Document ID: PHMSA-2012-0024-0025
Agency: phmsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Pipeline Safety: Revision to Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Annual Report, Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Incident Report, and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report
Posted Date: 2012-09-21T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58616-58622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23335]

[[Page 58616]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0024]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities, Revision to 
Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Annual Report, Gas 
Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Incident Report, and 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) 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 make several minor revisions to the 
``Accident Report--Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems'' and the 
``Incident Report--Natural and Other Gas Transmission and Gathering 
Pipeline Systems.'' In addition, PHMSA proposed a number of revisions 
to the ``Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems.'' 
PHMSA received 12 comments in response to that notice. PHMSA is 
publishing this notice to respond to the comments, provide the public 
with an additional 30 days to comment on the proposed revisions to the 
forms and the instructions, and announce that the revised Information 
Collections will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for approval.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by October 22, 2012 to 
be assured of consideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener by telephone at 202-366-
0970, by fax at 202-366-4566, by email at blaine.keener@dot.gov.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number 
PHMSA-2012-00024 by any of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-395-5806.
     Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), 
Records Management Center, Room 10102 NEOB, 725 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for the U.S. Department of 
Transportation\PHMSA.
     Email: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 
at the following email address: OIRA_Submission@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.Dow1@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 two 
revised information collection requests that PHMSA will submit to OMB 
for approval. The information collections are titled: ``Incident and 
Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators'' (2137-0522) and 
``Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and 
Accident Reporting'' (2137-0047). The comments are summarized and 
addressed below as specified in the following outline:

I. Background
II. Summary of Topic Comments/Responses
    A. Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems
    B. Gas Transmission Pipeline and Gathering Systems Incident 
Report
    C. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report
    D. General Comments
III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for 
Comments

I. Background

    PHMSA published a notice in the Federal Register on April 13, 2012, 
(77 FR 22387) titled ``Pipeline Safety: Information Collection 
Activities, Revision to Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems 
Annual Report, Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Incident 
Report, and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report.'' The 
notice announced minor revisions to the hazardous liquid pipeline 
systems accident report and the gas transmission and gathering pipeline 
systems incident report to collect additional information relative to 
incidents involving girth welds. The notice also announced revisions to 
the annual report for gas transmission and gathering systems to address 
certain National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and 
the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 
2011.

II. Summary of Topic Comments/Responses

    During the two month response period, PHMSA received 12 comments 
from the following stakeholders:

(1) Alliance Pipeline--Operator
(2) Energy Transfer--Operator
(3) National Grid--Operator
(4) Paiute--Operator
(5) SCANA Corporation--Operator
(6) Southwest Gas--Operator
(7) Jack Wilson--Public
(8) American Gas Association (AGA)--Trade Association
(9) American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Oil Pipelines 
Association (AOPL);--Trade Associations
(10) Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)--Trade 
Association
(11) Northeast Gas Association (NGA)--Trade Association
(12) Texas Pipeline Association--Trade Association

    The comments are summarized and addressed below by topic

A. Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems

    PHMSA solicited comments on proposed revisions to the current 
version of the ``Annual Report for Natural and Other Gas Transmission 
and Gathering Pipeline Systems'' (PHMSA F 7100.2-1, revised 06-2011, 
Gas Transmission Annual Report). These proposed revisions were 
referenced in a Federal Register notice published on April 13, 2012, 
(77 FR 2387). This 30-day notice responds to the comments, which may be 
found at http://www.regulations.gov, at docket number PHMSA-2012-0024. 
The docket also contains the form and instructions as amended in 
response to the comments. In general, the comments made by INGAA were 
supported in writing by Alliance Pipeline and Energy Transfer and the 
comments made by AGA were supported in writing by National Grid, 
Northeast Gas Association, Paiute, and Southwest Gas.
    A1: PHMSA proposed to remove Part A, section 3 which asks operators 
to list contact information under the category ``INDIVIDUAL WHERE 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED'' and reserve the section. AGA 
commented that they did not understand why this action was taken, as 
the information requested should be beneficial. Northeast Gas 
Association commented that the removed information should be added to 
Part N of the form.
    A1. Response: PHMSA believes that the request for additional 
contact information is not necessary. As it stands, Part N of the 
report requests contact information for the person who prepared the 
report. In an effort to reduce the potential for duplicative 
information, PHMSA has removed and

