{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, Pipeline Safety: Verification of Records","title":"Pipeline Safety: Verification of Records","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":null,"effective_on":null,"summary":"Pipeline Safety: Verification of Records Document 2012-10866.pdf (180.41 KB) PHMSA is issuing an Advisory Bulletin to remind operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities to verify their records relating to operating specifications for maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) required by 49 CFR 192.517 and maximum operating pressure (MOP) required by 49 CFR 195.310. This Advisory Bulletin informs gas o","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-verification-records-b864b1b1.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-verification-records-b864b1b1.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-pipeline-safety-verification-records-b864b1b1","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/standards-rulemaking/pipeline/advisory-bulletins/pipeline-safety-verification-records","body":"Pipeline Safety: Verification of Records\n\nDocument\n\n 2012-10866.pdf (180.41 KB)\n\n        PHMSA is issuing an Advisory Bulletin to remind operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities to verify their records relating to operating specifications for maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) required by 49 CFR 192.517 and maximum operating pressure (MOP) required by 49 CFR 195.310. This Advisory Bulletin informs gas operators of anticipated changes in annual reporting requirements to document the confirmation of MAOP, how they will be required to report total mileage and mileage with adequate records, when they must report, and what PHMSA considers an adequate record. In addition, this Advisory Bulletin informs hazardous liquid operators of adequate records for the confirmation of MOP.\n\n          Effective Date: Monday, May 7, 2012\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\n26822 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Notices\ncriteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s\nregulations at 46 CFR part 388.\nPrivacy Act\nAnyone is able to search the\nelectronic form of all comments\nreceived into any of our dockets by the\nname of the individual submitting the\ncomment (or signing the comment, if\nsubmitted on behalf of an association,\nbusiness, labor union, etc.). You may\nreview DOT’s complete Privacy Act\nStatement in the Federal Register\npublished on April 11, 2000 (Volume\n65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).\nBy Order of the Maritime Administrator.\nDated: April 26, 2012.\nJulie P. Agarwal,\nSecretary, Maritime Administration.\n[FR Doc. 2012–10864 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–81–P\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nMaritime Administration\n[Docket No. MARAD–2012–0056]\nRequested Administrative Waiver of\nthe Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel\nLONGWOOD BATEAU; Invitation for\nPublic Comments\nAGENCY: Maritime Administration,\nDepartment of Transportation.\nACTION: Notice.\nsroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES\nSUMMARY: As authorized by 46 U.S.C.\n12121, the Secretary of Transportation,\nas represented by the Maritime\nAdministration (MARAD), is authorized\nto grant waivers of the U.S.-build\nrequirement of the coastwise laws under\ncertain circumstances. A request for\nsuch a waiver has been received by\nMARAD. The vessel, and a brief\ndescription of the proposed service, is\nlisted below.\nDATES: Submit comments on or before\nJune 6, 2012.\nADDRESSES: Comments should refer to\ndocket number MARAD–2012–0056.\nWritten comments may be submitted by\nhand or by mail to the Docket Clerk,\nU.S. Department of Transportation,\nDocket Operations, M–30, West\nBuilding Ground Floor, Room W12–140,\n1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,\nWashington, DC 20590. You may also\nsend comments electronically via the\nInternet at http://www.regulations.gov.\nAll comments will become part of this\ndocket and will be available for\ninspection and copying at the above\naddress between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.,\nE.T., Monday through Friday, except\nfederal holidays. An electronic version\nof this document and all documents\nentered into this docket is available on\nthe World Wide Web at http://\nwww.regulations.gov.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:\nJoann Spittle, U.S. Department of\nTransportation, Maritime\nAdministration, 1200 New Jersey\nAvenue SE., Room W21–203,\nWashington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–\n366–5979, Email Joann.Spittle@dot.gov.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As\ndescribed by the applicant the intended\nservice of the vessel LONGWOOD\nBATEAU is: INTENDED COMMERCIAL\nUSE OF VESSEL: ‘‘Day outings, harbor\ncruises and sightseeing cruises for no\nmore than six passengers with one\nlicensed captain on a seasonal basis.’’\nGEOGRAPHIC REGION:\n‘‘Massachusetts, Rhode Island,\nConnecticut and New York.’’\nThe complete application is given in\nDOT docket MARAD–2012–0056 at\nhttp://www.regulations.gov. Interested\nparties may comment on the effect this\naction may have on U.S. vessel builders\nor businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-\nflag vessels. If MARAD determines, in\naccordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and\nMARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part\n388, that the issuance of the waiver will\nhave an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-\nvessel builder or a business that uses\nU.S.