{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, Pipeline Safety: Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting Integrity Management Program Evaluations","title":"Pipeline Safety: Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting Integrity Management Program Evaluations","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"Pipeline Safety: Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting Integrity Management Program Evaluations Document 2012-29362.pdf (219.44 KB) PHMSA is issuing an Advisory Bulletin to remind operators of gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities of their responsibilities, under Federal integrity management regulations, to perform evaluations of their integrity management programs using meaningful performance me","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-using-meaningful-metrics-conducting-integrity-management-program-evaluations-bfd5930c.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-using-meaningful-metrics-conducting-integrity-management-program-evaluations-bfd5930c.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-using-meaningful-metrics-conducting-integrity-management-program-evaluations-bfd5930c","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/advisory-bulletins/pipeline-safety-using-meaningful-metrics-conducting-integrity-management-program-evaluations","body":"Pipeline Safety: Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting Integrity Management Program Evaluations\n\nDocument\n\n 2012-29362.pdf (219.44 KB)\n\n        PHMSA is issuing an Advisory Bulletin to remind operators of gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities of their responsibilities, under Federal integrity management regulations, to perform evaluations of their integrity management programs using meaningful performance metrics.\n\n          Effective Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2012\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nFederal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Notices\n72435\nmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with\n366–1562, or via email at\ngerald.yakowenko@dot.gov. For legal\nquestions, please contact Mr. Michael\nHarkins, FHWA Office of the Chief\nCounsel, (202) 366–4928, or via email at\nmichael.harkins@dot.gov. Office hours\nfor the FHWA are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30\np.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,\nexcept Federal holidays.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nElectronic Access\nAn electronic copy of this document\nmay be downloaded from the Federal\nRegister’s home page at: http://\nwww.archives.gov and the Government\nPrinting Office’s database at: http://\nwww.access.gpo.gov/nara.\nBackground\nThe FHWA’s Buy America policy in\n23 CFR 635.410 requires a domestic\nmanufacturing process for any steel or\niron products (including protective\ncoatings) that are permanently\nincorporated in a Federal-aid\nconstruction project. The regulation also\nprovides for a waiver of the Buy\nAmerica requirements when the\napplication would be inconsistent with\nthe public interest or when satisfactory\nquality domestic steel and iron products\nare not sufficiently available. This\nnotice provides information regarding\nthe FHWA’s finding that a Buy America\nwaiver is appropriate to use non-\ndomestic Motor and Machinery Brakes;\n16″-Diameter Motor Brakes, weight 340\nlb, and 13″ -Diameter Machinery Brakes,\nweight 250 lb, for rehabilitation of\nMurray Morgan Bridge, project #STP–\nSTPUL–3268(003), and South Park\nBridge Replacement, project #TIGERII–\nBRM–STPL–1491(002), in the State of\nWashington.\nIn accordance with Title I, Division C,\nsection 122 of the ‘‘Consolidated and\nFurther Continuing Appropriations Act,\n2012’’ (Pub. L. 112–55), the FHWA\npublished a notice of intent to issue a\nwaiver on its Web site for Motor and\nMachinery Brakes; 16″-Diameter Motor\nBrakes, weight 340 lb and 13″-Diameter\nMachinery Brakes, weight 250 lb (http://\nwww.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/\ncontracts/waivers.cfm?id=64) on\nNovember 14, 2011. The FHWA\nreceived no comment in response to the\npublication. During the 15-day comment\nperiod, the FHWA conducted additional\nnationwide review to locate potential\ndomestic manufacturers of Motor and\nMachinery Brakes; 16″-Diameter Motor\nBrakes, weight 340 lb and 13″-Diameter\nMachinery Brakes, weight 250 lb. The\nNational Institute of Standards and\nTechnology—Manufacturing Extension\nPartnership also conducted supplier\nscouting on motor and machinery\nsystem and reported that there are some\ndomestic manufacturers of\nsubcomponents to the motor and\nmachinery brake system. However, the\nsubcomponents are not compatible with\nthe specified motor and machinery\nbrakes. Based on all the information\navailable to the agency, the FHWA\nconcludes that there are no domestic\nmanufacturers of Motor and Machinery\nBrakes; 16″-Diameter Motor Brakes,\nweight 340 lb and 13″-Diameter\nMachinery Brakes, weight 250 lb for\nrehabilitation of Murray Morgan Bridge\nproject #STP–STPUL–3268(003) and\nSouth Park Bridge Replacement project\n#TIGERII–BRM–STPL–1491(002) in\nWashington State.