[[Page 58617]]

reserved Part A, section 3 and will contact the preparer of the report 
for further information as necessary.
    A2: Part A, section 5 allows for operators to identify a single 
predominate ``COMMODITY GROUP'' (e.g., Natural Gas, Synthetic Gas, and 
Hydrogen Gas) for which the report applies. PHMSA proposed to add 
``Landfill Gas'' as a ``COMMODITY GROUP.'' INGAA commented that they 
were opposed to the addition of ``Landfill Gas'' as a ``COMMODITY 
GROUP.'' INGAA's basis for this opposition is that landfill gas is 
indistinguishable from natural gas, unlike hydrogen and propane, which 
are transported in dedicated pipelines. INGAA stated that requiring the 
identification of landfill gas would create difficulties at 
interconnection points of the pipeline for gas recipients who have no 
means of distinguishing the receipt of landfill gas.
    INGAA also cited some confusion regarding the instructions for 
filing reports for multiple commodities. INGAA interpreted the 
instructions for Part A, section 5 to mean that in the case of an 
operator having a 5,000-mile pipeline for natural gas and a 50-mile 
hydrogen pipeline, the operator would have to file a separate report 
for each pipeline. INGAA suggested that PHMSA clarify its instructions 
if this interpretation is accurate.
    A2. Response: In regard to INGAA's concern about landfill gas being 
indistinguishable from natural gas, an operator would not be required 
to report information regarding landfill gas if the operator does not 
select landfill gas as the predominate commodity transported in the 
pipeline facility. The addition of ``Landfill Gas'' as a ``COMMODITY 
GROUP'' will only collect mileage for pipelines that predominately 
transport landfill gas.
    In response to INGAA's comment regarding the instructions for 
filing reports for multiple commodities, PHMSA has revised the 
instructions to provide examples. As detailed in the previous 
paragraph, an operator with a pipeline facility that is used to 
transport multiple commodities (e.g., landfill gas and natural gas) 
should only file a report for the commodity that is predominately 
transported in the pipeline facility. If an operator has two pipeline 
facilities with different commodities (e.g., a 5,000-mile pipeline 
facility containing predominately natural gas and a 1,500-mile pipeline 
facility containing predominately hydrogen), the operator must file a 
separate report for both pipeline facilities.
    A3: Part A, section 7 requires operators to identify ``INTERstate'' 
and ``INTRAstate'' pipeline facilities. Under the ``INTERstate'' 
portion, operators identify the states in which the pipeline exists. 
PHMSA revised the ``INTERstate'' portion to include ``OCS portions.'' 
INGAA commented that Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) portions should 
refer to the affected water body (e.g., Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic 
Coast) and not the OCS block, which would require significant effort.
    A3. Response: PHMSA agrees with INGAA and has revised the form and 
instructions to identify the OCS portions available for selection when 
submitting annual reports as: OCS-Alaska, OCS-Atlantic, OCS-Gulf of 
Mexico, and OCS-Pacific.
    A4: PHMSA proposed to remove Part A, section 8 titled: ``DOES THIS 
REPORT REPRESENT A CHANGE FROM LAST YEAR'S FINAL REPORTED NUMBERS FOR 
ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTs: PART B, D, E, H, I, J, K, or L?'' 
AGA opposed this removal and suggested that Part A, section 8 be 
revised to allow operators the option of checking the box to say that 
the only change from last year's report was the information in the 
newly proposed Parts Q and R.
    A4. Response: The intent of Part A, section 8 was to reduce the 
burden on operators who have little or no changes to the data that was 
reported in their previous annual report. PHMSA has found that Part A, 
section 8 posed a number of technical challenges to implement in regard 
to ensuring data quality and has removed this section. However, to 
reduce the burden on operators, PHMSA allows operators to pre-populate 
their report with the data from the previous year's annual report 
(excluding volume transported; integrity inspections; failures, leaks, 
and repairs; and preparer's information). Furthermore, 49 CFR 191.22 
supersedes the last portion of Part A, section 8 by requiring the 
reporting of changes such as mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, and 
new construction.
    A5: Part F collects information regarding integrity inspection and 
subsequent actions. These inspection methods include in-line 
inspections, pressure testing, and direct assessments, with an option 
to identify ``other'' methods. INGAA commented that ``Direct 
Examination'' should be added as a distinct method of inspection, as 
direct examination is a rigorous and recognized inspection technique 
which should not be aggregated with the ``other'' methods.
    A5. Response: PHMSA is not certain how many alternative inspection 
techniques are currently used by operators. Therefore, PHMSA has 
revised Part F, section 5(a) to incorporate a text box that will allow 
for the identification of ``other'' inspection techniques to determine 
if additional categories should be added in the future.
    A6: PHMSA proposed to revise the introductory text of Parts F and G 
to add the following disclaimer: ``Part F ``WITHIN AN HCA SEGMENT'' 
data and Part G may be completed only if HCA Miles are greater than 
zero in Part L.'' Paiute and Southwest Gas commented that the proposed 
language is confusing and needs further clarification.
    A6. Response: PHMSA has revised the instructions to clarify the 
intent of the disclaimer.
    A7: Part F is used to collect data on integrity inspections, 
including the identification of the various types of inspections (e.g., 
in-line inspections, inspections based on pressure testing and direct 
assessment) and a description of actions that were taken as a result of 
the inspection. PHMSA proposed to revise Part F, section 6, which is 
used to accumulate data from the various inspections identified in the 
other sections of Part F, to collect additional information on pipe 
replacement and abandonment in High Consequence Areas (HCAs). This 
additional information included the number of conditions eliminated by 
pipeline repairs or abandonment that are categorized as immediate, one-
year, or monitored conditions. Paiute and Southwest Gas commented that 
this information appears to be repetitive and that the instructions 
should be revised to include ``replacement'' and ``abandonment'' as a 
reportable ``repair'' in the existing inspection methods and eliminate 
the proposed revision. NGA is opposed to the proposed revision and 
commented that the operator's priorities should be focused on replacing 
pipe and meeting certain criteria and not counting all defects removed. 
NGA further commented that this revision would result in a waste of 
resources, huge burdens on operators, and no substantive value. INGAA 
also commented that separate categories should not be added for 
conditions eliminated by pipe abandonment. AGA commented that PHMSA 
should add a category for other scheduled conditions to the proposed 
revision in Part F to align with the other sections in Part F. INGAA 
suggested that shorter pipe replacements (replacements made when 
directly examining pipe as repairs) be addressed as ``repairs'' under 
Part F, section 6(b) and (c). INGAA further

