Source: https://viadata.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/records-originals-copies-magentic-media/
Timestamp: 2018-11-20 08:26:01
Document Index: 684274106

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 195', '§195', '§195', '§195', '§195', 'art 195', 'art 195', 'arts 191', 'arts 191', 'arts 191']

Records: Originals, copies, magentic media? – The WinDOT Report
Records: Originals, copies, magentic media?
There is great emphasis today that records for establishing MOP and MAOP are traceable, verifiable and complete. In Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2012-06) PHMSA defined these terms as follows:
Over the years questions have arisen regarding the format of the records and are copies, computer files, or other means acceptable.
The following interpretation, while written in 1997 as computers were beginning be used for record keeping in place of paper, still gives guidance on whether a copy of a record is acceptable, as long as it meets the criteria above. And the 1992 interpretation sets the initial stage for this later document.
Interpretation 195.404 6
2320 LaBranch, Suite 2116
Phone: (713) 718-3746
Fax: (713) 718-3724
Mr. Bryan Chenault, President
1465 Futura
Thank you for your undated letter requesting an opinion of the regulations regarding record keeping and completing a particular RSPA form. These questions had been previously discussed with a member of our staff on April 22, 1997. The first question has to do with § 195.404(c)(3) record keeping requirements of aerial inspections of pipeline rights-of-ways while the second concerns itself with the data required to complete form RSPA F7100.2, Incident Report – Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems.
Firstly, there has been some confusion regarding the record keeping requirements of §195.404(c)(3). The confusion may come from the incorrect interpretation of sentences written in the attached OPS letter dated April 6, 1992. In part, these sentences stated “Also, original hard-copy (paper) records need not be retained after their conversion to magnetic media. However, like the original hard copy records . . . ”
The word ‘original’ has been misconstrued to exclude copies. If magnetic media are acceptable so should paper copies and an operator may use faxes, copiers or other types of copy of inspection records to satisfy the record keeping requirements of §195.404(c)(3).
In regards to the second question, there have not been any OPS interpretations regarding the RSPA form. However, as OPS noted in the attached letter, records must contain sufficient information to comply with the requirements of the applicable regulation or form. Moreover, the instructions for completing the form note that sufficient data should be included to assist in locating the incident on a map. They do not prohibit the annotation of additional information to the form. In actual practice, this is being done by operators who occasionally include maps or additional information with the form. On this basis we conclude that the entire form must be completed and could be supplemented, although not required, with a map showing the location of the incident.
We hope this answers your questions. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance in this matter.
Director, Office of Compliance and State Programs
Pipeline Safety (TSI)
Interpretation 195.404 5
Mr. W. N. Hall
Iowa City, IA 52244-1430
This is in response to your letter of November 7, 1991, concerning the recordkeeping requirements of §195.404(c)(3). The letter asks whether magnetic media (computer hard drive or diskettes ) may be used in place of hard copies to record and maintain the required records.
Section 194.404(c)(3) requires that each operator maintain a record of each inspection and test required by Subpart F. Records must be maintained for at least 2 years or until the next inspection or test is performed, whichever is longer. Section 195.404(c((3) does not prohibit operators from maintaining the required records on magnetic media. Also, original hard-copy (paper) records need not be retained after their conversion to magnetic media. However, like the original hard copy records, magnetic media records must contain sufficient information to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of §195.404(c)(3).
We trust that this adequately responds to your request. We are sorry we were not able to answer your letter sooner. However, please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Iowa City, Iowa 52244-1430
Mr. George Tenley
RSPA/OPS
400 7th Street SW, Room 8417
RE: INTERPRETATION OF SS 195.404 Maps and Records
Dear Mr. Tenley:
We have a question relative to the record keeping requirements of 195.404(c)(3) in that currently we are using hard copies to document the inspections and tests required by subpart 195.404, but would like to convert to recording and maintaining these records of magnetic media (computer hard drive or diskettes).
This proposal would permit the elimination of all hard copies of records with a corresponding improvement in the management of the records. Hard copies however could be printed on demand at any time. The computer records would contain the date and names of the parties making the inspection or test, and in addition when their immediate supervisor would review the records he would also add his name and the date he reviewed the records.
We believe that this proposal meets the intentions of the Part 195, and would be an acceptable alternate to maintaining hard copies of all the records. A favorable interpretation of 195.404(c)(3) relative to our proposal would permit us to enhance our record keeping based on current technology. Computer records would be backed up to insure that the records could always be produced if the primary disk was either damaged or destroyed.
Associated petroleum Engineer
Interpretation 192.603 8
Mr. Albert T. Richardson
(ViaData Note – Ref: 192.1 and 192.603)
This responds to your letter of February 25, 1991, to William Gute. The letter discusses Tenneco’s use of computers instead of paper to record and store information it must maintain under 49 CFR Parts 191 and 192. You asked us to determine standards that would be acceptable in maintaining this information in computers.
Under Parts 191 and 192, operators may use any recordkeeping procedure that produces authentic records, without the prior approval of this agency. The proposed standards enclosed with your letter, which are aimed at ensuring the authenticity of computerized records, are permissible under Parts 191 and 192.
Although authenticity of records concerns us, for both computer and paper records, we do not believe there is sufficient need to adopt generally applicable standards governing recordkeeping procedures. In the absence of such standards, we ordinarily do not review an operator’s recordkeeping procedures unless the legitimacy of records is in question. Accordingly, we have no comments at this time on the adequacy of your proposed standards.
DPS:11, 10, 20, 2, 1
DPS-11:LMFurrow: lfv: 366-2392:5/9/91
All this and more, including the historical regulations and interpretations in WinDOT, The Pipeline Safety Encyclopedia.
Author viadataPosted on February 26, 2013 Categories The Daily Interpretation
Previous Previous post: February Report on DOT Significant Rulemakings
Next Next post: A discussion on incidental gathering