\nIn accordance with the provisions of\nsection 117 of the SAFETEA–LU\nTechnical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub.\nL. 110–244, 122 Stat. 1572), the FHWA\nis providing this notice as its finding\nthat a waiver of Buy America\nrequirements is appropriate. The FHWA\ninvites public comment on this finding\nfor an additional 15 days following the\neffective date of the finding. Comments\nmay be submitted to the FHWA’s Web\nsite via the link provided to the\nWashington State waiver page noted\nabove.\nAuthority: 23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110–161,\n23 CFR 635.410).\nIssued on: November 26, 2012.\nVictor M. Mendez,\nAdministrator.\n[FR Doc. 2012–29329 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–22–P\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n[Docket No. PHMSA–2012–0279]\nPipeline Safety: Using Meaningful\nMetrics in Conducting Integrity\nManagement Program Evaluations\nAGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous\nMaterials Safety Administration\n(PHMSA), DOT.\nACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory\nBulletin.\nSUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing an\nAdvisory Bulletin to remind operators\nof gas transmission and hazardous\nliquid pipeline facilities of their\nresponsibilities, under Federal integrity\nmanagement regulations, to perform\nevaluations of their integrity\nmanagement programs using meaningful\nperformance metrics.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nAlan Mayberry by phone at 202–366–\n5124 or by email at\nalan.mayberry@dot.gov. All materials in\nthis docket may be accessed\nelectronically at http://\nwww.regulations.gov. General\ninformation about the PHMSA Office of\nPipeline Safety (OPS) can be obtained\nby accessing OPS’s Internet home page\nat http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nI. Background\nPHMSA’s integrity management\nregulations require operators to\nestablish processes to evaluate the\neffectiveness of their integrity\nmanagement programs. Program\nevaluation is one of the key required\nprogram elements as established in the\nintegrity management rules. For\nhazardous liquid pipelines,\n§§ 195.452(f)(7) and 195.452(k) require\nmethods to measure program\neffectiveness:\n§ 195.452(f) What are the elements\nof an integrity management program?\nAn integrity management program\nbegins with the initial framework. An\noperator must continually change the\nprogram to reflect operating experience,\nconclusions drawn from results of the\nintegrity assessments, other\nmaintenance and surveillance data, and\nevaluation of consequences of a failure\non the high consequence area. An\noperator must include, at minimum,\neach of the following elements in its\nwritten integrity management program:\n* * * * *\n(7) Methods to measure the program’s\neffectiveness (see paragraph (k) of this\nsection);\n§ 195.452(k) What methods to\nmeasure program effectiveness must be\nused? An operator’s program must\ninclude methods to measure whether\nthe program is effective in assessing and\nevaluating the integrity of each pipeline\nsegment and in protecting the high\nconsequence areas. (See Appendix C of\nthis part for guidance on methods that\ncan be used to evaluate a program’s\neffectiveness.)\nAppendix C provides more specific\nguidance on establishing performance\nmeasures, including the need to select\nmeasures based on the understanding\nand analysis of integrity threats to each\npipeline segment. Appendix C also\ndescribes three general types of metrics\nthat an integrity management program\nshould have:\n• Activity Measures that monitor the\nsurveillance and preventive activities\nthat are in place to control risk. These\nmeasures indicate how well an operator\nis implementing the elements of its\nintegrity management program.\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:56 Dec 04, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with\n72436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Notices\n• Deterioration Measures that\nmonitor operational and maintenance\ntrends to indicate if the program is\nsuccessful or weakening, or if the\ndesired outcome is being achieved or\nnot, despite the risk control activities in\nplace.