[[Page 58618]]

commented that the instructions for the proposed ``replacement'' 
language be revised to only address long term replacements (class 
changes). In addition, AGA commented that the instructions should be 
revised to clarify that a ``replacement'' does not qualify as a repair.
    A7. Response: PHMSA disagrees with the suggestion made by Paiute 
and Southwest Gas to include ``replacement'' and ``abandonment'' as a 
reportable ``repair'' in the existing inspection methods. PHMSA 
believes that the information regarding the number of actionable 
anomalies eliminated from the system by removing pipe from service is 
an important benefit of an integrity management program that should be 
quantified. PHMSA notes NGA and INGAA's concern by acknowledging that 
anomalies handled by replacement or abandonment may not be directly 
examined and therefore, would not be able to be categorized by 
immediate, one-year, and monitored conditions as proposed. Therefore, 
PHMSA has revised the proposed Part F, section 6(d) and (e), both in 
the form and instructions, to remove the categories and collect only 
actionable anomalies eliminated by pipe replacement or abandonment. As 
a result, the comment by AGA to add another category for other 
scheduled conditions is no longer applicable. PHMSA agrees with INGAA's 
comment pertaining to short pipe replacements that typically occur 
after directly examining anomalies and are limited to several joints of 
pipe. PHMSA has revised the instructions to specify that these 
anomalies should be reported in Part F, section 6 (b) and (c), which 
compiles the sum total of the anomalies and conditions that were 
repaired for the calendar year. In an effort to address INGAA and AGA's 
requests for clarification regarding the use of ``replacement,'' PHMSA 
has revised the instructions to clarify that the anomalies collected 
for ``replacement'' under Part F, section 6(d) only apply to a pipeline 
facility in an HCA that has been abandoned and its transportation 
functionality replaced by the operator with a new pipeline facility. 
PHMSA has further revised the instructions to specify that if the 
transportation functionality is not replaced by the operator, then the 
anomalies should be identified as ``abandonment'' under Part F, section 
6(f).
    A8: Part G addresses mileage of baseline assessments and 
reassessments completed in a calendar year for HCA segment miles. PHMSA 
did not propose any revisions to Part G. INGAA recommended that PHMSA 
eliminate the distinction between baseline assessments and 
reassessments since all baseline assessments should be completed by 
2012, with the exception of new HCAs.
    A8. Response: Baseline assessments may not have been completed for 
gas transmission pipelines placed in service any time after 2005. 
Therefore, PHMSA will retain the baseline assessment category.
    A9: Part J allows for the identification of pipeline mileage 
installed by decade. PHMSA proposed to revise Part J to separate the 
column listed as ``Pre 40 or Unknown'' into two separate columns; one 
for ``Pre 40'' and one for ``unknown.'' AGA commented that the column 
listed as ``Pre 40'' should be revised to ``Pre 1940'' for consistency 
purposes.
    A9. Response: PHMSA will make the suggested change.
    A10: Part K collects mileage of transmission pipe by specified 
minimum yield strength (SMYS). PHMSA did not propose any revisions to 
Part K. Northeast Gas Association (NGA) commented that the second row 
in Part K should include all pipe greater than or equal to 20% SMYS up 
through pipe equal to 30% SMYS inclusively, and the third row should be 
changed to include pipe greater than 30% SMYS but less than or equal to 
40% SMYS. NGA further commented that this revision would capture the 
correct delineation of pressures specified on page 22388 of the April 
13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal Register notice. This delineation 
(untested gas transmission pipelines in HCAs operating at a pressure 
greater than 30% SMYS) is based on the pressure range detailed in 
section 23 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job 
Creation Act of 2011. NGA also commented that Part K does not provide 
information on whether the pipe had a post construction pressure test 
and will probably require another box to separate the mileage by class 
and HCA as detailed in Part R.
    A10. Response: PHMSA does not plan on using the information 
collected under Part K to address the issue regarding untested gas 
transmission pipelines in HCAs. PHMSA is planning on capturing data to 
address that issue under the proposed Part R. Therefore, the SMYS 
ranges in Part K will not require amendment.
    A11: Part M requests specific information regarding incidents, 
leaks, and repairs. PHMSA did not propose any revisions to this Part. 
AGA suggested that the cause definitions listed in this Part match the 
definitions listed in the Gas Transmission Incident Report. Northeast 
Gas Association suggested that the cause definitions match the 
definitions listed in the gas distribution annual report, except for 
the threat of stress corrosion cracking.
    A11. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed 
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22387) Federal 
Register notice. This issue falls outside of the scope of those 
revisions. However, PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next 
review of the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    A12: Part M requests specific information regarding incidents, 
leaks, and repairs. PHMSA did not propose any revisions to this Part. 
INGAA commented that the columns for ``Incidents in HCA Segments'' and 
``Failures in HCA Segments'' are redundant and should be removed 
because they collect the same information which owners or operators 
already provide on the Incident Reports.
    A12. Response: INGAA correctly notes that incidents in HCAs are 
required on both the Gas Transmission Annual Report and individually on 
incident reports. PHMSA has collected this data through two separate 
reporting requirements since 2004. As predicted by INGAA, these two 
data sets are inconsistent for most years. The largest discrepancy 
occurred in 2010 when Gas Transmission Annual Report data indicated 
five incidents and incident report data indicated nine incidents. 
Accordingly, PHMSA has removed the ``Incidents in HCA's'' column in 
Part M of the Gas Transmission Annual Report form. The definitions that 
serve as the basis for collecting ``Failures in HCA Segments'' data do 
not correlate with the definitions used to collect ``Incidents in HCA 
Segments'' data. Therefore, PHMSA will continue to collect ``Failures 
in HCA Segments'' data on the Gas Transmission Annual Report.
    A13: PHMSA proposed the new Part Q to collect mileage and record 
information categorized by the methods used to determine the Maximum 
Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP). Northeast Gas Association 
commented that PHMSA should provide the full text of the applicable 
methodology sections or a hyperlink to the sections. Commenters also 
suggested that the use of the term ``segments'' be restricted since it 
has no uniform measure.
    A13. Response: The instructions include the specific regulation and 
a synopsis of the regulation contents. Operators can readily find the 
full text in the regulations. PHMSA will

