gas in Part D7 should be the unit 
cost rather than the billed unit costs, exclusive of operator overheads 
and taxes. PHMSA is seeking market price of gas to calculate the 
consequence of the incident. The unit cost should include all operator 
overheads, but not taxes. PHMSA has revised the instructions 
accordingly.
    19. PST recommended clarifying the instructions for Part D7d, 
Property Damage--Other, to state that any cost of security used during 
investigation or repairs following an incident must be included in the 
property damage calculation on the incident report. PHMSA agrees and 
has modified the instructions accordingly.
    20. PPC recommended that ``Total Cost'' be revised to ``Estimated 
Total Cost'' to remain consistent with the estimated costs used to 
calculate the total. PHMSA agrees and has replaced ``Total Cost'' with 
``Estimated Total Cost'' in Part D7i.
    21. AGA noted that Part D7c should be consistent with gas 
distribution incident form. PHMSA agrees and has revised Part D7c to 
say ``Estimated cost of emergency response.'' AGA recommended that the 
question be re-worded as ``Estimated cost of emergency response as 
incurred by the operator.'' PHMSA does not think re-wording is 
necessary because the instructions

[[Page 95298]]

clarify Part D7c is seeking to collect information regarding the costs 
incurred by the operator.
    22. PPC believes that operators will be unable to account for 
persons seeking outpatient care the in the days following an incident. 
DTE believes that an operator of a transmission system must not be 
expected to ``chase ambulances'' to determine how many on-site 
treatments were administered by EMTs or the number of people treated at 
medical facilities without admission. PHMSA is proposing to collect 
number of persons injured, but not requiring overnight, inpatient 
hospitalization in two categories. The first proposed category is 
persons treated in a medical facility, but not admitted overnight. The 
second proposed category is persons treated on scene. These additional 
categories would more fully capture the consequences of an incident. 
Currently, operators report the number of overnight, inpatient 
hospitalizations resulting from an incident. In order to accurately 
report, operators must communicate with injured parties or medical 
providers to determine the number of overnight, inpatient 
hospitalizations. Operators need this same communication to determine 
the number of persons treated at a medical facility but not admitted 
overnight. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996, medical providers are permitted, but not required, to 
disclose protected health information without an individual's 
authorization in a number of situations. PHMSA encourages operators to 
communicate directly with injured parties and seek disclosure from 
medical providers as a last resort. PHMSA expects the number of persons 
treated on scene, but not in a medical facility, will be readily 
available.
    23. API recommended combining Parts D8 and D9 to report the number 
of individuals who sustained OSHA recordable incidents. Parts D8 and D9 
are not the same as OSHA recordable incidents as the injured person may 
not be a pipeline worker. PHMSA does not need an OSHA recordable 
incident number. PHMSA needs to collect the data proposed in Parts D8 
and D9 to understand the total human consequence of incidents.
    24. INGAA recommended the word ``affected'' in Parts D10 and D11 be 
changed to ``damaged.'' API offered adding the words ``evacuated or 
required repair'' next to ``Buildings Affected.'' PHMSA accepts the 
wording offered by API and added ``Evacuated or Required Repair'' next 
to ``Buildings Affected.'' This change alleviates INGAA's and DTE's 
concern about the subjective nature of the word ``affected.''
    25. INGAA noted that ``if any ignition occurs, there could be some 
terrestrial impact. There could be a single bird involved in the 
fire.'' The questions about terrestrial and wildlife impacts have been 
part of the PHMSA hazardous liquid accident report form since 2010 and 
pipeline operators have not expressed any confusion over its intent. 
Since INGAA has not proposed more adequate instructions, PHMSA has made 
no change in response to the comment. Operators are able to explain the 