\n• Failure Measures that reflect\nwhether the program is effective in\nachieving the objective of improving\nintegrity. These are typically lagging\nindicators that measure the number of\nreleases, the volume spilled, percent\nrecovered, etc.\nSection 13 ‘‘Program Evaluation’’ of\nAPI Standard 1160, Managing Integrity\nfor Hazardous Liquid Pipelines also\nprovides additional guidance on the\nprogram evaluation process in which\nthese measures are used to improve\nperformance.\nFor gas transmission pipelines,\n§§ 192.911(i) and 192.945 define the\nrequirements for establishing\nperformance metrics and evaluating\nintegrity management program\nperformance.\n§ 192.911 What are the elements of an\nintegrity management program?\nAn operator’s initial integrity\nmanagement program begins with a\nframework (see § 192.907) and evolves\ninto a more detailed and comprehensive\nintegrity management program as\ninformation is gained and incorporated\ninto the program. An operator must\nmake continual improvements to its\nprogram. The initial program framework\nand subsequent program must, at\nminimum, contain the following\nelements. (When indicated, refer to\nASME/ANSI B31.8S incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7) for more detailed\ninformation on the listed element.)\n* * * * *\n(i) A performance plan as outlined in\nASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 9 that\nincludes performance measures meeting\nthe requirements of § 192.945.\n§ 192.945 What methods must an operator\nuse to measure program effectiveness?\n(a) General. An operator must include\nin its integrity management program\nmethods to measure whether the\nprogram is effective in assessing and\nevaluating the integrity of each covered\npipeline segment and in protecting the\nhigh consequence areas. These measures\nmust include the four overall\nperformance measures specified in\nASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by\nreference, see § 192.7 of this part),\nsection 9.4, and the specific measures\nfor each identified threat specified in\nASME/ANSI B31.8S, Appendix A. An\noperator must submit the four overall\nperformance measures as part of the\nannual report required by § 191.17 of\nthis subchapter.\n(b) External Corrosion Direct\nAssessment (ECDA). In addition to the\ngeneral requirements for performance\nmeasures in paragraph (a) of this\nsection, an operator using direct\nassessment to assess an external\ncorrosion threat must define and\nmonitor measures to determine the\neffectiveness of the ECDA process.\nThese measures must meet the\nrequirements of § 192.925.\nThe gas transmission requirements\ninvoke ASME B31.8S–2004, Managing\nSystem Integrity of Gas Pipelines.\nSection 9 of this standard provides\nguidance on the selection of\nperformance measures. It describes\nthree categories of measures that are\ndirectly analogous to those noted above\nin Appendix C of Part 195. These are:\n• Process or Activity Measures used\nto evaluate preventive and mitigation\nactivities. These determine how well an\noperator is implementing the various\nelements of its integrity management\nprogram.\n• Operational Measures, which\ninclude operational and maintenance\ntrends that measure how well the\nsystem is responding to the integrity\nmanagement program.\n• Direct Integrity Measures, which\ninclude leaks, ruptures, injuries, and\nfatalities.\nFurthermore, the hazardous liquid\nand gas transmission integrity\nmanagement rules also require that\noperators retain adequate records to\nsupport integrity management program\ndecisions and activities. These include\nthe information that supports the\nselection of performance metrics, the\nperformance metric data and trends, and\nthe decisions that are based in whole or\nin part on these metrics. Specifically,\nthe hazardous liquid integrity\nmanagement program requirements are:\n§ 195.452(l) What records must be\nkept? (1) An operator must maintain for\nreview during an inspection:\n* * * * *\n(ii) Documents to support the\ndecisions and analyses, including any\nmodifications, justifications, variances,\ndeviations and determinations made,\nand actions taken, to implement and\nevaluate each element of the integrity\nmanagement program listed in\nparagraph (f) of this section.\n(2) See Appendix C of this part for\nexamples of records an operator would\nbe required to keep.\nAppendix C further states:\n§ 195.452 Appendix C. VI. Examples\nof types of records an operator must\nmaintain.\n* * * * *\n(22) methods used to measure the\nprogram’s effectiveness.