[[Page 58619]]

eliminate the use of the term ``segments.''
    A14: PHMSA proposed the new Part Q to collect mileage and record 
information by the MAOP determination method. SCANA Corporation 
commented that clarification is necessary because they are unable to 
determine whether or not reporting is required for every methodology 
identified regardless of whether that methodology was used to determine 
the MAOP.
    A14. Response: PHMSA intends for operators to report mileage under 
the single code section heading used to establish the MAOP. In some 
scenarios, 49 CFR 192.619(a)(1) through (4) may all have been 
considered when establishing MAOP. In such cases, PHMSA expects for the 
mileage to be reported under the section heading for the final 
methodology that was used to determine the MAOP value. PHMSA has 
revised the instructions to include this clarification.
    A15: AGA, NGA, Texas Pipeline Association, and SCANA Corporation 
suggested that PHMSA allow for reporting relative to the proposed Parts 
Q and R be extended, thereby, coming closer to the congressional 
mandate of July 3, 2013, (18 months from signing date of the Pipeline 
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011). AGA, 
National Grid, NGA, and Texas Pipeline Association also suggested that 
PHMSA revise the table to include a ``miles yet to be verified'' column 
to allow for the reporting of pipeline segments where operators have 
yet to verify mileage.
    A15. Response: PHMSA does not agree with the commenters' suggestion 
to extend the calendar year 2012 reporting requirements for the newly 
proposed Parts Q and R in the Gas Transmission Annual Report. Section 
23 (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRESSURE) of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 requires that each owner or 
operator report, not later than 18 months, on each pipeline segment for 
which they do not have sufficient records to validate the MAOP of the 
pipeline segment. PHMSA has determined that the most appropriate method 
to collect this information is by the next Gas Transmission Annual 
Report which has a due date of March 15, 2013. PHMSA is planning for 
owners or operators to submit the newly requested information in Parts 
Q and R in the Gas Transmission Annual Report by March 15, 2013, to 
ensure that owners or operators comply with the ``not later than 18 
months'' provision in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and 
Job Creation Act of 2011. PHMSA does not agree with the comments from 
AGA, National Grid, NGA, and Texas Pipeline Association to include a 
separate column for ``miles yet to be verified.'' PHMSA has determined 
that such mileage should be identified as mileage without records to 
avoid confusion and comply with the reporting requirements. Therefore, 
PHMSA has revised the instructions to specify that pipeline segments 
that have not been verified be reported under the appropriate ``w/out 
Recds'' column. Owners or operators that find verification records 
after filing their Gas Transmission Annual Report may file a 
supplemental report to update their submission. The Gas Transmission 
Annual Report instructions contain the procedure for filing a 
supplemental report.
    A16: AGA, NGA, National Grid, Paiute, Southwest Gas, and Texas 
Pipeline Association suggested that the tables in Parts Q and R be 
revised to adhere to Section 23 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 and collect mileage in Class 1 
and 2 locations in HCAs and all Class 3 and 4 locations. AGA also 
suggested that the total miles each of the eight class/HCA locations 
should be totaled for accuracy validation.
    A16. Response: In the April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22387) Federal Register 
notice for this information collection revision, PHMSA expressed intent 
to collect Part Q data only for Class 1 and 2 HCAs and all Class 3 and 
4 locations. All of the Class 1 and 2 not in HCA rows should have been 
blacked-out in the ``w/out Recds'' column. PHMSA has revised the report 
form and instructions to not collect the reporting of mileage without 
complete records in Class 1 and 2 locations which are not within HCAs.
    A17: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that 
has not been subjected to a pressure test and pipeline mileage that is 
not able to accommodate the passage of an instrumented internal 
inspection device. AGA commented that PHMSA should collect pipeline 
mileage of lines that have been subjected to post-construction tests of 
at least 1.1, 1.2, and >= 1.25 times the MAOP, regardless of the 
testing medium. AGA suggested that this information would be helpful to 
comply with the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation 
Act of 2011 and the address NTSB recommendation P-11-17. AGA, SCANA 
Corporation, and INGAA also suggested collection of information 
regarding pressure tests at or above 110% and less than 125% of MAOP, 
since the regulations currently allow it for certain class locations.
    A17. Response: PHMSA agrees with the commenters and has expanded 
Part R to collect data about the mileage of pipe in three bands of 
pressure tests; miles tested to more than 1.25 times the MAOP, miles 
tested to less than 1.25 times the MAOP but greater than or equal to 
1.1 times the MAOP, and miles with a pressure test less than 1.1 times 
the MAOP or no pressure test. Operators are required to report in each 
pressure test band the number of miles able to accommodate internal 
inspection and the number of miles not able to accommodate internal 
inspection.
    A18: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that 
has not been subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test. Several 
commenters including NGA and Texas Pipeline Association recommended 
that the table be revised to not restrict reporting to hydrostatic 
pressure testing.
    A18. Response: PHMSA agrees that the test medium is irrelevant and 
has amended the form and instructions accordingly.
    A19: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that 
has not been subjected to a pressure test and pipeline mileage that is 
not able to accommodate the passage of an instrumented inline 
inspection device. Several commenters, including AGA and Texas Pipeline 
Association, suggested that PHMSA expand the rows and columns in Part R 
to collect information separately by the 30% SMYS criterion, the 
different pressure test percentages and the vintage of pipeline as pre- 
or post-1970 regulation.
    A19. Response: Although section 23 of the Pipeline Safety, 
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 refers to gas 
transmission pipelines operating over 30% SMYS, PHMSA does not consider 
the SMYS level and pipeline vintage to be relevant to whether a 
pipeline has been pressure tested or is able to be internally 
inspected. PHMSA does not find this information to be relevant since 
all pipelines placed in service after the effective date of Part 192 
are required to be subjected to a post-construction pressure test and 
will be reported in either the ``tested to more than 1.25 MAOP,'' 
``less than 1.25 MAOP but greater than or equal to 1.1 MAOP,'' or 
``tested to less than 1.1 MAOP or not subjected to a pressure test'' 
bands specified in Part R.
    A20: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that 
has not been subjected to a pressure test and pipeline mileage that is 
not able to accommodate the passage of an

[[Page 58620]]