-flag vessels in that business, a\nwaiver will not be granted. Comments\nshould refer to the docket number of\nthis notice and the vessel name in order\nfor MARAD to properly consider the\ncomments. Comments should also state\nthe commenter’s interest in the waiver\napplication, and address the waiver\ncriteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s\nregulations at 46 CFR Part 388.\nPrivacy Act\nAnyone is able to search the\nelectronic form of all comments\nreceived into any of our dockets by the\nname of the individual submitting the\ncomment (or signing the comment, if\nsubmitted on behalf of an association,\nbusiness, labor union, etc.). You may\nreview DOT’s complete Privacy Act\nStatement in the Federal Register\npublished on April 11, 2000 (Volume\n65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).\nBy Order of the Maritime Administrator.\nDated: April 26, 2012.\nJulie P. Agarwal,\nSecretary, Maritime Administration.\n[FR Doc. 2012–10867 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–81–P\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials\nSafety Administration\n[Docket No. PHMSA–2012–0068]\nPipeline Safety: Verification of Records\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 and hazardous liquid pipeline\nfacilities to verify their records relating\nto operating specifications for maximum\nallowable operating pressure (MAOP)\nrequired by 49 CFR 192.517 and\nmaximum operating pressure (MOP)\nrequired by 49 CFR 195.310. This\nAdvisory Bulletin informs gas operators\nof anticipated changes in annual\nreporting requirements to document the\nconfirmation of MAOP, how they will\nbe required to report total mileage and\nmileage with adequate records, when\nthey must report, and what PHMSA\nconsiders an adequate record. In\naddition, this Advisory Bulletin informs\nhazardous liquid operators of adequate\nrecords for the confirmation of MOP.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John\nGale by phone at 202–366–0434 or by\nemail at john.gale@dot.gov. Information\nabout PHMSA may be found at http://\nphmsa.dot.gov.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nBackground\nOn January 10, 2011, PHMSA issued\nAdvisory Bulletin 11–01. This Advisory\nBulletin reminded operators that if they\nare relying on the review of design,\nconstruction, inspection, testing and\nother related data to establish MAOP\nand MOP, they must ensure that the\nrecords used are reliable, traceable,\nverifiable, and complete. If such a\ndocument and records search, review,\nand verification cannot be satisfactorily\ncompleted, the operator cannot rely on\nthis method for calculating MAOP or\nMOP and must instead rely on another\nmethod as allowed in 49 CFR 192.619\nor 49 CFR 195.406.\nSection 192.619 currently contains\nfour methods for establishing MAOP: (1)\nThe design pressure of the weakest\nelement in the segment; (2) pressure\ntesting; (3) the highest actual operating\npressure in the five years prior to the\nsegment becoming subject to regulation\nunder Part 192; and (4) the maximum\nsafe pressure considering the history of\nthe segment, particularly known\ncorrosion and the actual operating\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:11 May 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nsroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES\nFederal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Notices\n26823\npressure. The third method, often\nreferred to as the ‘‘grandfather clause,’’\nallows pipelines that had safely\noperated prior to the pipeline safety\nMAOP regulations to continue to\noperate under similar conditions\nwithout retroactively applying\nrecordkeeping requirements or requiring\npressure tests.\nMany of the pipelines being newly\nsubjected to safety regulation in the\n1970’s were relatively new and had\ndemonstrated a safe operating history.\nPHMSA is now considering whether\nthese pipelines should be pressure\ntested to verify continued safe MAOP.\nIn its August 20, 2011, accident\ninvestigation report on the September 9,\n2010, Pacific Gas and Electric Company\nnatural gas transmission pipeline\nrupture and fire, the National\nTransportation Safety Board (NTSB)\nrecommended that PHMSA should:\nAmend Title 49 CFR 192.619 to delete the\ngrandfather clause and require that all gas\ntransmission pipelines constructed before\n1970 be subjected to a hydrostatic pressure\ntest that incorporates a spike test. (P–11–14)\nPHMSA will be addressing this\nrecommendation in a future rulemaking.\nOn January 3, 2012, President Obama\nsigned the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory\nCertainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011\n(Act), which requires PHMSA to direct\neach owner or operator of a gas\ntransmission pipeline and associated\nfacilities to provide verification that\ntheir records accurately reflect MAOP of\ntheir pipelines within Class 3 and Class\n4 locations and in Class 1 and Class 2\nlocations in High Consequence Areas\n(HCAs). Beginning in 2013, PHMSA\nintends to require operators to submit\ndata regarding verification of records in\nthese class locations via the Gas\nTransmission and Gathering Systems\nAnnual Report.