\nThe comparable gas transmission\nintegrity management program\nrequirements are:\n§ 192.947 What records must be kept?\nAn operator must maintain, for the\nuseful life of the pipeline, records that\ndemonstrate compliance with the\nrequirements of this subpart. At\nminimum, an operator must maintain\nthe following records for review during\nan inspection.\n* * * * *\n(d) Documents to support any\ndecision, analysis, and process\ndeveloped and used to implement and\nevaluate each element of the baseline\nassessment plan and integrity\nmanagement program. Documents\ninclude those developed and used in\nsupport of any identification,\ncalculation, amendment, modification,\njustification, deviation and\ndetermination made, and any action\ntaken, to implement and evaluate any of\nthe program elements;\nPHMSA’s inspection protocols\ncurrently address the need to examine\noperator compliance with these\nrequirements.\nIn its report on the September 9, 2010,\ngas pipeline accident in San Bruno,\nCalifornia, the National Transportation\nSafety Board (NTSB) identified concerns\nwith Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s\n(PG&E) self-assessments of its integrity\nmanagement program. NTSB concluded\nthat the company’s self-assessments\nwere ‘‘superficial and resulted in no\nimprovements to the integrity\nmanagement program.’’ As a result,\nNTSB recommended that PG&E:\nAssess every aspect of your integrity\nmanagement program, paying particular\nattention to the areas identified in this\ninvestigation, and implement a revised\nprogram that includes, at a minimum,\n* * * * *\n(4) an improved self-assessment that\nadequately measures whether the\nprogram is effectively assessing and\nevaluating the integrity of each covered\npipeline segment. (Recommendation P–\n11–29)\nIn this same investigation, NTSB\nraised some concerns with PHMSA’s\noversight of performance-based safety\nprograms such as integrity management.\nNTSB concluded that greater focus is\nneeded on how performance-based\nsafety systems are implemented,\nexecuted and evaluated, and whether\nproblem areas are being detected and\ncorrected. Critical to this overall process\nis the selection of meaningful metrics by\noperators that allow them to quantify,\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Dec 04, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with\nFederal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Notices\n72437\nunderstand, and improve their own\nperformance.\nFollowing its investigation, NTSB\nissued two related recommendations for\nenhancing PHMSA’s oversight of\noperator programs to assess the\neffectiveness of PHMSA’s programs\nusing performance metrics. These\nrecommendations are:\nRevise your integrity management\ninspection protocol to:\n(1) incorporate a review of meaningful\nmetrics;\n(2) require auditors to verify that the\noperator has a procedure in place for\nensuring the completeness and accuracy\nof underlying information;\n(3) require auditors to review all\nintegrity management performance\nmeasures reported to the Pipeline and\nHazardous Materials Safety\nAdministration and compare the leak,\nfailure, and incident measures to the\noperator’s risk model; and\n(4) require setting performance goals\nfor pipeline operators at each audit and\nfollow up on those goals at subsequent\naudits. (Recommendation P–11–18)\n(1) Develop and implement standards\nfor integrity management and other\nperformance-based safety programs that\nrequire operators of all types of pipeline\nsystems to regularly assess the\neffectiveness of their programs using\nclear and meaningful metrics and to\nidentify and then correct deficiencies;\nand (2) make those metrics available in\na centralized database.\n(Recommendation P–11–19)\nThese recommendations reinforce the\nimportance of a rigorous evaluation of a\ncompany’s integrity management\nprogram in improving performance.\nThrough this Advisory Bulletin,\nPHMSA is reminding operators of the\nimportance of these regulation-required\nprogram elements. Operators should\nreview their current programs for\nevaluating integrity management\nprogram effectiveness and the\nperformance metrics used in these\nprograms to be sure they provide a\ncurrent and accurate representation of\nintegrity management program\nperformance. Further, operators should\nensure that program improvements and\ncorrective actions identified by these\nevaluations are implemented in a timely\nmanner.\nAs a result of NTSB’s\nrecommendations, PHMSA is initiating\nefforts to strengthen its protocols and\noversight of these key integrity\nmanagement program elements.