instrumented internal inspection device. Several commenters, including 
AGA, National Grid, Paiute, SCANA, Southwest Gas, and Northeast Gas 
Association suggested that PHMSA clarify the phrase ``not able to 
accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices.'' 
Most of the commenters specified that operators will have varying 
interpretations of this language that will result in poor data if 
clarification is not provided. Several definitions were proposed by the 
commenters. AGA suggested that a line that is able to accommodate the 
passage of an internal inspection device be defined as a ``pipe of 
appropriate physical and operational characteristics to allow 
successful inspection via current commercially available in-line 
inspection tools within the specified tool requirements and 
tolerances.'' Northeast Gas Association suggested that a line that is 
able to accommodate the passage of an internal inspection device be 
defined as a ``pipe of appropriate physical and operational 
characteristics to allow successful inspection via currently available 
in-line inspection tools either meeting the requirements of Subpart O 
192.921(1) in conjunction with ASME/B31.8S or acceptable to PHMSA via 
180 day notification to them including tethered or un-tethered 
devices.''
    A20. Response: PHMSA has amended the form and instructions for Part 
R in response to comments to clarify the phrase ``not able to 
accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices.'' 
As a result, PHMSA has revised Part R to collect ``Miles Internal 
Inspection ABLE'' and ``Miles Internal Inspection NOT ABLE.'' The 
instructions include the following definition for ``Internal Inspection 
ABLE''--``A length of pipeline through which commercially available 
devices can travel, inspect the entire circumference and wall thickness 
of the pipe, and record or transmit inspection data in sufficient 
detail for further evaluation of anomalies.''
    A21: AGA commented that a section for ``Additional Information'' 
should be added to report to allow for operators to include any 
additional information which would assist in clarifying or classifying 
the reported data. AGA suggested that this section could be become a 
new Part S and be incorporated in the same manner as Part H in the Gas 
Distribution Systems Annual Report (PHMSA F 7100.1-1).
    A21. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed 
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal 
Register notice. Although the proposed revision from AGA may be 
indirectly related, PHMSA would like more time to evaluate this 
suggestion and will consider it during the next review of the form 
which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    A22: Energy Transfer commented that PHMSA's estimate of two hours 
of additional reporting burden should be increased by two or three 
orders of magnitude.
    A22. Response: PHMSA's estimate of two hours is based on the amount 
of time it takes to report the requested information. Although PHMSA 
believes that two hours is appropriate for additional information 
requested in the proposed report, PHMSA acknowledges that it may take 
each operator varying amounts of time to report this information. In 
consideration of this point and the commenter's suggestion, PHMSA is 
revising the estimated amount of time to collect the proposed 
information at four hours.
    A23: INGAA commented that the proposed reporting should be amended 
to enable the use of a Fitness-For-Service approach for pre-regulation 
pipe. INGAA specifies that this process focuses on pre-regulation pipe, 
information on pipelines that have been subjected to a pressure test 
other than 125% of MAOP, and pipelines that operate at or below 30% 
SMYS.
    A23. Response: PHMSA acknowledges the potential value of a Fitness-
For-Service approach to address the proposed reporting of pre-
regulation pipe. However, such an approach requires further assessment 
and discussion with stakeholders prior to its actual implementation, 
and therefore would not be appropriate to apply at this time.
    A24: INGAA commented that the instructions for Part H ``MILES OF 
TRANSMISSION PIPE BY NOMINAL PIPE SIZE (NPS)'' and Part I ``MILES OF 
GATHERING PIPE BY NOMINAL PIPE SIZE (NPS)'' should specify that NPS 
data be based on the most common nominal pipe sizes and reported as 
integers (e.g., 6.625 inches should be reported as NPS 6).
    A24. Response: PHMSA agrees and has revised the instructions 
accordingly.
    A25: INGAA suggested that the definitions, detailed in their 
comment, for the terms ``Actionable Anomaly,'' ``Direct Examination,'' 
``OCS Portion,'' and ``Repair'' be incorporated into the instructions. 
INGAA commented the suggested definitions for these terms are commonly 
accepted industry definitions.
    A25. Response: PHMSA has incorporated the definition of actionable 
anomaly and included some aspects of the repair definition suggested by 
INGAA. There is no need to define direct examination or OCS portion.
    A26: Commenter Jack Wilson asked why hazardous liquid pipelines are 
not being subjected to the same or similar annual reporting 
requirements as gas transmission and gathering pipeline systems.
    A26. Response: The major revisions (the addition of Parts Q and R) 
to the Gas Transmission Annual Report have been incorporated to collect 
information that will be used to address portions of the Pipeline 
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 that require 
certain actions applicable to gas transmission pipelines. These actions 
include record verification and pressure testing for pipelines that 
have not been subjected to a pressure test greater than 1.25 times the 
MAOP. In 2013, PHMSA will solicit comments in the Federal Register on 
all aspects of the Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems 
(PHMSA F 7000-1.1) which is authorized under OMB Control Number 2137-
0614 with an expiration date of January 31, 2014.

