[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15659-15660]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06463]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Actions on Special Permit Applications

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

ACTION: Notice of actions on special permit applications.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given of the actions on special permits
applications in (October to October 2014). The mode of transportation
involved are identified by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft. Application numbers prefixed by the letters EE represent
applications for Emergency Special Permits. It should be noted that
some of the sections cited were those in effect at the time certain
special permits were issued.

     Issued in Washington, DC, on March 3, 2015.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Special Permits and Approvals Branch.

                                       Modification Special Permit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of special permit
           S.P No.                     Applicant               Regulation(s)                  thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12116-M......................  Proserv UK LTd., East     49 CFR 173.201,           To modify the special permit
                                Tullos.                   173.302a, 173.304a, and   to authorize a
                                                          173.301(f).               carboxysilicon coating to be
                                                                                applied to certain
                                                                                cylinders.
10232-M......................  ITW Sexton, Decatur, AL.  49 CFR 173.304(d) and     To modify the special permit
                                                          173.306(a)(3).            to authorize additional
                                                                                hazardous materials.
14152-M......................  SAES Pure Gas, Inc., San  49 CFR 173.187..........  To modify the special permit
                                Luis Obispo, CA.                                    to authorize additional
                                                                                outer packaging and
                                                                                shielding gases.
12748-M......................  Lockheed Martin Space     49 CFR 178.601(a).......  To modify the special permit
                                Systems Company, Santa                              to authorize additional
                                Cruz, CA.                                           hazardous materials.
16279-M......................  Veolia ES Technical       49 CFR 173.196(a) and     To modify the special permit
                                Solutions, L.L.C.,        (b).                      originally issued on an
                                Flanders, NJ.                                       emergency basis to authorize
                                                                                an additional two years.
15716-M......................  Department of Energy,     49 CFR 173.310..........  To modify the special permit
                                Washington, DC.                                     to authorize an additional
                                                                                material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           NEW SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16217-N......................  Fuji Electric Co., Ltd.,  49 CFR 173.310..........  To authorize the manufacture,
                                Shinagawa-ku, To.                                   mark, sale and use of a
                                                                                neutron radiation detector
                                                                                containing a Division 2.1
                                                                                flammable gas, (modes 1, 2,
                                                                                4).
16251-N......................  Air Liquide America       49 CFR 173.302a(a)(1),    To authorize the
                                Specialty Gases, LLC,     173.302a(a)(3).           transportation in commerce
                                Plumsteadville, PA.                                 of certain non-liquefied
                                                                                flammable gases in non-DOT
                                                                                specification cylinders and
                                                                                certain non-liquefied
                                                                                flammable gases in cylinders
                                                                                authorized under DOT-SP
                                                                                10788 with a volume not to
                                                                                exceed 1.6 L. (modes
                                                                                1,2,3,4,5).
15991-N......................  Dockweller AG, Neustadt-  49 CFR 178.50(d)(1) and   To authorize the manufacture,
                                Glewe, Germany.           (d)(2).                   marking, sale and use of non-
                                                                                DOT specification cylinders
                                                                                similar to DOT 4BW for the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of certain hazardous
                                                                                materials. (modes
                                                                                1,2,3,4,5).
16316-N......................  Green Auto Products       49 CFR 171.2(k),          To authorize the
                                International, Inc.,      172.202(a)(5)(iii)(b),    transportation in commerce
                                Orlando, FL.              part 172, subpart H.      of certain used DOT 3AL
                                                                                cylinders that contain
                                                                                oxygen, but not necessarily
                                                                                in an amount qualifying as
                                                                                hazardous material. (modes
                                                                                1,2,3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        EMERGENCY SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10832-M......................  Autoliv ASP, Inc.,        49 CFR 173.56(b), and     To modify the special permit
                                Ogden, UT.                173.61(a).                to update locations where
                                                                                the permit may be used.
                                                                                (mode 1).
16231-N......................  Thales Alenia Space,      49 CFR 172.101 Column     To authorize the
                                Cannes la Bocca.          9(B), 173.301(f),         transportation in commerce
                                                          173.302a(a)(1), and       of certain non-DOT
                                                          173.304a(a)(2).           specification containers
                                                                                containing certain Division
                                                                                2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 liquefied
                                                                                and compressed gases and
                                                                                other certain hazardous
                                                                                materials. (modes 1,2,3,4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          NEW SPECIAL PERMIT WITHDRAWN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16404-N......................  Intermountain Slurry      49 CFR 177.834(h).......  Exemption from 177.834(h) for
                                Seal, North Salt Lake,                              a Class 9 material mixed
                                UT.                                                 with a sealant to be applied
                                                                                during the resurfacing and
                                                                                repair of a closed portion
                                                                                of a highway as part of
                                                                                seasonal maintenance. (mode
                                                                                1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       EMERGENCY SPECIAL PERMIT WITHDRAWN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16189-N......................  Coffeyville Resources     49 CFR 173.31(a)(3) and   To authorize the
                                Nitrogen Fertilizers,     180.509(c)(3).            transportation in commerce
                                LLC, Kansas City, KS.                               of fifty (50) DOT 111 tank
                                                                                cars, containing non-
                                                                                hazardous material, that are
                                                                                due for inspection and
                                                                                testing for 6 months after
                                                                                the date required. (mode 2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     DENIED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14778-M......................  Request by Sea-Fire Marine Inc., Baltimore, MD, February 13, 2015. To modify the
                                special permit to authorize cylinders being used on a foreign vessel to be
                                transported for service while the vessel is in USA waters.
16405-N......................  Request by Coal City Cob Company Waxahachie, TX, February 12, 2015. Renewal of
                                expired DOT SP 13192.
16317-N......................  Request by ICC Compliance Center, Niagara Falls, NY, February 25, 2015. To
                                authorize the manufacture, mark, sale and use of alternative packaging for the
                                transportation in commerce of Category A infectious waste.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15885-M......................  PHI, Inc., Lafayette, LA  49 CFR 172.101 Table      To modify the special permit
                                                          Column (9A).              to authorize additional
                                                                                hazardous materials.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-06463 Filed 3-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38884-38885]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13917]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[RM19-18-000]

Formal Requirements for Filings in Proceedings Before the
Commission; Notice Regarding Effective Date

    On August 27, 2019, the Commission issued a Final Rule in Docket
No. RM19-18-000 requiring that deliveries of filings and submissions,
other than by the United States Postal Service, be sent to an off-site
facility \1\ for security screening and processing.\2\ The Final Rule
indicated that the new regulation would take effect 60 days after the
date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. On
October 11, 2019, the Secretary issued a notice, stating that the
effective date for the Final Rule was postponed indefinitely to ensure
that the public and the Commission make an effective transition to
utilizing the off-site facility. This notice hereby

announces that the Final Rule will become effective on July 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    \2\ Formal Requirements for Filings in Proceedings Before the
Commission, 168 FERC ] 61,120 (2019) (Final Rule).

