[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51553-51554]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-91-000; Docket No. QF15-885-001]

Greycliff Wind Prime, LLC; Greycliff Wind Prime, LLC; Notice of
Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 17, 2015, pursuant to section 210(h) of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 16 U.S.C.
824a-3(h)(2006) and Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.207(a)(2), Greycliff Wind Prime, LLC (Greycliff or Petitioner)
filed a petition for declaratory order requesting that the Commission
take enforcement action under section 210(h) of PURPA against the
Montana Public Service Commission (MPSC) for its continued reliance on
A.R.M. 38.5.1902(5) (Montana Rule), or in the alternative, Greycliff
seeks a declaratory order finding that the MPSC's continued reliance on
the Montana Rule, and MPSC decisions interpreting the Montana Rule,
fail to implement PURPA and the Commission's regulations thereunder,
alleging that the Montana Rule eliminates the rights of qualifying
facilities to create a legally enforceable obligation and to choose how
to sell their energy capacity, as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 16, 2015.

    Dated: August 19, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20985 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 16)]
[Notices]
[Page 4799-4800]
[DOCID:fr27ja09-74]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59266; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change To Create the Nasdaq Market Pathfinders
Service and Establish Fees for the Service

January 16, 2009.

I. Introduction and Description of the Proposal

    On June 27, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change that would
establish the Nasdaq Market Pathfinders Service (``Service'') and
establish fees for the Service. The Service will allow subscribers to
view a real time data product that tracks the aggregated market
activity of certain market participants who are aggressively buying
and/or selling. Nasdaq proposes to offer new subscribers a 30-day
waiver of the user fees for the Service. After the conclusion of the
waiver period, subscribers may avail themselves of three different
subscription options at varying prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on
July 17, 2008.\3\ The Commission received one comment on the
proposal.\4\ Nasdaq responded to the comment letter on September 18,
2008.\5\ The Commission is approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58145 (July 11,
2008), 73 FR 41143.
    \4\ See August 7, 2008 letter from Ira D. Hammerman, Senior
Managing Director and General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), to Florence Harmon,
Acting Secretary, Commission (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \5\ See September 18, 2008 letter from Jeffrey S. Davis, Deputy
General Counsel and Vice President, Nasdaq, to Florence Harmon,
Acting Secretary, Commission (``Nasdaq Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Comment Letter

    The commenter suggests that the Commission cannot approve the
proposed rule change for the following reasons:

--Nasdaq is proposing to make commercial use of data supplied to it in
Nasdaq's capacity as a regulatory body, despite the Commission's
previous statement that, with regard to OATS information, it does not
believe such data should be used for non-regulatory purposes unless the
data is made available to other market participants on the same terms
under which it is provided to Nasdaq.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SIFMA Letter at 2, quoting the Commission's order approving
Nasdaq's exchange application. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (File
No. 10-131), in text following footnote 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Nasdaq has failed to provide a detailed discussion of the data or
analytics to be included in the Service. SIFMA stated that several
firms have expressed concern with the proposal's potential to
compromise the confidentiality of the transacting party's trading
strategies or provide misinformation as to a transacting party.
--SIFMA questions whether the Service will provide a means to reverse
engineer the algorithms and strategies Nasdaq members have created, or
whether the impact on such algorithms and strategies will be such as to
render them useless.
--SIFMA also raised a procedural concern, stating that Nasdaq is
proposing to create a proprietary product that uses data its members
are required to submit without compensation; no other exchange or
market data vendor can replicate this product because necessary
elements are not available to anyone but Nasdaq; and no cost data is
provided to allow an opportunity to determine if the fees are fair and
reasonable.

III. Nasdaq's Response to the Comment Letter

    In response to the SIFMA Letter, Nasdaq made the following points:

--SIFMA inaccurately claims that Nasdaq is collecting data in its
capacity as a regulatory body and using it for commercial purposes,
stating that the Service does not use OATS information, but instead
relies on trade information sent directly and only from the Nasdaq
Matching Engine.
--The Service will not operate in a manner that permits users to
distinguish between short and long sales; the Service will not
compromise the confidentiality of the transacting party's trading
strategies, nor provide misinformation as to a transacting party
because there are filters in place to prevent this from occurring.
--The Service will not provide a means to reverse engineer the
algorithms and strategies Nasdaq members have created, nor will it
affect those

algorithms and strategies in such a way as to render them useless.
--The Service is a sentiment indicator that would provide users with an
indication of how a specific type of market participant feels about
certain securities, making available to the public information that is
sometimes referred to as ``the word on the street'' as compiled from
order flow on the trading desks of large broker-dealers.
--Nasdaq believes that it has provided adequate justification for the
fees.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has reviewed carefully the proposed rule change, the
comment letter, and Nasdaq's response to the comment letter, and finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange \7\ and, in particular, Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\8\ which requires, among other things, that Nasdaq's rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility
or system which Nasdaq operates or controls, and that it not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
these statutory standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has represented that the Service is a voluntary one, and
that the information provided to subscribers is not comprised of data
that broker-dealers are obligated to provide to Nasdaq for regulatory
purposes because of Nasdaq's status as a self-regulatory organization.
Additionally, broker-dealers do not need the Service to perform their
duties, so the decision to purchase the Service is truly voluntary and
dependent upon each broker-dealer's business model. Finally, because
the Service is voluntary, Nasdaq has met the statutory standard by
pricing the Service according to free market principles; indeed, if
Nasdaq priced the Service too high, broker-dealers could simply opt not
to purchase the Service. The Commission believes that Nasdaq's fees for
the Service are both reasonable and equitably allocated.\9\
Additionally, the Commission does not believe that the Pathfinder
Service will allow reverse engineering of the algorithms and strategies
created by Nasdaq members; Nasdaq has explained the various ways the
information is filtered, and has stated that such filtering will
prevent this from occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The proposal meets the criteria, formulated by the
Commission in connection with the petition filed by NetCoalition,
for approval of proposed rule changes concerning the distribution of
non-core market data. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 59039
(December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-
2006-21) and 55011 (December 27, 2006) (order granting petition for
review of SR-NYSEArca-2006-21). In its order issued in connection
with the NetCoalition petition, the Commission stated that
``reliance on competitive forces is the most appropriate and
effective means to assess whether the terms for the distribution of
non-core data are equitable, fair and reasonable, and not
unreasonably discriminatory.'' 73 FR at 74781-82. As such, the
``existence of significant competition provides a substantial basis
for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee proposal are
equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or unfairly
discriminatory.'' Id. at 74782. If an exchange ``was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of a proposal,''
a proposal will be approved unless the Commission determines that
``there is a substantial countervailing basis to find that the terms
nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of the Exchange
Act or the rules thereunder.'' Id. at 74781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\10\, that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2008-016) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E9-1674 Filed 1-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78950-78951]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-24-000]

Double E Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on December 9, 2022, Double E Pipeline, LLC
(Double E), 910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4200, Houston, Texas 77002-
2700, filed in above referenced docket a prior notice request pursuant
to sections 157.205, and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Double E blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP19-495-000, for authorization to construct and operate its
Red Hills Lateral project consisting of 20 miles of 24-inch lateral
pipeline connecting its existing Poker Lake Meter station to the
proposed Red Hill meter station located in Eddy and Lea Counties, New
Mexico. Double E states that the construction is necessary to provide
access to additional growing supplies of natural gas in the Delaware
Basin. Double E estimates the cost of the project to be approximately
$35.8 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is
on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this request should be directed to John E.
Griffin, Vice President, Deputy Counsel, Double E Pipeline, LLC, 910
Louisiana Street, Suite 4200, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone at
(832) 930-7820, or by email at [email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2023.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is February 17, 2023. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is February 17, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/how-guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before February 17, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-24-000 in your submission. The

Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing.''
    The Commission's eFiling staff are available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission. Your submission
must reference the Project docket number CP23-24-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To send via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail to John E. Griffin, Vice President, Deputy Counsel,
Double E Pipeline, LLC, 910 Louisiana Street, Suite 4200, Houston,
Texas 77002-2700 or by email (with a link to the document) at:
[email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

    Dated: December 19, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27975 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72435-72438]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0279]

Pipeline Safety: Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting Integrity
Management Program Evaluations