B. Gas Transmission Pipeline and Gathering Systems Incident Report

    PHMSA proposed to revise the ``Incident Report--Natural and Other 
Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems'' (PHMSA F 7100.2, Gas 
Transmission Incident Report) to make minor edits and to collect 
additional information relating to incidents involving girth welds. The 
form and instructions proposed by PHMSA in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 
22387) Federal Register notice and comments received in response to the 
notice may be found at www.regulations.gov at docket number PHMSA-2012-
0024. The docket also contains the form and instructions as amended in 
response to the comments.
    B1. PHMSA proposed revisions to Part C of the Gas Transmission 
Incident Report to collect more information regarding incidents 
involving girth welds. INGAA commented that this additional information 
should be collected for all pipe and joint weld types.
    B1. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed 
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal 
Register notice. Expanding the data collection beyond girth welds would 
require significant additional resources. PHMSA will consider this 
suggestion during the next review of the form which is scheduled to 
take place in 2013.
    B2: Part G of the Gas Transmission Incident Report asks for the 
apparent

[[Page 58621]]

cause of the incident. Section G5 of Part G requests information 
relating to an apparent cause of material failure of the pipe or weld, 
including ``Environmental Cracking-related.'' INGAA commented that 
``Stress Corrosion Cracking'' (SCC), which is currently a subcategory 
under ``Environmental Cracking-related,'' should be returned to Part G, 
section G1 (``Corrosion Failure''). INGAA noted that their review of 
the latest incident data revealed that no incident reports have 
identified SCC as the apparent cause in Part G, section G5. INGAA noted 
that operators have continued to identify SCC as the apparent cause in 
Part G, section G1.
    B2. Response: PHMSA moved SCC from section G1 to section G5 in 
2010. This change was made at the suggestion of industry to reflect the 
fact that SCC is not truly corrosion. The SCC failure mechanism is more 
appropriately reported under the material and weld failure category. 
PHMSA has contacted those operators that have reported SCC as a 
``Corrosion Failure'' and asked them to submit supplemental reports 
identifying SCC as ``Environmental Cracking-related'' in Part G, 
section G5.
    B3: INGAA commented that the Gas Transmission Incident Report used 
to require operators to identify the manner in which the MAOP was 
determined. INGAA suggested that this is a useful data element that 
should be added back to the Gas Transmission Incident Report.
    B3. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed 
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal 
Register notice. This issue falls outside of the scope of those 
revisions. PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next review 
of the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    B4: INGAA commented that definitions for the common industry terms 
``Explode,'' ``Rupture,'' and ``Shutdown'' should be included within 
the Gas Transmission Incident Report or instructions.
    B4. Response: PHMSA agrees and has included these definitions in 
the instructions.

C. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report

    PHMSA proposed to revise the ``Accident Report--Hazardous Liquid 
Pipeline Systems'' (PHMSA F 7000-1, Hazardous Liquid Accident Report) 
to make minor edits and to collect additional information relating to 
accidents involving girth welds. The form and instructions proposed by 
PHMSA in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal Register notice and 
comments received in response to the notice may be found at 
www.regulations.gov at docket number PHMSA-2012-0024. The docket also 
contains the form and instructions as amended in response to the 
comments.
    C1: On page 15 of the current Hazardous Liquid Accident Report 
instructions, PHMSA provides guidance on reporting shutdowns. API and 
AOPL commented that the previous version of the instructions provided 
additional guidance regarding how and when shutdowns of pipeline 
facilities must be reported, and that this guidance should be 
reinstated to allow for uniform reporting amongst operators.