    Dated: June 23, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13917 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31822-31823]
[DOCID:fr04jn10-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, June 8,
2010 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
June 8, 2010 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; an
adjudicatory matter; and other matters relating to enforcement
proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 1, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy.
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13503 Filed 6-2-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 105 (Monday, June 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 31400]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0045]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated April 29, 2014, the Wisconsin Central Limited
(WC) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking
approval for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA
assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0045.
    Applicant: Wisconsin Central Limited, Mr. Thomas L. Brasseur,
Manager S&C, Engineering Department, Southern Region, 1625 Depot
Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481.
    WC, a subsidiary of Canadian National Railway (CN), seeks approval
of the proposed discontinuance and removal of a traffic control system
(TCS) between Milepost (MP) 1.7, (North Collingwood) and MP 1.0 (South
Collingwood) on the Missabe Subdivision, Duluth, MN. The TCS will be
removed between northward approach signals A8R, A6R, and A18R and the
Collingwood northward absolute signals. All TCS listed will be changed
to yard limits. Control Points (CP) North Collingwood, Collingwood, and
South Collingwood will be reconfigured into one, CP Collingwood, by the
elimination of existing controlled switches, the installation of a new
controlled switch, and the removal of controlled signals that govern
movements over track with no associated switches. New TCS limits will
begin and end at CP Collingwood.
    The reason for the proposed changes is that the northward signals
and the associated track circuits for the approach to Collingwood
present a safety hazard to employees as well as the motoring public on
Interstate 35 (I-35). Part of this section is located on the ore docks
over I-35, which results in no place of safety in which an employee can
clear the tracks due to the drop-off on each side. If an employee were
to slip and fall, the fall could potentially be onto I-35. Any material
or equipment accidentally dropped could fall to I-35 striking vehicular
traffic.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by July 17, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2014.
Robert C. Lauby.
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-12625 Filed 5-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42728-42731]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13997]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0088; FRL-10011-00-Region 9]

Air Plan Revisions; California; Technical Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to delete various local rules from the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that were approved in error. These rules
include general nuisance provisions, Federal New Source Performance
Standards or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
requirements, hearing board procedures, variance provisions, and local
fee provisions. The EPA has determined that the continued presence of
these rules in the SIP is potentially confusing and thus problematic
for affected sources, the State, local agencies, and the EPA. The
intended effect is to delete these rules to make the SIP consistent
with the Clean Air Act. The EPA is also taking final action to make
certain other corrections to address errors made in previous actions
taken by the EPA on California SIP revisions are finalized.

DATES: This rule will be effective on August 14, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0088. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other materials, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, Rules Office, EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On April 22, 2020 (85 FR 22384), pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), the EPA proposed to delete various
local rules from the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
were approved in error. These rules include general nuisance
provisions, Federal New Source Performance Standards or National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant requirements, hearing
board procedures, variance provisions, and local fee provisions. The
EPA proposed to delete the rules based on the Agency's determination
that the rules were approved in error and that the continued presence
of these rules in the SIP is potentially confusing and thus problematic
for affected sources, the State, local agencies, and the EPA. Table 1
in the proposed rule lists the specific rules that were proposed for
deletion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 85 FR 22384, at 22385-22387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our April 22, 2020 proposed rule, the EPA also proposed to make
certain other corrections to address errors made in previous actions
taken by the EPA on California SIP revisions.\2\ One such correction
includes the reinstatement in the applicable SIP of the following rules
that were previously incorporated by reference but that were
erroneously deleted: San Diego County APCD Rule 67.0 ``Architectural
Coatings'' (adopted on December 4, 1990 and submitted to the EPA on May
13, 1991), and Tuolumne County APCD Rule 516 ``Upset and Breakdown
Conditions'' (excluding paragraph (C) (adopted on September 8, 1981 and
submitted to the EPA on October 23, 1981). Other types of corrections
include deletion of rules that were previously deleted but for which
the deletion was not codified, and other revisions to address errors in
amendatory instructions and publishing errors and to clarify the
documents that were previously approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 85 FR 22384, at 22388-22391.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rule, we also proposed to codify the approval of
(and incorporate by reference) the following rules that were previously
approved but inadvertently not incorporated by reference: San Diego
County APCD Rule 20.1 ``Definitions'' (submitted to the EPA on January
28, 1981) and Yolo-Solano Rules 3.4.1 ``Standards for Granting
Applications'' and 3.4.2 ``Conditional Approval'' (both submitted to
the EPA on February 25, 1980). We are deferring the codification (and
incorporation by reference) of San Diego County APCD Rule 20.1 and
Yolo-Solano APCD Rules 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 due to the difficulties in
preparing the hard copy documents that are necessary for transmittal to
the Office of the Federal Register, for the purposes of incorporation
by reference, while shelter-in-place orders remain in effect where
Region IX offices and employees are located. We note that the versions
of San Diego County APCD Rule 20.1 and Yolo-Solano APCD Rules 3.4.1 and
3.4.2 discussed in this paragraph have been superseded by the EPA's
approval of further amended rules,\3\ and thus, the San Diego rule and
Yolo-Solano AQMD rules are no longer part of the current applicable SIP
for their respective portions of the California SIP. We had proposed to
codify their approvals to maintain an accurate accounting of the
versions of the rules that applied for federal enforcement purposes at
different times in the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Even if the EPA's approval of San Diego County APCD Rule
20.1 (``Definitions''), as submitted on January 28, 1981, had been
properly codified, it would have been superseded by the EPA's
approval of Rule 20.1 (``New Source Review--General Provisions'') at
83 FR 50007 (October 4, 2018). The same is true for Yolo-Solano
AQMD's Rules 3.4.1 and 3.4.2. Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 3.4.1 would have
been superseded by the EPA's approval of Rule 3.1 (``General Permit
Requirements''), sections 303.2 and 303.3, at 62 FR 36214 (July 7,
1997). Yolo-Solano AQMD Rule 3.4.2 would have been superseded by
approval of Rule 3.1 (``General Permit Requirements''), section 402,
at 62 FR 36214 (July 7, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An explanation of the relevant CAA requirements and the rationale
for each of the proposed deletions and corrections were provided in the
proposed rule and will not be restated here.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The public comment period for the EPA's proposed actions closed on
May 22, 2020. The EPA did not receive any public comments.

III. EPA Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(6), the EPA is taking final action to
delete the rules listed in Table 1 of the April 22, 2020 proposed rule
and any earlier versions of these rules from the corresponding air
pollution control district portions of the California SIP. The EPA is
taking this action based on our determination that the rules were
previously approved into the applicable California SIP in error. We are
also taking final action to make certain other corrections to fix
errors in previous rulemakings on California SIP revisions as described
in detail in the April 22, 2020 proposed rule and summarized above.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
corrects errors in previous rulemakings on SIP revisions and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible

methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, this action does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 23, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(vii), (b)(3)(iii), and (b)(4)(iii);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5)(i) as paragraph (c)(6)(xxiv)(D);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(8)(ii), (b)(10)(iii), (b)(11)(iii), (b)(22)
through (24), (c)(6)(i)(F), (c)(6)(iv)(D), (c)(6)(vii)(D),
(c)(6)(ix)(C), (c)(6)(x)(D), (c)(6)(xii)(D), (c)(6)(xiii)(D),
(c)(6)(xiv)(D), and (c)(6)(xviii)(B) and (C);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(6)(xxiii)(A);
0
e. Adding reserved paragraph (c)(6)(xxiii)(B) and paragraph
(c)(6)(xxiv)(C);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(21)(vii)(B);
0
g. Adding paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(D);
0
h. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(24)(x)(C), (D), and (E);
0
i. Adding paragraphs (c)(25)(i)(G), (c)(25)(iv)(C), (c)(28)(v)(B), and
(c)(29)(ii)(C);
0
j. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(29)(v)(B);
0
k. Adding paragraphs (c)(32)(iii)(H), (c)(44)(iv)(E), and
(c)(52)(v)(D);
0
l. Redesignating paragraph (c)(52)(vi)(D) as paragraph (c)(52)(vii)(D);
0
m. Removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(52)(xix)(B) and (c)(54)(v)(C);
0
n. Adding paragraphs (c)(82) introductory text, (c)(83) introductory
text, (c)(83)(i) introductory text, and (c)(83)(iii) introductory text;
0
o. Redesignating paragraph (c)(102)(ii)(B) as paragraph (c)(102)(i)(B);
0
p. Adding reserved paragraph (c)(102)(ii)(B);
0
q. Revising paragraph (c)(103)(xvii)(B);
0
r. Adding paragraphs (c)(103)(xvii)(E) and (c)(171)(i)(D)(7);
0
s. Revising paragraph (c)(172) introductory text;
0
t. Adding paragraphs (c)(176)(i)(A)(2), (c)(183)(i)(E) introductory
text, and (c)(184)(i)(D)(1) and reserved paragraph (c)(184)(i)(D)(2);
0
u. Redesignating paragraph (c)(214)(i)(C)(3) as paragraph
(c)(423)(i)(E)(7);
0
v. Adding paragraph (c)(241)(i)(C)(4);
0
w. Redesignating paragraph (c)(307)(i)(C)(3) as paragraph
(c)(423)(i)(H)(1);
0
x. Adding reserved paragraph (c)(423)(i)(H)(2); and
0
y. Redesignating paragraph (c)(390)(i)(B)(1) as paragraph
(c)(389)(i)(B)(5).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Section 51.
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 4:4.
    (4) * * *
    (iii) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 120.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (ii) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Regulation VI.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (iii) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 4.2.
    (11) * * *
    (iii) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 2.5 and 2.6.
* * * * *
    (22) Tulare County Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Sections 507, 508 and 515.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (23) San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 111.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (24) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) of this
section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 17.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) * * *

    (F) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 51.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 418 and 419.
* * * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 419 and 420.
* * * * *
    (ix) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 418 and 419.
    (x) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 418 and 419.
* * * * *
    (xii) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 418 and 419.
    (xiii) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 419.
    (xiv) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 419.
* * * * *
    (xviii) * * *
    (B) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 45.
    (C) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 100, 101,
and 102.
* * * * *
    (xxiii) * * *
    (A) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 2.17 and
2.19.
* * * * *
    (xxiv) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 51.
* * * * *
    (24) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on May 18, 1977 in paragraph (c)(24)(iv)(A)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 418 and 505.
* * * * *
    (25) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) Previously approved on August 22, 1977 in paragraph
(c)(25)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule
111.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on August 22, 1977 in paragraph
(c)(25)(iv)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 420.
* * * * *
    (28) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) Previously approved on August 22, 1977 in paragraph
(c)(28)(v)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule
205.
* * * * *
    (29) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on June 2, 1977 in paragraph (c)(29)(ii)(B)
of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rules 112 and 113.
* * * * *
    (32) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (H) Previously approved on June 14, 1978 in paragraph
(c)(32)(iii)(C) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 511.
* * * * *
    (44) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (E) Previously approved on January 29, 1979 in paragraph
(c)(44)(iv)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 5.1.
* * * * *
    (52) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on December 9, 1981 in paragraph
(c)(52)(v)(B) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule
511.
* * * * *
    (82) Revised regulations for the following APCD submitted on May 1,
1980, by the Governor's designee.
* * * * *
    (83) Revised regulations for the following APCDs submitted on May
13, 1980, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
* * * * *
    (iii) Fresno County Air Pollution Control District.
* * * * *
    (103) * * *
    (xvii) * * *
    (B) Previously approved on May 27, 1982 in paragraph
(c)(103)(xvii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 516 (paragraph (C)).
* * * * *
    (E) Previously approved on May 27, 1982 in paragraph
(c)(103)(xvii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rules 703 and 710.
* * * * *
    (171) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (7) Previously approved on April 12, 1989 in paragraph
(c)(171)(i)(D)(1) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 4:2.
* * * * *
    (172) Revised regulations for the following APCD's were submitted
on March 18, 1987, by the Governor's designee.
* * * * *
    (176) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Previously approved on October 23, 1989 in paragraph
(c)(176)(i)(A)(1) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 4.2-1.
* * * * *
    (183) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
* * * * *
    (184) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (1) Rule 67.0, adopted on December 4, 1990.
* * * * *
    (241) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (4) Previously approved on July 21, 2000 in paragraph
(c)(241)(i)(C)(2) of this section and now deleted without replacement,
Rule 74.6.3.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-13997 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14717-14724]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved
Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System Program

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), PHMSA announces that the information collection
request detailed below will be forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review. On June 22, 2016, PHMSA published a notice
and requested comments on proposed revisions to the National Pipeline
Mapping System (NPMS) Program.'' During the comment period, PHMSA
received several comments on ways to improve this data collection and
to consider a phased timeline to collect data. PHMSA is publishing this
notice to address the comments received, to notify the public of
proposed revisions to this information collection, and to announce that
PHMSA is requesting a 3-year approval of this information collection
from OMB.

DATES: Written comments on this information collection should be
submitted by May 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
    E-Gov website: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of DOT, West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number PHMSA-2014-0092 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. You should know that anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments received into any of PHMSA's dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19476) or visit http://www.regulations.gov before submitting any
such comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on
the ground level of DOT, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt
of your written comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard with the following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2014-0092.''
The Docket Clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to returning it to
you via the U.S. mail. Please note that due to possible delays in the
delivery of U.S. mail to federal offices in Washington, DC, we
recommend that persons consider an alternative method (internet, fax,
or professional delivery service) of submitting comments to the docket
and ensuring their timely receipt at DOT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nelson, Geospatial Information
Systems Manager, Outreach and Engagement Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Attribute Changes
III. Retained Attributes
    A. Pipe Diameter
    B. Wall Thickness
    C. Commodity Detail
    D. Pipe Material
    E. Pipe Grade
    F. Pipe Join Method
    G. Seam Type
    H. Decade of Installation
    I. Coated (yes/no)
    J. Onshore/Offshore
    K. In-line Inspection (yes/no)

    L. Most Recent Assessment Method(s) and Year
    M. Class Location
    N. Gas High Consequence Area (HCA) segment
    O. Segment Could Affect an HCA
    P. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number
    Q. Abandoned Pipelines
    R. Breakout Tanks
    S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes and
Features
IV. General Comments
    A. Reporting
    B. Burden
    C. Legality
    D. Data Security
    E. Definitions
V. Phased Timeline to Collect New Data Elements
    A. Phase 1 data elements
    B. Phase 2 data elements
    C. Phase 3 data elements
VI. Mandates and Recommendations
VII. Summary of Impacted Collection