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

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing an Advisory Bulletin to remind operators of
gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities of their
responsibilities, under Federal integrity management regulations, to
perform evaluations of their integrity management programs using
meaningful performance metrics.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Mayberry by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All materials in this docket may
be accessed electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. General
information about the PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) can be
obtained by accessing OPS's Internet home page at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    PHMSA's integrity management regulations require operators to
establish processes to evaluate the effectiveness of their integrity
management programs. Program evaluation is one of the key required
program elements as established in the integrity management rules. For
hazardous liquid pipelines, Sec. Sec.  195.452(f)(7) and 195.452(k)
require methods to measure program effectiveness:
    Sec.  195.452(f) What are the elements of an integrity management
program? An integrity management program begins with the initial
framework. An operator must continually change the program to reflect
operating experience, conclusions drawn from results of the integrity
assessments, other maintenance and surveillance data, and evaluation of
consequences of a failure on the high consequence area. An operator
must include, at minimum, each of the following elements in its written
integrity management program:
* * * * *
    (7) Methods to measure the program's effectiveness (see paragraph
(k) of this section);
    Sec.  195.452(k) What methods to measure program effectiveness must
be used? An operator's program must include methods to measure whether
the program is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of
each pipeline segment and in protecting the high consequence areas.
(See Appendix C of this part for guidance on methods that can be used
to evaluate a program's effectiveness.)
    Appendix C provides more specific guidance on establishing
performance measures, including the need to select measures based on
the understanding and analysis of integrity threats to each pipeline
segment. Appendix C also describes three general types of metrics that
an integrity management program should have:
     Activity Measures that monitor the surveillance and
preventive activities that are in place to control risk. These measures
indicate how well an operator is implementing the elements of its
integrity management program.

     Deterioration Measures that monitor operational and
maintenance trends to indicate if the program is successful or
weakening, or if the desired outcome is being achieved or not, despite
the risk control activities in place.
     Failure Measures that reflect whether the program is
effective in achieving the objective of improving integrity. These are
typically lagging indicators that measure the number of releases, the
volume spilled, percent recovered, etc.
    Section 13 ``Program Evaluation'' of API Standard 1160, Managing
Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines also provides additional
guidance on the program evaluation process in which these measures are
used to improve performance.
    For gas transmission pipelines, Sec. Sec.  192.911(i) and 192.945
define the requirements for establishing performance metrics and
evaluating integrity management program performance.

Sec.  192.911  What are the elements of an integrity management
program?

    An operator's initial integrity management program begins with a
framework (see Sec.  192.907) and evolves into a more detailed and
comprehensive integrity management program as information is gained and
incorporated into the program. An operator must make continual
improvements to its program. The initial program framework and
subsequent program must, at minimum, contain the following elements.
(When indicated, refer to ASME/ANSI B31.8S incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  192.7) for more detailed information on the listed element.)
* * * * *
    (i) A performance plan as outlined in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 9
that includes performance measures meeting the requirements of Sec.
192.945.

Sec.  192.945  What methods must an operator use to measure program
effectiveness?

    (a) General. An operator must include in its integrity management
program methods to measure whether the program is effective in
assessing and evaluating the integrity of each covered pipeline segment
and in protecting the high consequence areas. These measures must
include the four overall performance measures specified in ASME/ANSI
B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7 of this part),
section 9.4, and the specific measures for each identified threat
specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, Appendix A. An operator must submit the
four overall performance measures as part of the annual report required
by Sec.  191.17 of this subchapter.
    (b) External Corrosion Direct Assessment (ECDA). In addition to the
general requirements for performance measures in paragraph (a) of this
section, an operator using direct assessment to assess an external
corrosion threat must define and monitor measures to determine the
effectiveness of the ECDA process. These measures must meet the
requirements of Sec.  192.925.
    The gas transmission requirements invoke ASME B31.8S-2004, Managing
System Integrity of Gas Pipelines. Section 9 of this standard provides
guidance on the selection of performance measures. It describes three
categories of measures that are directly analogous to those noted above
in Appendix C of Part 195. These are:
     Process or Activity Measures used to evaluate preventive
and mitigation activities. These determine how well an operator is
implementing the various elements of its integrity management program.
     Operational Measures, which include operational and
maintenance trends that measure how well the system is responding to
the integrity management program.
     Direct Integrity Measures, which include leaks, ruptures,
injuries, and fatalities.
    Furthermore, the hazardous liquid and gas transmission integrity
management rules also require that operators retain adequate records to
support integrity management program decisions and activities. These
include the information that supports the selection of performance
metrics, the performance metric data and trends, and the decisions that
are based in whole or in part on these metrics. Specifically, the
hazardous liquid integrity management program requirements are:
    Sec.  195.452(l) What records must be kept? (1) An operator must
maintain for review during an inspection:
* * * * *
    (ii) Documents to support the decisions and analyses, including any
modifications, justifications, variances, deviations and determinations
made, and actions taken, to implement and evaluate each element of the
integrity management program listed in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (2) See Appendix C of this part for examples of records an operator
would be required to keep.
    Appendix C further states:
    Sec.  195.452 Appendix C. VI. Examples of types of records an
operator must maintain.
* * * * *
    (22) methods used to measure the program's effectiveness.
    The comparable gas transmission integrity management program
requirements are:

Sec.  192.947  What records must be kept?

    An operator must maintain, for the useful life of the pipeline,
records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this
subpart. At minimum, an operator must maintain the following records
for review during an inspection.
* * * * *
    (d) Documents to support any decision, analysis, and process
developed and used to implement and evaluate each element of the
baseline assessment plan and integrity management program. Documents
include those developed and used in support of any identification,
calculation, amendment, modification, justification, deviation and
determination made, and any action taken, to implement and evaluate any
of the program elements;
    PHMSA's inspection protocols currently address the need to examine
operator compliance with these requirements.
    In its report on the September 9, 2010, gas pipeline accident in
San Bruno, California, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
identified concerns with Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E)
self-assessments of its integrity management program. NTSB concluded
that the company's self-assessments were ``superficial and resulted in
no improvements to the integrity management program.'' As a result,
NTSB recommended that PG&E:
    Assess every aspect of your integrity management program, paying
particular attention to the areas identified in this investigation, and
implement a revised program that includes, at a minimum,
* * * * *
    (4) an improved self-assessment that adequately measures whether
the program is effectively assessing and evaluating the integrity of
each covered pipeline segment. (Recommendation P-11-29)
    In this same investigation, NTSB raised some concerns with PHMSA's
oversight of performance-based safety programs such as integrity
management. NTSB concluded that greater focus is needed on how
performance-based safety systems are implemented, executed and
evaluated, and whether problem areas are being detected and corrected.
Critical to this overall process is the selection of meaningful metrics
by operators that allow them to quantify,

understand, and improve their own performance.
    Following its investigation, NTSB issued two related
recommendations for enhancing PHMSA's oversight of operator programs to
assess the effectiveness of PHMSA's programs using performance metrics.
These recommendations are:
    Revise your integrity management inspection protocol to:
    (1) incorporate a review of meaningful metrics;
    (2) require auditors to verify that the operator has a procedure in
place for ensuring the completeness and accuracy of underlying
information;
    (3) require auditors to review all integrity management performance
measures reported to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration and compare the leak, failure, and incident measures to
the operator's risk model; and
    (4) require setting performance goals for pipeline operators at
each audit and follow up on those goals at subsequent audits.
(Recommendation P-11-18)
    (1) Develop and implement standards for integrity management and
other performance-based safety programs that require operators of all
types of pipeline systems to regularly assess the effectiveness of
their programs using clear and meaningful metrics and to identify and
then correct deficiencies; and (2) make those metrics available in a
centralized database. (Recommendation P-11-19)
    These recommendations reinforce the importance of a rigorous
evaluation of a company's integrity management program in improving
performance. Through this Advisory Bulletin, PHMSA is reminding
operators of the importance of these regulation-required program
elements. Operators should review their current programs for evaluating
integrity management program effectiveness and the performance metrics
used in these programs to be sure they provide a current and accurate
representation of integrity management program performance. Further,
operators should ensure that program improvements and corrective
actions identified by these evaluations are implemented in a timely
manner.
    As a result of NTSB's recommendations, PHMSA is initiating efforts
to strengthen its protocols and oversight of these key integrity
management program elements. Beginning immediately, PHMSA's inspections
will emphasize reviewing operator methods for integrity management
program evaluation as required by Sec.  192.945 and Sec.  195.452(k)
for gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines, respectively.
PHMSA will evaluate specific metrics operators use to assess program
effectiveness and how those metrics are used in a process of continuous
improvement. PHMSA will also confirm that operators are maintaining
adequate records of their program effectiveness evaluations and their
performance metrics data, as well as the activities and decisions
associated with all required integrity management program elements. Our
inspectors will check to confirm that information and data gaps are
aggressively being addressed and that assumptions are appropriately
based on location-specific data.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-20l2-10)