    C1. Response: PHMSA agrees and has incorporated the revision as 
suggested.
    C2: On page 1 of the current Hazardous Liquid Accident Report 
instructions, PHMSA provides guidance on reporting pipeline failures or 
releases involving secondary ignition. API and AOPL commented that this 
guidance is confusing and should be removed since operators must report 
any release when a fire not intentionally set by the operator is 
involved, irrespective of which party initiated the release or the 
amount of damage.
    C2. Response: PHMSA agrees and has incorporated the revision as 
suggested.
    C3: On page 13 of the current Hazardous Liquid Accident Report 
instructions, PHMSA provides an ``Important Note'' regarding Part A, 
Questions 9 and 10 to require the inclusion of commodity volumes 
consumed by fire or explosion in the estimated volumes reported. API 
and AOPL commented that this guidance is contrary to previous guidance 
and will result in data that does not correlate with previous data. API 
and AOPL further requested that PHMSA note this change to avoid 
misinterpretation or incorrect analysis of the data.
    C3. Response: PHMSA has amended the instructions for Part A, 
Questions 9 and 10 to remove the ``Important Note'' and to specify that 
the volumes consumed by fire should only be reported as a dollar value 
under Part D, Question 8.
    C4: Part A, Question 7 of the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report asks 
for the local time and date of the initial telephonic report of the 
accident to the National Response Center (NRC). The Hazardous Liquid 
Accident Report instructions specify that the time reported should 
reflect the time zone where the accident was physically located. API 
and AOPL commented that the NRC puts a time stamp on each report based 
on the Eastern Time Zone, and not the local time at the accident 
location, and that PHMSA should note this discrepancy in the Hazardous 
Liquid Accident Report instructions in order to reduce confusion.
    C4. Response: PHMSA will add the note suggested by API to warn 
operators that the NRC report time stamp must be converted to local 
time. PHMSA will also make this change in the Gas Transmission Incident 
Report.
    C5: API and AOPL commented that the ``Supplemental Report'' section 
on Page 8 of the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report instructions 
incorrectly cites 49 CFR 191.15(c) from the natural gas regulations and 
should be corrected to reference 49 CFR 195.54(b) from the hazardous 
liquid regulations.
    C5. Response: PHMSA has corrected the regulation referenced in the 
instructions.
    C6: Part G of the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report allows for the 
reporting of ``Apparent Cause'' and Part G, section G6 applies to 
``Equipment Failure.'' PHMSA did not propose revisions to this Part. 
API and AOPL recommended that PHMSA revise Part G, section G6 to add 
``abnormal wear'' as a sub-cause in an effort to reduce operator use of 
the option ``other,'' thereby increasing the accuracy and specificity 
of PHMSA's data. API and AOPL further recommended that the option 
``none'' be added to Part G, section G6, and that the phrase ``Complete 
the following if any Equipment Failure sub-cause is selected'' be 
deleted. API and AOPL suggested that these proposed revisions will 
further substantiate PHMSA's data.
    C6. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed 
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal 
Register notice. This issue falls outside of the scope of those 
revisions. PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next review 
of the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    C7: Part D of the hazardous liquid accident report allows for the 
reporting of ``ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCE INFORMATION.'' PHMSA proposed to 
revise Part D, Question 8(a), to delete the phrase ``paid/reimbursed by 
the Operator.'' API and AOPL commented that PHMSA should not implement 
the proposed deletion. API and AOPL suggested that the proposed 
deletion would create a misleading impression that private individuals 
must pay, or have paid, damages resulting from a release. They further 
specified that it is only in extremely rare instances that an entity 
other than the operator incurs any cost and, in those rare instances, 
the operator is unlikely to know the costs incurred by other parties, 
rendering them unable to provide an accurate response.