I. Background

    On July 30, 2014, PHMSA published a notice and a request for
comments in the Federal Register titled: ``Request for Revision of a
Previously Approved Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping
System Program'' (79 FR 44246) (OMB Control No. 2137-0596) seeking
comments on proposed changes to the NPMS data collection. Within this
notice, PHMSA proposed to revise the currently approved NPMS data
collection to expand the data attributes collected and to improve the
positional accuracy of pipeline operators' NPMS submissions. On
November 17, 2014, PHMSA held a public meeting to bring stakeholders
together to discuss the NPMS information collection and to seek
stakeholder input. Details about the meeting, including copies of the
meeting's presentation files, can be found at: http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=101. PHMSA encouraged
participants of the meeting to submit comments on the proposed
attributes to the docket. During the 60-day comment period, PHMSA
received input from 28 different commenters comprised of pipeline
operators, industry trade associations, public safety advocacy groups,
and the public.
    On August 27, 2015, PHMSA published another notice in the Federal
Register (80 FR 52084) to address the comments received and to request
additional comments on the proposed revisions to the July 2014 notice.
During this subsequent comment period, PHMSA received feedback and
several suggestions on how to improve the quality and efficiency of
this information collection. PHMSA followed this comment period with
another public meeting on September 10, 2015 and a technical workshop
on November 25, 2015.
    On June 22, 2016, PHMSA published a 30-day Notice in the Federal
Register (81 FR 40757) to respond to comments from the August 27, 2015,
notice and to present the version of the information collection that
would be sent to OMB for final approval. Comments were submitted by:
American Gas Association (AGA), American Petroleum Institute/
Association of Oil Pipelines (API/AOPL), Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA), American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers, TransCanada Corporation, Spectra Energy Partners, Texas
Oil and Gas Association, and Pipeline Safety Trust (PST).
    In January 2017, PHMSA sought input from the new Administration
before proceeding with the proposed plans for the information
collection. On May 18, 2018, PHMSA received the approval of the
Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) to resubmit the information
collection to OMB. PHMSA is now publishing this notice respond to the
comments received in response to the June 22, 2016 Notice. Please note
that technical details pertaining to the new data elements, such as
domains and reporting requirements for each attribute, can be found in
the draft NPMS Operator Standards Manual which can be viewed at
www.regulations.gov in Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092.
    The requested data is the first substantial update to NPMS
submission requirements since the NPMS standards were developed in
1998. The NPMS is PHMSA's only dataset which tracks the locations of
pipe characteristics, instead of how much/how many of those
characteristics are in PHMSA's regulated pipelines. PHMSA seeks to
reduce submission duplications and will consider the impact on the
tabular data submitted through the Annual Reports once the data
elements described in this notice are collected. Section 11 of the
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011
states that PHMSA may collect ``any other geospatial or technical data,
including design and material specifications, that the Secretary
determines are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. The
Secretary shall give reasonable notice to operators that the data are
being requested.'' \1\ The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
Safety Recommendation P-11-8 states that PHMSA should ``require
operators of natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines and
hazardous liquid pipelines to provide system-specific information about
their pipeline systems to the emergency response agencies of the
communities and jurisdictions in which those pipelines are located.
This information should include pipe diameter, operating pressure,
product transported, and potential impact radius.'' Other NTSB Safety
Recommendations are noted in Section IV.E, including the attributes
they address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 60132(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the new data elements will:
     Aid all levels of government, from federal to municipal,
in promoting public awareness of hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
in improving emergency responder outreach. Approximately 1,000 federal
officials, 1,500 state officials and 5,500 county officials have access
to the online mapping application. Providing these officials with an
improved NPMS containing system-specific information about local
pipeline facilities can help ensure emergency response agencies and
communities are better prepared and can effectively execute response
operations during incidents.
     Aid the industry in promoting public awareness and
educating first responders about their pipelines. The NPMS applications
are referenced by industry as a source for information about the
location and characteristics of their pipelines.
     Permit more meaningful and accurate tabular and geospatial
analysis, which will strengthen PHMSA's ability to evaluate existing
and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or
procedures.
     Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
     Provide more accurate pipeline locations and additional
pipeline-related geospatial data to assist with inspection planning and
accident investigations by PHMSA pipeline inspectors.
     Support PHMSA's research and development programs by
helping to predict the impact of new technology and other environmental
factors on regulated pipelines.

II. Attribute Changes

    PHMSA carefully reviewed appropriate security levels for each
proposed new attribute. After discussions with the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA), PHMSA

identified six proposed attributes which, if collected, would receive
Sensitive Security Information (SSI) status. These attributes are:
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP)/Maximum Operating Pressure
(MOP), percent Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS), segment could
affect a drinking water Unusually Sensitive Area, pump and compressor
station locations, mainline block valve locations, and gas storage
fields. PHMSA determined that further research is needed to develop the
necessary safeguards and procedures for collecting this data. As a
result, the data elements listed above have been removed from this
information collection. PHMSA reserves the right to reconsider these
data elements in the future. Complete details on the remaining data
elements (such as format, categories, and whether an attribute is a
required attribute) are in Appendix A of the draft NPMS Operator
Standards Manual, which can be found at www.regulations.gov in Docket
No. PHMSA-2018-0092.

III. Retained Attributes

    After careful consideration of the comments received, along with
the agency's pipeline safety goals, PHMSA has decided to move forward
with the proposal to collect geospatial data on the following pipeline
attributes (Sections III.A-III.Q), breakout tank attributes (Section
III.R) and liquefied natural gas plants (Section III.S) with no
substantial modifications from the Federal Register Notice issued on
June 22, 2016, (81 FR 40757). As stated in the June 2016 Notice, by
Phase 3 (2024), hazardous liquid pipeline operators must submit data
with a positional accuracy of +/- 50 feet (for more information about
the three phases referenced, see Section V). Gas transmission operators
must submit data at +/- 50 feet accuracy for all segments which are in
a Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 area; are within an HCA or have one or
more buildings intended for human occupancy or an identified site
within its potential impact radius. Identified sites and HCAs are
defined in Sec.  192.903. All other gas pipeline segments must be
mapped to a positional accuracy of +/- 100 feet.

A. Pipe Diameter

    PHMSA originally proposed requiring operators to submit data on the
nominal diameter, also called the nominal pipe size (NPS) of a pipe
segment. Knowing the diameter of a pipeline can help emergency
responders determine the potential impact area of a pipeline in the
event of a release. This attribute also gives PHMSA the ability to know
the sizes of pipelines operated in any given geographic region, and to
further assess potential impacts to public safety and the environment.
It is reasonable to assume that a large diameter pipeline may pose a
greater hazard during a rupture. Knowing the location of large diameter
pipelines in relation to populated areas will help PHMSA effectively
prioritize inspections and emergency response planning. PHMSA received
no comments on the June 22, 2016, 30-day Notice pertaining to pipe
diameter.
    PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as originally proposed.
To be consistent with other reporting methods, diameter will be
reported as NPS of the pipeline segment, which identifies the diameter
with a dimensionless value (e.g., 8.625'' outside diameter pipe is
reported as NPS 8, 5'' outside diameter is NPS 4.5). This attribute
will be collected in Phase 1.