extent of terrestrial and wildlife in the Part H text field.
    26. AGA noted that the reference to maximum operating pressure 
(MOP) in Part E2c is not appropriate for gas transmission and gathering 
systems and should be removed. DTE noted that Part E2c should refer to 
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) rather than MOP. PHMSA has 
revised Part E2c from MOP to MAOP.
    27. DTE recommended incorporating all of the pressure limits 
allowed in Sec.  192.201(a)(2), particularly for pipelines operating 
near 75% of SMYS, those at or above 12 psig but below 60 psig, and 
those operating below 12 psig. PHMSA has revised the Part E3 to remove 
100% MAOP and adding ``The applicable allowance in Sec.  192.201.''
    28. DTE recommended changing Part E5 from ``Was the gas odorized at 
the point of failure?'' to ``whether the gas was required to odorized 
in accordance with Sec.  192.615,'' and ``whether the gas was odorized 
in accordance with Sec.  192.615.'' PHMSA acknowledges the need for 
clarification and will revise Part E5 to ``Was gas at the point of 
failure required to be odorized in accordance with Sec.  192.615?'' 
and, if yes, ``Was gas at the point of the failure odorized in 
accordance with Sec.  192.615?''
    29. API suggested changing Part E10c to replace the word 
``detection'' with the phrase ``initial indication.'' PHMSA does not 
believe this change would improve the quality of the data collected by 
the question. API also recommended changing Part E10d to replace the 
word ``confirmation'' with the phrase ``confirmed discovery.'' On July 
10, 2015, PHMSA published a proposed rule that includes defining 
``confirmed discovery.'' 80 FR 39916. PHMSA will not add the term 
``confirmed discovery'' to the form as part of this information 
collection.
    30. PHMSA acknowledges DTE's note that Parts G1.2a and G1.2.b may 
not be readily available within 30 days of the incident. This data can 
be submitted through a supplemental report after the information 
becomes available.
    31. AGA recommended adding ``Damage from Snow/Ice Impact or 
Accumulation'' under the Part G2 sub-cause. PHMSA has added it. DTE 
asked which cause section should be used when high winds topple tress 
and cause tree roots to damage pipelines. In this example, PHMSA 
advises the operator to select ``Tree/Vegetation Root'' under Part G2 
because the tree roots created the damage.
    32. DTE was unable to identify new reporting requirements for 
excavation damage. The redlined form and instructions in the docket 
reflect the proposed addition of Parts E3.3b and E3.3c, which address 
reporting requirements for excavation damage.
    33. API/AOPL recommended that PHMSA add two additional fields to 
Part G3 of the hazardous liquid accident report form. The two 
additional fields are ``exempting authority'' and ``exempting 
criteria.'' PHMSA acknowledges this additional information would be 
valuable on all PHMSA incident forms, so it proposes adding them to the 
gas transmission and gathering incident report as Parts G3.3d and 
G3.3e.
    34. API requested adding a statement on the form to ensure that 
operators are aware they need to complete questions 5 through 11 when 
G4, ``Damage by Car, Truck, or Other Motorized Vehicle/Equipment NOT 
Engaged in Excavation'' is selected. PHMSA's proposal includes the 
phrase recommended by API prior to questions 5 through 11 in Part G4.
    35. PHMSA acknowledges DTE, INGAA, and API's concerns that 
operators may not have answers to questions 5 through 11 under G4, 
``Damage by Car, Truck, or Other Vehicle/Equipment NOT Engaged in 
Excavation.'' PHMSA's proposal includes ``Unknown'' as an option for 
questions about driver conduct. PHMSA does not believe these questions 
need to be removed.
    36. API requested examples or clarification of the term ``Design-
related'' proposed in Part G5. PHMSA has revised the instructions to 
include an example of improper design practices.
    37. PHMSA understands that information regarding ``Hard Spot'' in 
Part G5.3 may not be readily available to the operator as DTE noted. 
DTE also noted that ``it is not anyone's interest to file supplemental 
Incident reports to add or correct information not readily available at 
the time of the incident.'' PHMSA disagrees and expects essential