    To: Owners and Operators of Hazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission
Pipeline Systems
    Subject: Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting Integrity
Management Program Evaluations
    Advisory: To further enhance PHMSA's safety efforts and as an
initial step in addressing NTSB Recommendations P-11-18 and P-11-19,
PHMSA is issuing this Advisory Bulletin concerning operator integrity
management program evaluation using meaningful metrics.
    A critical program element of an operator's integrity management
program is the systematic, rigorous evaluation of the program's
effectiveness using clear and meaningful metrics. When executed
diligently, this self-evaluation process will lead to more robust and
effective integrity management programs and improve overall safety
performance. This process is critical to achieving a mature integrity
management program and a culture of continuous improvement. Program
evaluation is a required integrity management program element as
established in Sec. Sec.  192.911(i) and 195.452(k) for gas
transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines, respectively. In light of
NTSB's findings following the San Bruno gas transmission incident,
PHMSA is reminding operators about the importance of these
requirements.
    Operators are advised to critically review their processes and
methods for evaluating integrity management program performance and
take action to strengthen these processes where warranted. An effective
operator performance evaluation process is expected to have the
following characteristics:
     A well-defined description of the scope, objectives, and
frequency of program evaluations.
     The use of periodic self-assessments, internal or external
audits, management reviews, performance metrics analysis, benchmarking
against other operators, or other self-critical evaluations to assess
program effectiveness.
     Clear performance goals and objectives to measure the
effectiveness of key integrity activities.
     Clear assignment of responsibility for implementing
required actions.
     Review and follow-up of program evaluation results,
findings, and recommendations, etc., by appropriate company managers.
    Operators are also advised that a clear and meaningful set of
performance metrics is essential to program effectiveness. An effective
program for measuring integrity management program effectiveness should
have the following characteristics:
     A description of the type of performance measures to be
used, along with the data sources, data validation and quality
assurance activities, the frequency of data collection, and any
normalization factors.
     A means to update the performance measures (if needed) to
assure they are providing useful information about the effectiveness of
integrity management program activities.
     The use of performance metrics data to check and calibrate
the operator's risk analysis tools to assure these best represent the
performance of the operator's specific assets.
    The performance metrics that are required to be reported to PHMSA
annually, such as the number of miles of pipeline assessed, number of
anomalies found requiring repair or mitigation, etc., are a small
subset of the overall suite of metrics used by an operator to evaluate
its program. A much larger set of operator-specific metrics to be used
internally is needed to effectively evaluate an integrity management
program performance. Metrics should be developed for each of the
following:
     Overall program effectiveness indicated by the number of
releases, number of injuries or fatalities, volume released, etc.
     Specific threats that include both leading and lagging
indicators for the important integrity threats on an operator's
systems. These include:
    [cir] Activity Measures that monitor the surveillance and
preventive activities that are in place to control risk.
    [cir] Deterioration Measures that monitor operational and
maintenance trends to indicate if the program is successful or
weakening despite the risk control activities in place. (Also

identified as Operational Measures in ASME B31.8S.)
    [cir] Failure Measures that reflect whether the program is
effective in achieving the objective of improving integrity. (Also
identified as Direct Integrity Measures in ASME B31.8S)
     Metrics that measure and provide insights into how well an
operator's processes associated with the various integrity management
program elements are performing. Examples of such processes would
include integrity assessment, risk analysis, the identification of
preventive and mitigative measures, etc.
    While operator-level rollups of metrics are useful for small
operators, a robust program for large operators should also include
metrics at a more granular level. The metrics should enable operators
to drill down to understand the performance of specific systems or
segments within systems. This is particularly important for the threat-
specific metrics mentioned previously.
    Finally, as required by Sec. Sec.  195.452(l) and 192.947,
operators must keep records supporting the decisions, analyses, and
processes developed and used in their evaluation of integrity
management program effectiveness. These records should include those
justifying the selection of performance metrics, the performance metric
data and trends, and how these metrics are used to improve the
integrity management program. Operators should also be diligently
working to eliminate information and data gaps throughout their entire
integrity management program.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 29, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-29362 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P