B. Wall Thickness

    PHMSA originally proposed to collect data on the wall thickness of
a pipe in decimal inches and collected in Phase 1.
    AGA commented that this data element has no independent value when
calculating risk and does not relate to the risk of corrosion. AGA
asked whether it would apply to pre-1970 pipe and requested that it be
moved to Phase 3. API and AOPL also asked whether it would apply to
pre-1970 pipe and requested that it be moved to Phase 2. PHMSA has
identified nominal wall thickness as a fundamental piece of information
for determining pipeline risk. This information is especially critical
for determining the relative risk of corrosion. Loss of wall thickness
can occur for different reasons including corrosion, arc burns, and
gouges due to excavation damage or improper back-fill. Prior excavation
damage and corrosion are time-dependent threats. This data element will
provide PHMSA the means to assess the adequacy of wall thickness
requirements and remaining strength projections over time. Wall
thickness can also be used to determine if existing pipe design is
adequate for the present class location. Additionally, a lower wall
thickness value, in the presence of inadequate cathodic protection,
indicates a greater chance that an anomaly will grow to a level that
requires intervention per 49 CFR part 192 or 195. The importance of
collecting wall thickness data increased after PHMSA decided to remove
SMYS from the list of required attributes.
    In response to API's and AOPL's inquiry about pre-1970 pipe, PHMSA
notes Sec. Sec.  192.13, 192.359(b), 192.455, and 192.457 contain
clauses that apply to the construction and maintenance of pipelines.
However, the data points proposed in this information collection do not
deal with the construction or maintenance of pipelines--only with the
characteristics of the pipeline. Therefore, the requirements for this
data element would apply to pre-1970 pipeline. This attribute will be
collected in Phase 2.

C. Commodity Detail

    PHMSA proposed operators submit additional commodity information
for pipelines if the transported commodity is crude oil, product, or
natural gas, and subcategories of each. The list of commodity
categories is available in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual (Appendix
A). Other categories may be added as needed. PHMSA received no comments
in the June 22, 2016, 30-day Notice pertaining to commodity detail.
    PHMSA will move forward with this data collection. This data
attribute is required because of potential differences in leak
characteristics, rupture-impacted hazardous areas, and a pipeline's
internal integrity. Emergency responders can better respond to pipeline
incidents if they are aware of the commodity transported. This
attribute will be collected in Phase 1.

D. Pipe Material

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit data on pipe
material. Knowing the pipe material helps PHMSA determine the level of
potential risk from excavation damage and external environmental loads.
This data can also help in emergency response planning. Operators will
be required to submit data on whether a segment was constructed out of
cast iron, wrought iron, plastic, steel, composite, or other material.
The only related comment in the June 22, 2016, 30-day Notice pertained
to the list of material categories and is discussed below. PHMSA will
move forward with this data collection. PHMSA has aligned the material
categories to match the Annual Report categories. This attribute will
be collected in Phase 1.

E. Pipe Grade

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit information on the
predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment to be collected in Phase
1. AGA commented that this data element has no independent value when
calculating risk. They asked whether it would apply to pre-1970 pipe
and requested that it be moved to Phase 3. API and AOPL

requested that this data element be moved to Phase 2.
    In response to API's and AOPL's inquiry about pre-1970 pipe, PHMSA
notes Sec. Sec.  192.13, 192.359(b), 192.455, and 192.457 contain
clauses that apply to the construction and maintenance of pipelines.
However, the data elements proposed do not deal with the construction
or maintenance of pipelines--only with the characteristics of the
pipeline. Therefore, the requirements for this data element would apply
to pre-1970 pipeline.
    This information is essential in assessing pipeline integrity, and
is a necessary component in determining the allowable operating
pressure of a pipeline. The list of pipe grades is available in the
NPMS Operator Standards (Appendix A). Operators may submit either
actual or predominant (90% of pipe segment) values. This attribute will
be collected in Phase 2.

F. Pipe Join Method

    PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the pipe join method. PHMSA
would use this information to identify high-risk joining methods and as
inputs for PHMSA's risk rankings and evaluations. These models are used
to determine pipeline inspection priority and frequency.
    AGA requested that operators have a ``predominant'' option or that
``flanged'' be removed as a category to avoid heavy segmentation (since
a very common scenario is to have a flanged valve attached to a pipe
segment which has a welded join method). PHMSA will move forward with
this collection and accept predominant values where the value reported
represents the characteristics of 90% or more of the pipe segment. This
attribute will be collected in Phase 1.

G. Seam Type

    PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the seam type of each pipe
segment to be collected in Phase 1. PHMSA requires seam type to
evaluate the risk of Low Frequency Electric Resistance Weld seam
failures in all areas. Seam type is also needed to properly determine
MAOP.
    API and AOPL asked whether this element would be required for pre-
1970 pipe and requested that it be moved to Phase 2. They asked whether
it would be required for segments where a yield test has been performed
to verify MAOP/MOP. AGA also asked whether it would apply to pre-1970
pipe and requested that it be moved to Phase 3. AGA stated that
operators are not required to have this information. INGAA requested
that this data element be collected only for Class 3, Class 4 and
``could affect'' HCA segments, which would match the requirements of
the NPRM titled ``Safety of Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipelines''
published on April 8, 2016, (81 FR 20722).
    In response to API's and AOPL's inquiry about pre-1970 pipe, PHMSA
notes Sec. Sec.  192.13, 192.359(b), 192.455, and 192.457 contain
clauses that apply to the construction and maintenance of pipelines.
However, the data points proposed in this information collection do not
deal with the construction or maintenance of pipelines--only with the
characteristics of the pipeline. Therefore, the requirements for this
data element would apply to pre-1970 pipelines.
    This data is needed to evaluate the risk of Low Frequency Electric
Resistance Weld seam failures in all areas. This attribute will be
collected in Phase 2.

H. Decade of Installation

    PHMSA proposed operators submit the ``predominant'' decade of
installation on a pipeline segment, signifying 90% or more of the
physical pipe represented by the segment. The list of decade categories
is available in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual (Appendix A), and
aligns with the categories in the Annual Report. The only related
comment in the June 22, 2016 30-day Notice pertained to the list of
decade categories and is discussed below. PHMSA will move forward with
this data collection and has aligned the decade categories to match the
Annual Report categories. This attribute will be collected in Phase 2.

I. Coated (yes/no)

    PHMSA proposed operators designate whether a pipe segment is
effectively coated or not. PHMSA will move forward with this attribute
as originally proposed. PHMSA received no comments on the June 22,
2016, 30-day Notice pertaining to this attribute. PHMSA will move
forward with this data collection. This attribute will be collected in
Phase 1.

J. Onshore/Offshore

    PHMSA proposed operators designate whether a pipeline segment is
located onshore or offshore. PHMSA directs operators to the definition
of an offshore pipeline found in Sec. Sec.  191.3 and 195.2, which
states: ``Offshore means beyond the line of ordinary low water along
that portion of the coast of the United States that is in direct
contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the seaward
limit of inland waters.'' This data collection will allow PHMSA to have
accurate pipeline location statistics for regulatory purposes.
    PHMSA received no comments on the June 22, 2016, 30-day Notice
pertaining to this attribute. PHMSA will move forward with this
attribute as originally proposed. This attribute will be collected in
Phase 1.