[[Page 95299]]

data may not be available within 30 days of the incident.
    38. API requested clarification of ``erosion/abnormal wear'' under 
question 6 in Part G6, ``Equipment Failure.'' The words used in all 15 
factors under question 6 in G6 have common meanings found in the 
dictionary. PHMSA does not believe that additional definitions would 
increase the value of the instructions.
    39. API suggested updating the list in Part J2 to include more 
specific tools and currently available In-Line Inspection (ILI) 
technology. Under API's proposal, two ``Ultrasonic'' tool runs could be 
entered in Part J2. However, API proposes collecting additional data 
about the tool once. The additional data proposed by API must be 
collected for each tool run. API also recommended collecting the tool 
propulsion system. Under API's proposal, twenty-two tool runs could be 
reported in Part J2. The tool propulsion system must be collected for 
each tool run. PHMSA has modified Part J2 in response to API's 
comments. PHMSA has made additional improvements to the ``Tool 
Technology'' options and additional tool data for each technology. 
Also, PHMSA proposes collecting the tool propulsion system and detailed 
tool data for each run reported in Part J2.
    40. INGAA proposed changing Part J2 to read, in part, ``Other than 
an initial pressure test recorded in G5,'' however, Part J2 is 
applicable for Parts G1, G3, G4, and G5. PHMSA has added clarification 
to the form that the initial post-construction pressure test is not to 
be reported in Part J2.
    41. INGAA and AGA recommended revising the introduction to Part K, 
``Contributing factors'' to ensure that the apparent cause of the 
incident is not selected in Part K. PHMSA has revised the introduction 
to Part K to emphasize that apparent cause is not to be reported in 
Part K.
    42. INGAA recommended providing operators with access to the 
original report format for all supplemental reports. In January 2015, 
PHMSA began collecting data regarding the method operators used to 
establish MAOP in the form, as approved by OMB. All original reports 
submitted in January 2015 or later include data indicating the method 
used by the operator to establish the MAOP of the item involved in the 
incident. When PHMSA added ``MAOP established by'' to the incident 
report in January 2015, PHMSA populated all existing incident reports 
with ``NOT ON OMB-APPROVED FORM WHEN SUBMITTED'' as the ``MAOP 
established by'' value. Operators have since submitted supplemental 
reports for 500 of the 600 total reports. One hundred one (101) of 
these supplemental reports actually specify ``MAOP established by.'' 
Three hundred ninety-nine (399) supplemented reports still have a value 
of ``NOT ON OMB-APPROVED FORM WHEN SUBMITTED.'' Essentially, operators 
have had the choice to provide the actual MAOP determination method in 
supplemental reports, but have not been required to. If PHMSA 
implemented INGAA's recommendation, operators would not be able to 
include data approved for collection by OMB after the original report 
has been submitted. PHMSA prefers to continue giving operators the 
option to provide newly-approved data in supplemental reports.
    43. DTE requested PHMSA revise the burden for each report to 24 
hours. PHMSA believes operators may need 24 hours to complete reports 
for some incidents with serious consequences. However, the majority of 
reports do not include serious consequences and may take less than 12 
hours. PHMSA believes 12 hours per report represents the average 
burden.