[[Page 58622]]

    C7. Response: PHMSA removed ``paid/reimbursed by the Operator'' 
from the form in response to questions from operators about whether 
they should report total property damage or just the dollar amount paid 
for by the operator. PHMSA expects operators to report total property 
damage, regardless of whether the operator paid for the damage. In 
cases where the operator has not paid for the damage, the dollar amount 
must be estimated. PHMSA will remove ``paid/reimbursed by the 
Operator'' from the form.
    C8: PHMSA proposed revisions in Part C of the report to collect 
more information for incidents involving girth welds. API and AOPL 
suggest that PHMSA restructure the form so that all the data will be 
collected in a data field within Part C, rather than in the narrative 
where it is unavailable for public examination and proper analysis.
    C8. Response: The revision proposed by the commenters would require 
extensive modifications to the form and to the methods of data 
analysis. PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next review of 
the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    C9: API and AOPL commented that PHMSA should ensure that all 
proposed changes are reflected in the instructions.
    C9. Response: PHMSA has revised the instructions to reflect the 
proposed revisions.
    C10: Part A of the hazardous liquid accident report allows for the 
reporting of ``Key Report Information.'' PHMSA did not propose any 
changes to this Part. API and AOPL suggested that Part A, Question 10 
be revised from ``Estimated volume of intentional and/or controlled 
release/blowdown'' to ``Estimated volume of intentional and/or 
controlled release/blowdown (HVL/CO2 releases only).'' API and AOPL 
specified that adoption of the proposed modification would be 
consistent with the original objective of the question -- to 
differentiate information on HVL/CO2 releases where product is vented 
or flared under the operator's control to facilitate repair following a 
release, as opposed to what was released unintentionally during the 
release event. API and AOPL further suggested that this revision be 
detailed in the instructions as well.
    C10. Response: PHMSA agrees with the comment from API and AOPL and 
has revised the form and instructions as suggested.

D. General Comments

    D1: AGA commented that PHMSA should involve industry more in the 
deliberation process for implementing changes to the forms.
    D1. Response: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, PHMSA involves industry by seeking comments and 
suggestions on proposed recordkeeping and reporting activities and will 
continue to do so.

III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for Comments

    The following information is provided for each revised information 
collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) 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. PHMSA is only focusing on the 
revisions detailed in this notice and will request revisions to the 
following information collection activities.
    1. Title: Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0522.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2014.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: PHMSA is looking to revise the Gas Transmission Annual 
Report (PHMSA F 7100.2-1) to collect additional information in response 
to recent NTSB recommendations and the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. In addition, PHMSA is revising 
the Gas Transmission Incident Report Form (PHMSA F 7100.2) to allow for 
the submission of additional information regarding the pipe in relation 
to girth weld failures.
    Affected Public: Gas transmission/gathering pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 21,864.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 83,144 (increase of 5,760).
    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: 12/31/2013.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: PHMSA is looking to revise the Hazardous Liquid Accident 
Report Form (PHMSA F 7000-1) to allow for the submission of additional 
information regarding the pipe in relation to girth weld failures.
    Affected Public: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 847.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,329.
    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 September 18, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-23335 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P