K. In-Line Inspection (yes/no)

    Federal pipeline safety regulations require that new and replaced
pipelines be capable of In-line Inspection (ILI) in Sec. Sec.
192.150(a) and 195.120(a). PHMSA proposed operators report whether
their pipelines are capable of ILI or not.
    AGA commented that collecting this data as simply ``yes or no''
would not satisfy NTSB Safety Recommendations P-15-18 \2\ and P-15-
20.\3\ AGA also asked that this data element be moved to Phase 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ That all natural gas transmission pipelines be capable of
being in-line inspected by either reconfiguring the pipeline to
accommodate in-line inspection tools or by the use of new technology
that permits the inspection of previously uninspectable pipelines;
priority should be given to the highest risk transmission pipeline
that considers age, internal pressure, pipe diameter, and class
location.
    \3\ Operators identify all operational complications that limit
the use of in-line inspection tools in piggable pipelines, develop
methods to eliminate the operational complications, and require
operators to use these methods to increase the use of in-line
inspection tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INGAA requested that ILI be defined as: ``[a]n instrumented in-line
inspection segment means a length of pipeline through which a free-
swimming commercially available in-line inspection tool can travel
without the need for any permanent physical modifications to the
pipeline and (1) is capable of assessing the identified threat(s), (2)
can inspect the entire circumference of the pipe, and (3) can record or
transmit relevant, interpretable inspection data.'' PHMSA recognizes
the definition of ILI could be further clarified. Noting that INGAA's
definition of a pipe capable of accepting an ILI excludes tethered
pipe, PHMSA proposes changes to the ILI data element as follows:
``whether a line is capable of accepting an ILI (defined as an internal
passage device that can assess the geometry and pipe wall conditions on
a continuous basis for the pipeline segment transited) with currently
available technology.''
    PHMSA will move forward to collect the revised data attribute in
Phase 1. This data will be used by PHMSA for risk evaluation,
inspection prioritization, integrity management plan evaluation and
decisions on future regulations, including cost/benefit analysis. It
will also address in part two

NTSB Safety Recommendations, P-15-4 and P-15-22.

L. Most Recent Assessment Method(s) and Year

    PHMSA proposed operators submit the most recent assessment method
and the year of that assessment for every pipeline segment required to
be assessed per part 192, subpart O or part 195, subpart F. If the
operator performed more than one type of assessment on that date, a
secondary or tertiary assessment method can be submitted. The list of
assessment methods is available in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual
(Appendix A). The year is collected as a 4-digit integer. PHMSA
received no comments on the June 22, 2016, 30-day Notice pertaining to
this attribute. PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as
originally proposed. This attribute will be collected in Phase 2.

M. Class Location

    PHMSA proposed operators of gas transmission pipeline segments
submit information on the predominant class location of a gas
transmission pipeline segment. PHMSA received no comments on the June
22, 2016, 30-day Notice pertaining to this attribute.
    PHMSA will move forward with the collection of this attribute as
originally proposed. This information is a critical measure of
population risk and is necessary to ensure that integrity management
rules are properly applied to high-risk areas. This data is valuable to
PHMSA for prioritizing, planning, and conducting safety inspections.
This attribute will be collected in Phase 1.

N. Gas HCA Segment

    PHMSA proposed gas transmission operators identify HCA pipe
segments as defined by Sec.  192.903. PHMSA received no comments on the
June 22, 2016, 30-day Notice pertaining to this attribute.
    PHMSA will move forward with the Gas HCA segment attribute as
originally proposed. This information will help emergency responders
identify pipelines with greater potential for significant damage.
Additionally, these attributes identify pipelines subject to integrity
management programs. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority to map high
consequence areas under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d). Gas operators are only
expected to submit information on whether a segment is an HCA segment
as defined in Sec.  192.903. This attribute will be collected in Phase
1.

O. Segment Could Affect an HCA

    PHMSA proposed hazardous liquid operators identify pipe segments
which could affect HCAs as defined by Sec.  195.450. Pipeline segments
can be classified as affecting or not affecting the following: ``Highly
Populated Areas,'' ``Other Populated Areas,'' ``Ecological Unusually
Sensitive Areas,'' ``Drinking Water Unusually Sensitive Areas (DW
USA),'' (not included in this information collection), and
``Commercially Navigable Waterways.''
    API and AOPL requested that PHMSA provide a definition for ``could
affect.'' As API and AOPL noted, Appendix C of Sec.  195.452 already
provides guidance on determining if a segment could affect an HCA.
Additional guidance on when a segment ``could affect'' an HCA can be
found in the Final Orders issued by PHMSA in CPF No. 1-2002-5007 \4\
and CPF No. 5-2004-5025,\5\ and pages 21-22 of PHMSA's Hazardous Liquid
Integrity Management Enforcement Guidance (Dec. 7, 2015).\6\ PHMSA
believes these sources provide adequate guidance as to when a segment
``could affect'' an HCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/120025007/120025007_final%20order_06232003_text.pdf.
    \5\ https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/enforce/documents/520045025/520045025_FinalOrder_04172009_text.pdf.
    \6\ https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Hazardous_Liquid_IM_Enforcement_Guidance_12_7_2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TransCanada opposed collection of this attribute due to concerns
over PHMSA's ability to keep the data secure. However, due to the very
high sensitivity of the DW USA, PHMSA's proposal will not include data
on pipeline segments affecting DW USA. PHMSA has safeguarded the
sensitive ecological data collected since 2001 with no data breaches
and PHMSA is committed to safeguarding this data.
    PHMSA will move forward with the ``could affect HCA'' attributes as
originally proposed, excluding DW USA. This proposed attribute will
help emergency response planners identify pipelines with greater
potential for significant environmental damage to surrounding areas.
Further, the ``could affect HCA'' attributes identify pipelines subject
to integrity management programs. PHMSA has explicit statutory
authority to map high-consequence assets under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d).
Access to this information will be limited to government employees who
need this data to perform their official duties. This attribute will be
collected in Phase 2.

P. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number

    PHMSA proposed operators submit the Facility Response Plan (FRP)
Sequence Number for certain liquid pipeline segments according to Part
194. This is a 4-digit integer (i.e., 0003) assigned by PHMSA and
provided to the operator in the ``Letter of Approval'' for the
submitted FRP. PHMSA received no comments in the June 22, 2016, 30-day
Notice pertaining to this attribute.
    PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as originally proposed.
Access to the relevant FRP Sequence Number through NPMS would be
beneficial to first responders in an emergency, especially in areas
with multiple pipeline facilities. Since applicable liquid operators
are required to have this information, PHMSA believes it should be
minimally burdensome to submit. This attribute will be collected in
Phase 2.

Q. Abandoned Pipelines

    PHMSA proposed that all gas transmission and hazardous liquid
pipelines abandoned after the effective date of this information
collection be submitted to the NPMS. Abandoned pipelines are defined in
Sec. Sec.  192.3 and 195.2 as those that are ``permanently removed from
service.'' Abandoned lines are not currently required to be submitted
to the NPMS unless they are offshore or cross a ``Commercially
Navigable Waterway.'' Operators would only need to submit this data in
the calendar year after the pipeline abandonment occurs. This attribute
will be collected in Phase 1.
    This information is important for PHMSA to determine whether proper
pipeline abandonment procedures are followed. PHMSA inspectors have
identified past incidents involving lines which had been
mischaracterized as abandoned (i.e., still containing a commodity or
not permanently abandoned in accordance with federal regulations).
Since operators are already required to map their lines and indicate
the proper status, PHMSA believes that identifying recently abandoned
segments is not burdensome.