C. PHMSA F 7100.3 Incident Report--Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 
Facilities

    PPC, SW and AGA commented on PHMSA F7100.3, Liquefied Natural Gas 
Incident Report. The comments are summarized and addressed below.
    1. To be consistent with PHMSA's other gas incident report forms, 
PHMSA has added ``Time Zone'' and ``Day Light Saving Time'' in Part A4.
    2. PPC and SW recommended that PHMSA revise Part A15a to 
``Estimated Volume of Gas Consumed by Fire'' from ``Volume of Gas 
Consumed by Fire.'' PHMSA agrees and has revised the form to 
accommodate estimation rather than precise volume information.
    3. PPC and SW recommended that ``Total Cost'' be revised to 
``Estimated Total Cost'' in Part C1i to remain consistent with the 
estimated costs used to calculate this total. PHMSA agrees and has made 
the change on the form.
    4. PHMSA is proposing to collect number of persons injured, but not 
admitted to the hospital overnight to more fully capture the 
consequence of an incident. DTE commented that PHMSA does not ``expect 
a gas operator to chase ambulances to determine how many on-site 
treatments were administered by EMT.'' PHMSA is proposing to collect 
number of persons injured, but not requiring overnight, inpatient 
hospitalization in two categories. The first proposed category is 
persons treated in a medical facility, but not admitted overnight. The 
second proposed category is persons treated on scene. These additional 
categories would more fully capture the consequences of an incident. 
Currently, operators report the number of overnight, inpatient 
hospitalizations resulting from an incident. In order to accurately 
report, operators must communicate with injured parties or medical 
providers to determine the number of overnight, inpatient 
hospitalizations. Operators need this same communication to determine 
the number of persons treated at a medical facility but not admitted 
overnight. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996, medical providers are permitted, but not required, to 
disclose protected health information without an individual's 
authorization in a number of situations. PHMSA encourages operators to 
communicate directly with injured parties and seek disclosure from 
medical providers as a last resort. PHMSA expects the number of persons 
treated on scene, but not in a medical facility, will be readily 
available.
    5. SW and PPC requested a definition of ``affected'' in Parts A21 
and A22. PHMSA has added ``evacuated or required repair'' to clarify 
``affected'' in Parts A21 and A22.
    6. AGA noted that PHMSA should be consistent across all its 
incident reports in its wording of ``Estimated Cost of Operator's 
Emergency Response'' in Part C1c. PHMSA revised the form to be 
consistent with its other incident reports and removed the word 
``Operator's'' from Part C1c.

D. PHMSA F 7000-1 Accident Report--Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems

    API/AOPL commented on PHMSA F 7000-1, Hazardous Liquid Pipeline 
Systems Accident Report. The comments are summarized and addressed 
below.
    1. API/AOPL stated they believe ``PHMSA is requesting the same 
information in both A4 and A13'' and requested that Part A4 be deleted. 
PHMSA notes that Parts A4 and A13 represent two distinct times. Per the 
instructions, the earliest date/time than an accident reporting 
criteria is met should be reported in Part A4, whereas Part A13 
collects the earliest time the operator identified the failure. In some 
cases, the operator may become aware of a failure before an accident 
reporting criteria is met. In other cases, one of more accident 
reporting criteria may be met before the operator becomes aware of the 
failure. API/AOPL also questioned whether the time zone specified in 
Part A4a is the default time zone for the remaining questions in the

[[Page 95300]]