\nBeginning immediately, PHMSA’s\ninspections will emphasize reviewing\noperator methods for integrity\nmanagement program evaluation as\nrequired by § 192.945 and § 195.452(k)\nfor gas transmission and hazardous\nliquid pipelines, respectively. PHMSA\nwill evaluate specific metrics operators\nuse to assess program effectiveness and\nhow those metrics are used in a process\nof continuous improvement. PHMSA\nwill also confirm that operators are\nmaintaining adequate records of their\nprogram effectiveness evaluations and\ntheir performance metrics data, as well\nas the activities and decisions\nassociated with all required integrity\nmanagement program elements. Our\ninspectors will check to confirm that\ninformation and data gaps are\naggressively being addressed and that\nassumptions are appropriately based on\nlocation-specific data.\nII. Advisory Bulletin (ADB–20l2–10)\nTo: Owners and Operators of\nHazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission\nPipeline Systems\nSubject: Using Meaningful Metrics in\nConducting Integrity Management\nProgram Evaluations\nAdvisory: To further enhance\nPHMSA’s safety efforts and as an initial\nstep in addressing NTSB\nRecommendations P–11–18 and P–11–\n19, PHMSA is issuing this Advisory\nBulletin concerning operator integrity\nmanagement program evaluation using\nmeaningful metrics.\nA critical program element of an\noperator’s integrity management\nprogram is the systematic, rigorous\nevaluation of the program’s\neffectiveness using clear and meaningful\nmetrics. When executed diligently, this\nself-evaluation process will lead to more\nrobust and effective integrity\nmanagement programs and improve\noverall safety performance. This process\nis critical to achieving a mature integrity\nmanagement program and a culture of\ncontinuous improvement. Program\nevaluation is a required integrity\nmanagement program element as\nestablished in §§ 192.911(i) and\n195.452(k) for gas transmission and\nhazardous liquid pipelines,\nrespectively. In light of NTSB’s findings\nfollowing the San Bruno gas\ntransmission incident, PHMSA is\nreminding operators about the\nimportance of these requirements.\nOperators are advised to critically\nreview their processes and methods for\nevaluating integrity management\nprogram performance and take action to\nstrengthen these processes where\nwarranted. An effective operator\nperformance evaluation process is\nexpected to have the following\ncharacteristics:\n• A well-defined description of the\nscope, objectives, and frequency of\nprogram evaluations.\n• The use of periodic self-\nassessments, internal or external audits,\nmanagement reviews, performance\nmetrics analysis, benchmarking against\nother operators, or other self-critical\nevaluations to assess program\neffectiveness.\n• Clear performance goals and\nobjectives to measure the effectiveness\nof key integrity activities.\n• Clear assignment of responsibility\nfor implementing required actions.\n• Review and follow-up of program\nevaluation results, findings, and\nrecommendations, etc., by appropriate\ncompany managers.\nOperators are also advised that a clear\nand meaningful set of performance\nmetrics is essential to program\neffectiveness. An effective program for\nmeasuring integrity management\nprogram effectiveness should have the\nfollowing characteristics:\n• A description of the type of\nperformance measures to be used, along\nwith the data sources, data validation\nand quality assurance activities, the\nfrequency of data collection, and any\nnormalization factors.\n• A means to update the performance\nmeasures (if needed) to assure they are\nproviding useful information about the\neffectiveness of integrity management\nprogram activities.\n• The use of performance metrics\ndata to check and calibrate the\noperator’s risk analysis tools to assure\nthese best represent the performance of\nthe operator’s specific assets.\nThe performance metrics that are\nrequired to be reported to PHMSA\nannually, such as the number of miles\nof pipeline assessed, number of\nanomalies found requiring repair or\nmitigation, etc., are a small subset of the\noverall suite of metrics used by an\noperator to evaluate its program. A\nmuch larger set of operator-specific\nmetrics to be used internally is needed\nto effectively evaluate an integrity\nmanagement program performance.\nMetrics should be developed for each of\nthe following:\n• Overall program effectiveness\nindicated by the number of releases,\nnumber of injuries or fatalities, volume\nreleased, etc.\n• Specific threats that include both\nleading and lagging indicators for the\nimportant integrity threats on an\noperator’s systems. These include:\nÆ Activity Measures that monitor the\nsurveillance and preventive activities\nthat are in place to control risk.