R. Breakout Tanks

    PHMSA proposed to require the submission of breakout tank data,
which is currently optional to report. This proposal will make breakout
tank data submission mandatory. API and AOPL requested this data
element be accessible only by password protected Pipeline Information
Management and Mapping Application (PIMMA) users, and not to the
general public via the

Public Viewer. TransCanada commented that the burden to prepare this
information is high and PHMSA has not demonstrated sufficient need for
the data.
    PHMSA will retain this data element in the information collection.
This data is needed by PHMSA inspectors to locate individual tanks
within a tank farm and determine the types of tanks in a farm.
Information that was previously collected in optional breakout tank
submissions has been removed from this data element, as it is already
collected in the operator's transmittal letter which accompanies its
submission. Also, the commodity codes and revision codes have been
updated to match Annual Report codes and existing NPMS codes. A
clarifying note has been added to the TANKSIZE attribute.
    Approximately 45% of breakout tanks have been submitted to the NPMS
on an optional basis and are currently viewable in the Public Viewer.
The locations of breakout tanks are also shown on commercially
available imagery. PHMSA will continue to display this element on the
Public Viewer. This attribute will be collected in Phase 1.

S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes and Features

    PHMSA proposed to collect additional data attributes and features
for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants under PHMSA's jurisdiction. The
new attributes include type of plant, year constructed, and capacity.
The new features are impoundments and exclusion zones. Appendices A2-A4
of the NPMS Operator Standards Manual contain technical details on
submitting this data. API and AOPL requested that this data element be
viewable only to users of the password-protected application PIMMA, and
not to the general public via the Public Viewer. MidAmerican commented
that emergency responders should be working directly with operators
during an emergency to obtain this data and should not be getting it
through the NPMS.
    PHMSA intends to proceed with this information collection as
originally proposed. However, PHMSA will restrict the additional LNG
plant attributes to PIMMA, and will advise emergency responders that
their first line of communication about LNG plant information in an
emergency should be with the operator, not PIMMA. Geospatial
information on the location and characteristics of LNG plants helps
PHMSA and emergency responders better understand potential safety risks
on a national and local level, respectively, and provides location data
which is not submitted on the PHMSA Annual Report. This attribute will
be collected in Phase 1.

IV. General Comments

A. Reporting

    Spectra requested the ability to submit a full replacement NPMS
submission each year and to eliminate the Revision Code field
(REVIS_CD) for individual attributes.
    Full Replacement submissions are always accepted by the NPMS. To
simplify the submission process, operators may also only submit an
attribute addition, removal, or edit, or notify NPMS that no changes
are necessary. Because PHMSA uses change tracking to create pipeline
``history,'' submitting a revision code to explain why a segment is new
or the type of change that has occurred on that segment, if any, is
necessary. This allows PHMSA to differentiate operator performance from
pipeline performance and view the history of a pipe segment as it
changes operators. The revision code is already a required attribute in
the NPMS Operator Standards. Operators that have difficulty in
determining asset changes since their previous NPMS submission are
asked to contact the NPMS processing department ([email protected]) to
request a GIS file format copy of their previous data submission to
support comparison efforts. There is no revision code required for
individual attributes on a pipe segment; the revision code is only
required once for each pipe segment. (Refer to the NPMS Operator
Standards Manual for further details.) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Operator_Standards.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spectra also asked that PHMSA train emergency responders in NPMS
usage. PHMSA already conducts numerous outreach efforts each year to
educate emergency responders about the NPMS.
    The Pipeline Safety Trust asked for more data elements to be added
to the Public Viewer instead of being kept only on password-protected
PIMMA. PHMSA has reviewed all data elements individually and determined
the appropriate security level for each attribute based on, among other
things, discussions with TSA.
    American Fuel Petrochemical and Texas Oil and Gas asked that PHMSA
convene a working group including industry stakeholders before
finalizing the information collection. The information collection has
had three comment periods prior to this notice, two of which have been
extended to allow all interested parties to submit comments, as well as
two public meetings in 2014 and 2015 and a technical workshop in 2015.
Therefore, it is not necessary to convene a working group.
    INGAA asked for changes to the values collected in Appendix A of
the NPMS Operator Standards Manual to better align with Annual Reports.
Specifically, INGAA asked that:
     An ``unknown'' option be added to the Percent SMYS
attribute, to match the options available in Part K of the PHMSA Annual
Report. Because this attribute is no longer part of this information
collection, this comment is no longer applicable.
     The diameter (reported as nominal pipe size) includes a
category of ``NPS 4 or less'' to match the PHMSA Annual Report
categories instead of allowing the operator to enter NPS values, as
proposed by PHMSA in the Operator Standards Manual. PHMSA's decision to
collect NPS as a numeric value aligns with PHMSA's accident and
incident reporting requirements and preserves the numeric field type
for statistical analysis. To add a ``NPS 4 or less'' category would
apply to less than 0.5% of the pipe submitted to the NPMS. PHMSA will
retain this attribute collection as a numeric NPS value, in line with
PHMSA's accident and incident reports.
     For ``Decade of Installation'', remove the 1920-1929 and
1930-1939 categories and change the pre-1920 category to pre-1940 to
align with PHMSA's Annual Report categories. PHMSA will make this
change.
     ``Wrought Iron'' be added as an option for ``Pipe
Material'', to align with PHMSA's Annual Report categories. PHMSA will
make this change.
    PHMSA acknowledges that a number of the proposed attributes are
also collected on the Annual Report forms. There are often
discrepancies between the data submitted to the NPMS and the data that
is recorded in the Annual Reports. Data quality is a top priority to
PHMSA and its stakeholders. PHMSA plans to use the NPMS data to
corroborate and to fill in any gaps that exist in the data collected
via the Annual Reports.

B. Burden

    AGA, Texas Oil and Gas, and Spectra commented that the burden has
been underestimated. INGAA asked that the filing deadline for NPMS
submissions for gas transmission operators be moved to March 30
annually, instead of the current March 15 deadline. PHMSA responds that
a deadline change would require a rulemaking, as the March 15

deadline is specified in Sec.  191.29. However, any operator that needs
additional time to prepare its NPMS submission is welcome to contact
PHMSA's NPMS staff ([email protected]) to request an extension.

C. Legality

    AGA commented that operators are not required to have GIS
capabilities and many of the attributes in this information collection
are not required in parts 191 and 195. NPMS submission is required in
Sec. Sec.  191.29 and 195.61. If an operator does not have a GIS, the
operator may submit NPMS data in an alternate format as specified in
the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, available at https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Operator_Standards.pdf.
    INGAA asked that the following language be added: ``Except where
stricter quality or accuracy requirements are defined in this document,
operators should use their best readily available data and engineering
judgment to determine attribute values.'' PHMSA acknowledges INGAA's
comments and will accept NPMS data based on sound engineering judgment.
Attributes in this information collection must accurately reflect
pipeline, LNG, and breakout tank characteristics based on exact data or
sound engineering judgement, not based solely on the best readily
available data.
    NTSB Safety Recommendation P-15-4 includes improving the accuracy
of attribute details relevant to safety, Sec. Sec.  191.29 and 195.61
require that operator submittals to the NPMS reflect assets as of
December 31 of the previous year, and comments to date support
improving the accuracy and completeness of the NPMS. Also, Safety
Recommendation P-15-22 (to develop and implement a plan to improve data
integration for integrity management) is supported by this information
collection. In support of these recommendations, regulations, and
pipeline safety needs, operators should use exact data or sound
engineering judgement to submit accurate information to the NPMS.