form. PHMSA confirms that the time zone identified in Part A4a is the 
default time zone (including day light saving time in Part A4b) for the 
rest of the form.
    2. API/AOPL noted that the term ``identified'' is vague in Part A12 
and requested that the sentence be modified to include ``initial 
indication.'' PHMSA does not have any evidence that Part A12 wording, 
``How was the incident initially identified by the operator,'' is 
confusing to operators as this question has been in place since 2010. 
PHMSA does not think API/AOPL's recommendation, ``What was the 
Operator's initial indication of the Accident,'' would improve the 
quality of the data collected by the current question.
    3. API/AOPL recommended replacing the phrase ``Local/State/Federal 
Emergency Responders'' with ``Emergency Responders (local/state/
federal)'' in Part A18a-c. PHMSA does not believe this change would 
improve the quality of data collected by the current question.
    4. API/AOPL suggested defining ``Confirmed Discovery'' in Part A20. 
On July 10, 2015, PHMSA published a proposed rule that includes 
defining ``Confirmed Discovery'' and adding it to the form. 80 FR 
39916. PHMSA is currently reserving Part A19 for ``Confirmed 
Discovery'' until a Final Rule is published.
    5. API/AOPL recommended defining the terms ``activate'' and 
``mobilize'' in Part A24. PHMSA has changed ``activate the plan'' to 
``notify a qualified individual.'' PHMSA has changed ``mobilize OSRO'' 
to ``activate ORSO.'' The terms ``notify'' and ``activate'' in these 
contexts have common meanings found in the dictionary.
    6. API/AOPL noted there should be additional questions and 
clarifications on Part B12. API requested adding the option ``Bored/
Drilled'' for water crossing under Part B12 and adding, ``Is this water 
crossing 100 feet or more in length from high water mark to high water 
mark?'' PHMSA agrees with the suggestions and revised the form 
accordingly.
    7. PHMSA incorporated API/AOPL's suggestion to add ``Was this a 
Puddle/Spot Weld?'' when ``Pipe'' is chosen in C3. API/AOPL also 
recommended that PHMSA remove ``auxiliary piping'' from all items 
listed in Part C3 and keeping the term as a separate item. PHMSA 
understands that removing auxiliary piping will impact long term 
trending, but is proposing to look at the items, such as pump and 
control valve, as whole items that include auxiliary piping, 
connections, valves, and equipment.
    8. API/AOPL requested removal of Part D2a, which collects data 
about the amount of soil hauled away plus the amount treated on site. 
API/AOPL noted that soil absorption rates will differ based on the 
product released and the soil type. PHMSA understands that soil 
absorption rates will differ based on the product released and would 
like to capture the soil impact of the releases. API/AOPL also noted 
that operators may remove soil that was not contaminated as 
precautionary measure during spill response and clean up. Part D2a 
requests information on the overall impact on soil, including soil 
removed or treated on site as a result of the spill, therefore, any 
soil removed as a direct result of the spill would be reported. PHMSA 
has not removed this question.
    9. API/AOPL requested clarification about water contamination in 
Part D5. Specifically, API/AOPL asked if the answer should be limited 
to permanent bodies of water. Surface water can be intermittent, 
especially in arid portions of the country. If a surface waterbody were 
dry and spilled product entered the surface body, the operator should 
report no water contamination. API/AOPL also asked for clarification 
regarding whether rain water caught in a berm should be considered 
water contamination. Surface waterbodies include creeks and rivers. 
Rain water caught in a berm is not a surface waterbody.
    10. API/AOPL recommended combining Parts D8 and D9 to report the 
number of individual who sustained OSHA recordable incidents. Parts D8 
and D9 are not the same as OSHA recordable incidents as the injured 
person may not be a pipeline worker. PHMSA does not need the OSHA 
recordable incident number. PHMSA needs to collect the data proposed in 
Parts D8 and D9 to understand the human consequence of accidents.
    11. API/AOPL offered adding the words ``Evacuated or Required 
Repair'' next to ``Buildings Affected'' in Parts D11 and D12. PHMSA 
accepts the wording offered by API/AOPL and added ``Evacuated or 
Required Repair'' next to ``Buildings Affected.''
    12. API/AOPL noted that the response options on the form for Parts 
E2a are solely focused on a hydrostatic test conducted post-
construction. API/AOPL requested that more options be available to the 
operator and that PHMSA clearly define the current options or reference 
the appropriate regulation. Part E2a includes four response options. 
The first option is ``post-construction hydrostatic testing.'' Contrary 
to the API/AOPL comment, the remaining three options are not focused 
solely on hydrostatic test during post-construction. PHMSA has added 
the regulation applicable to each response option to provide clarity.
    13. API/AOPL recommended allowing six digits for length of segment 
in Part E5. PHMSA will ensure that the online application allows six 
digit entry.
    14. API/AOPL suggested changing Parts E9 and E10 to replace the 
word ``detection'' with the phrase ``initial indication.'' PHMSA does 
not believe this change would improve the quality of the data collected 
by the question. API also recommended changing the word 
``confirmation'' with the phrase ``confirmed discovery'' in these 
parts. On July 10, 2015, PHMSA published a proposed rule that includes 
defining ``confirmed discovery.'' 80 FR 39916. PHMSA will not add the 
term ``confirmed discovery'' to the form as part of this information 
collection.
    15. API/AOPL recommended adding exempting authority and exempting 
criteria in G3, Excavation Damage. PHMSA acknowledges this additional 
information will be helpful and has added the recommended questions.
    16. API/AOPL asked for a statement on the form to ensure that 
operators are aware they need to complete questions 5 through 11 when 
they pick Part G4- ``Damage by Car, Truck, or Other Motorized Vehicle/
Equipment NOT Engaged in Excavation. PHMSA's proposal includes the 
phrase recommended by API prior to questions 5 through 11 in Part G4. 
PHMSA acknowledges API/AOPL's concern that operators may not have 
answers to all questions and recognizes that ``unknown'' may be a valid 
response to those questions.
    17. API/AOPL requested examples or clarification of the term 
``Design-related'' in Part G5. PHMSA has revised the instruction to 
include an example of improper design practices.
    18. API/AOPL requested clarification of ``erosion/abnormal wear'' 
in Part G6.6. The words used in all 15 factors under Part G6.6 have 
common meanings found in the dictionary. PHMSA does not believe that 
additional definitions would improve the instructions.
    19. API suggested updating the list in Part J2 to include more 
specific tools and currently available ILI technology. Under API's 
proposal, two ``Ultrasonic'' tool runs could be entered in Part J2. 
However, API proposes collecting additional data about the tool once. 
The additional data proposed by API must be collected for each tool 
run. API also recommended collecting the tool propulsion system. Under 
API's proposal, twenty-two tool runs could be