\nÆ Deterioration Measures that\nmonitor operational and maintenance\ntrends to indicate if the program is\nsuccessful or weakening despite the risk\ncontrol activities in place. (Also\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Dec 04, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\n72438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2012 / Notices\nidentified as Operational Measures in\nASME B31.8S.)\nÆ Failure Measures that reflect\nwhether the program is effective in\nachieving the objective of improving\nintegrity. (Also identified as Direct\nIntegrity Measures in ASME B31.8S)\n• Metrics that measure and provide\ninsights into how well an operator’s\nprocesses associated with the various\nintegrity management program elements\nare performing. Examples of such\nprocesses would include integrity\nassessment, risk analysis, the\nidentification of preventive and\nmitigative measures, etc.\nWhile operator-level rollups of\nmetrics are useful for small operators, a\nrobust program for large operators\nshould also include metrics at a more\ngranular level. The metrics should\nenable operators to drill down to\nunderstand the performance of specific\nsystems or segments within systems.\nThis is particularly important for the\nthreat-specific metrics mentioned\npreviously.\nFinally, as required by §§ 195.452(l)\nand 192.947, operators must keep\nrecords supporting the decisions,\nanalyses, and processes developed and\nused in their evaluation of integrity\nmanagement program effectiveness.\nThese records should include those\njustifying the selection of performance\nmetrics, the performance metric data\nand trends, and how these metrics are\nused to improve the integrity\nmanagement program. Operators should\nalso be diligently working to eliminate\ninformation and data gaps throughout\ntheir entire integrity management\nprogram.\nIssued in Washington, DC, on November\n29, 2012.\nJeffrey D. Wiese,\nAssociate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.\n[FR Doc. 2012–29362 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–60–P\nDEPARTMENT OF VETERANS\nAFFAIRS\nClinical Science Research and\nDevelopment Service Cooperative\nStudies Scientific Evaluation\nCommittee; Notice of Meeting\nThe Department of Veterans Affairs\ngives notice under the Federal Advisory\nCommittee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the\nClinical Science Research and\nDevelopment Service Cooperative\nStudies Scientific Evaluation Committee\nwill hold a meeting on December 13,\n2012, at the Hamilton Crowne Plaza,\n1001 14th Street NW., Washington, DC.\nThe meeting is scheduled to begin at\n8:30 a.m. and end at 4 p.m.\nThe Committee advises the Chief\nResearch and Development Officer\nthrough the Director of the Clinical\nScience Research and Development\nService on the relevance and feasibility\nof proposed projects and the scientific\nvalidity and propriety of technical\ndetails, including protection of human\nsubjects.\nThe session will be open to the public\nfor approximately 30 minutes at the\nstart of the meeting for the discussion of\nadministrative matters and the general\nstatus of the program. The remaining\nportion of the meeting will be closed to\nthe public for the Committee’s review,\ndiscussion, and evaluation of research\nand development applications.\nDuring the closed portion of the\nmeeting, discussions and\nrecommendations will deal with\nqualifications of personnel conducting\nthe studies, staff and consultant\ncritiques of research proposals and\nsimilar documents, and the medical\nrecords of patients who are study\nsubjects, the disclosure of which would\nconstitute a clearly unwarranted\ninvasion of personal privacy. As\nprovided by section 10(d) of Public Law\n92–463, as amended, closing portions of\nthis meeting is in accordance with 5\nU.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).\nThose who plan to attend should\ncontact Dr. Grant Huang, Deputy\nDirector, Cooperative Studies Program\n(10P9CS), Department of Veterans\nAffairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW.,\nWashington, DC 20420, at (202) 443–\n5700 or by email at grant.huang@va.gov.\nBy Direction of the Secretary.\nDated: November 29, 2012.\nVivian Drake,\nCommittee Management Officer.\n[FR Doc. 2012–29285 Filed 12–4–12; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 8320–01–P\nmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:19 Dec 04, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\\FR\\FM\\05DEN1.SGM 05DEN1","truncated":false,"body_characters":25562}