D. Data Security

    API and AOPL commented that PHMSA needs to provide more details on
how SSI data elements will be protected. TransCanada, Texas Oil and
Gas, and American Fuel Petrochemical also expressed doubt about PHMSA's
ability to protect SSI data elements. As mentioned in Section II above,
SSI data elements have been removed from this information collection.
PHMSA has discussed the appropriate security categorization for the new
data elements with TSA and has reviewed all comments regarding security
submitted during the two 60-day Notice comment periods.
    The elements in the list below are proposed to be restricted to
government officials by inclusion in PIMMA, which is accessible at
www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov. PIMMA is password protected and available only
to government officials (who may view the data for their jurisdiction).
All PIMMA users are vetted to confirm their identity and employment
before a password is issued. Pipeline operators may gain access to
PIMMA but they can only view information for the pipelines they
operate. The elements below may also be provided in shapefile or
geodatabase format to requesting government officials upon verification
of identity and employment, and receipt of a signed letter consenting
to PHMSA's data security policy.
    Elements restricted to government officials:

 Pipe diameter
 Commodity detail
 Pipe grade
 Seam type
 Decade of installation
 Wall thickness
 In-line inspection (yes/no)
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 Segment ``could affect'' an HCA
 Assessment method
 Assessment year
 Coated (yes/no)
 FRP sequence number
 Proposed new LNG plant attributes (type of plant, total
capacity, year constructed, impoundments, and exclusion zones)
 Breakout tank capacity

    The following elements are proposed to be displayed on the NPMS
Public Viewer. The current extent (one county per session) and zoom
level (no closer than 1:24,000) restrictions will remain in place.

    Public Viewer elements:
 Pipe material
 Pipe join method
 Onshore/offshore
 Abandoned lines
 LNG plant locations and attributes not listed under the
``elements restricted to government officials'' section
 Breakout tank locations and attributes (excluding capacity)

E. Definitions

    Several commenters, as well as attendees of the November 2015
Operator Workshop, expressed serious concerns about the use of the word
``predominant.'' These concerns centered on how the usage of
predominant attributes is poorly defined, difficult to verify
compliance with, and risks improper categorization of pipeline risk.
From a technical standpoint, operators indicated it was more difficult
for them to generalize values into a ``predominant'' value than to
submit actual values. For these reasons, submitting a ``predominant''
value will always be optional. Appendix A of the NPMS Operator
Standards details the data elements for which ``predominant'' is an
option.

V. Phased Timeline To Collect New Data Elements

    PHMSA acknowledges operators' concerns regarding the amount of time
needed to compile, research, and/or prepare the data required for this
information collection. PHMSA will collect the new data elements in
three phases. Phase 1 data will be collected the first submission year
after the effective date, Phase 2 data will be collected the second
submission year after the effective date, and Phase 3 data will be
collected in 2024. The data elements in each phase are listed below.

Phase 1

 Pipe diameter
 Commodity detail
 Pipe material
 Pipe join method
 Onshore/offshore
 In-line inspection (yes/no)
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 Abandoned pipelines
 Breakout tanks
 LNG plants
 Coated (yes/no)

Phase 2

 Seam type
 Pipe grade
 Wall thickness
 FRP Sequence Number
 Decade of installation
 Segment could affect an HCA
 Assessment method
 Assessment year

Phase 3

 Positional accuracy conforms with new standards

VI. Mandates and Recommendations

    This proposed information collection will gather geospatial
information which will be used to fulfill Congressional mandates and
NTSB safety recommendations. These mandates and recommendations
include:
     Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation
Act of 2011,

Section 11: Any other geospatial or technical data, including design
and material specifications, that the Secretary determines are
necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. The Secretary
shall give reasonable notice to operators that the data are being
requested.
     NTSB P-11-8: Require operators of natural gas transmission
and distribution pipelines and hazardous liquid pipelines to provide
system-specific information about their pipeline systems to the
emergency response agencies of the communities and jurisdictions in
which those pipelines are located. This information should include pipe
diameter, operating pressure, product transported, and potential impact
radius.
     NTSB P-15-4: Increase the positional accuracy of pipeline
centerlines and pipeline attribute details relevant to safety in the
National Pipeline Mapping System.
     NTSB P-15-5: Revise the submission requirement to include
high consequence area identification as an attribute data element to
the National Pipeline Mapping System.
     NTSB P-15-8: Work with the appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies to develop a national repository of geospatial data
resources for the process for High Consequence Area identification, and
publicize the availability of the repository.
     NTSB P-15-22: Develop and implement a plan for all
segments of the pipeline industry to improve data integration for
integrity management through the use of geographic information systems.
    The following table shows the applicable data elements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Information collection data
 Mandate or safety recommendation                element(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory         Diameter, Pipe material, Seam type,
 Certainty, and Job Creation Act     Wall thickness, Pipe join method,
 of 2011, Section 11.                In-line Inspection y/n.
NTSB P-11-8.......................  Diameter, Commodity detail.
NTSB P-15-4.......................  Positional accuracy, Diameter,
                                     Commodity detail, Seam type, Decade
                                     of installation, Wall thickness,
                                     Pipe join method, In-line
                                     Inspection y/n, Class location, Gas
                                     HCA segment, Segment ``could
                                     affect'' an HCA, Coated (yes/no).
NTSB P-15-5.......................  Class location, Gas HCA segment,
                                     Segment ``could affect'' an HCA.
NTSB P-15-8.......................  Class location, Gas HCA segment,
                                     Segment ``could affect'' an HCA.
NTSB P-15-22......................  Pipe material, Seam type, Wall
                                     thickness, Pipe join method, In-
                                     line Inspection y/n, Method of last
                                     assessment, Year of last
                                     assessment, Coated (yes/no).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Summary of Impacted Collection

    The following information is provided for this information
collection: (1) Title of the information collection, (2) OMB control
number, (3) Current expiration date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract
of the information collection activity, (6) Description of affected
public, (7) Frequency of collection, and (8) Estimate of total Annual
Reporting and recordkeeping burden. PHMSA requests comments on the
following information collection:
    Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
    Expiration Date: 3/31/2020.
    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
    Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution
lines and gas gathering lines) must provide PHMSA geospatial data,
attributes, metadata, contact information and a transmittal letter
appropriate for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System. Operators
submit this information each year on or before March 15 for gas
transmission and LNG plant operators, or June 15 for hazardous liquid
operators. PHMSA uses this data to maintain and improve the accuracy of
the NPMS's information.
    Respondents: Operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and
liquefied natural gas plants.
    Number of Respondents: 1,346.
    Number of Responses: 1,346.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 162,208 hours.
    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.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.; 49
CFR 1.48; and 49 CFR 1.97.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2019, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2019-07133 Filed 4-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 176 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56212]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1980-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Missouri; Amendment No. 9 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Missouri (FEMA-1980-DR), dated May 9, 2011, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 31, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael L.
Karl, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Elizabeth Turner as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23220 Filed 9-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P