[[Page 95301]]

reported in Part J2. The tool propulsion system must be collected for 
each tool run. PHMSA has modified Part J2 in response to API's 
comments. PHMSA has made additional improvements to the ``Tool 
Technology'' options and additional tool data for each technology. 
Also, PHMSA proposes collecting the tool propulsion system and detailed 
tool data for each run reported in Part J2.

E. Miscellaneous Comments

    NORMAC believes that the proposed contributing factors on PHMSA's 
form should be eliminated. PHMSA added the contributing factors in 
response to NTSB recommendation P-15-16 and several other commentators 
agree with the usefulness of the information. PHMSA believes that 
NORMAC's other comments regarding the data quality are outside the 
scope of this Federal Register notice. PHMSA acknowledges PST's 
recommendation to lower reporting requirements for natural gas 
transmission line. However, as PST acknowledges, such a change would 
require a rulemaking and is beyond the scope of this data collection 
effort. Common Ground Alliance (CGA) noted that several of PHMSA's 
questions in Forms 7100.1 and 7100.2 (G3) parallel CGA's Damage 
Information Reporting Tool and these questions may be revised in 2018. 
PHMSA participates in CGA and plans to propose changes as needed in 
response to CGA DIRT question changes.

II. Summary of Impacted Collection

    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 information collection requests 
that PHMSA will submit to OMB for renewal. PHMSA expects many of the 
new data elements are already known by the operator and that no report 
requires the completion of all fields on the forms. PHMSA has estimated 
the burdens below by adding 20% to the previous burdens, resulting 12 
hours instead of 10 for the completion of each report.
    The following information is provided for each 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 will request a three-
year term of approval for each information collection activity. PHMSA 
requests comments on the following information collections:
1. Title: Incident Reporting for Gas and LNG
    OMB Control Number: PHMSA will request from OMB.
    Current Expiration Date: N/A.
    Type of Request: Approval of a new collection.
    Abstract: PHMSA is proposing revision to the following incident 
report forms to improve the granularity of the data collected in 
several areas: Gas Distribution Incident Report (PHMSA F. 7100.1); 
Incident Report--Natural and Other Gas Transmission and Gathering 
Pipeline System (PHMSA F 7100.2); and Incident Report--Liquefied 
Natural Gas Facilities (PHMSA F 7100.3). PHMSA is also requesting a new 
OMB Control Number to collectively cover these forms.
    Affected Public: Pipeline Operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Estimated number of responses: 301.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 3,612.
    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: 12/31/2016.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: This information collection covers recordkeeping and 
accident reporting by hazardous liquid pipeline operators who are 
subject to 49 CFR part 195. PHMSA is proposing to revise the form PHMSA 
F7000-1 to improve the granularity of the data collected in several 
areas.
    Affected Public: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Annual Responses: 847.
    Annual Burden Hours: 56,229.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the renewal and revision of these collections 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 December 21, 2016, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2016-31221 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P