\nOperators of both gas and hazardous\nliquid pipelines should review their\nrecords to determine whether they are\nadequate to support operating\nparameters and conditions on their\npipeline systems or if additional action\nis needed to confirm those parameters\nand assure safety. The Research and\nSpecial Programs Administration and\nthe Materials Transportation Bureau,\nPHMSA’s predecessor agencies,\nrecognized the importance of verifying\nMAOP. Prior to 1996, there was a\nregulatory requirement titled: ‘‘Initial\nDetermination of Class Location and\nConfirmation or Establishment of\nMaximum Allowable Operating\nPressure’’ at 49 CFR 192.607. This\nregulation required operators to confirm\nthe MAOP on their systems relative to\nclass locations no later than January 1,\n1973. The regulatory requirement was\nremoved in 1996 because the\ncompliance dates had long since passed.\nPHMSA believes documentation that\nwas used to confirm MAOP in\ncompliance with this requirement may\nbe useful in the current verification\neffort.\nAdvisory Bulletin (ADB–2012–06)\nTo: Owners and Operators of Gas and\nHazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems.\nSubject: Verification of Records\nEstablishing MAOP and MOP.\nAdvisory: As directed in the Act,\nPHMSA will require each owner or\noperator of a gas transmission pipeline\nand associated facilities to verify that\ntheir records confirm MAOP of their\npipelines within Class 3 and Class 4\nlocations and in Class 1 and Class 2\nlocations in HCAs.\nPHMSA intends to require gas\npipeline operators to submit data\nregarding mileage of pipelines with\nverifiable records and mileage of\npipelines without records in the annual\nreporting cycle for 2013. On April 13,\n2012, (77 FR 22387) PHMSA published\na Federal Register Notice titled:\n‘‘Information Collection Activities,\nRevision to Gas Transmission and\nGathering Pipeline Systems Annual\nReport, Gas Transmission and Gathering\nPipeline Systems Incident Report, and\nHazardous Liquid Pipelines Systems\nAccident Report.’’ PHMSA plans to use\ninformation from the 2013 Gas\nTransmission and Gathering Pipeline\nSystems Annual Report to develop\npotential rulemaking for cases in which\nthe records of the owner or operator are\ninsufficient to confirm the established\nMAOP of a pipeline segment within\nClass 3 and Class 4 locations and in\nClass 1 and Class 2 locations in HCAs.\nOwners and operators should consider\nthe guidance in this advisory for all\npipeline segments and take action as\nappropriate to assure that all MAOP and\nMOP are supported by records that are\ntraceable, verifiable and complete.\nInformation needed to support\nestablishment of MAOP and MOP is\nidentified in § 192.619, § 192.620 and\n§ 195.406. An owner or operator of a\npipeline must meet the recordkeeping\nrequirements of Part 192 and Part 195 in\nsupport of MAOP and MOP\ndetermination.\nTraceable records are those which can\nbe clearly linked to original information\nabout a pipeline segment or facility.\nTraceable records might include pipe\nmill records, purchase requisition, or as-\nbuilt documentation indicating\nminimum pipe yield strength, seam\ntype, wall thickness and diameter.\nCareful attention should be given to\nrecords transcribed from original\ndocuments as they may contain errors.\nInformation from a transcribed\ndocument, in many cases, should be\nverified with complementary or\nsupporting documents.\nVerifiable records are those in which\ninformation is confirmed by other\ncomplementary, but separate,\ndocumentation. Verifiable records might\ninclude contract specifications for a\npressure test of a line segment\ncomplemented by pressure charts or\nfield logs. Another example might\ninclude a purchase order to a pipe mill\nwith pipe specifications verified by a\nmetallurgical test of a coupon pulled\nfrom the same pipe segment. In general,\nthe only acceptable use of an affidavit\nwould be as a complementary\ndocument, prepared and signed at the\ntime of the test or inspection by an\nindividual who would have reason to be\nfamiliar with the test or inspection.\nComplete records are those in which\nthe record is finalized as evidenced by\na signature, date or other appropriate\nmarking. For example, a complete\npressure testing record should identify a\nspecific segment of pipe, who\nconducted the test, the duration of the\ntest, the test medium, temperatures,\naccurate pressure readings, and\nelevation information as applicable. An\nincomplete record might reflect that the\npressure test was initiated, failed and\nrestarted without conclusive indication\nof a successful test. A record that cannot\nbe specifically linked to an individual\npipe segment is not a complete record\nfor that segment. Incomplete or partial\nrecords are not an adequate basis for\nestablishing MAOP or MOP. If records\nare unknown or unknowable, a more\nconservative approach is indicated.\nPHMSA is aware that other types of\nrecords may be acceptable and that\ncertain state programs may have\nadditional requirements. Operators\nshould ensure all records establish\nconfidence in the validity of the records.\nIf a document and records search,\nreview, and verification cannot be\nsatisfactorily completed to meet the\nneed for traceable, verifiable, and\ncomplete records, the operator may\nneed to conduct other activities such as\nin-situ examination, measuring yield\nand tensile strength, pressure testing,\nand nondestructive testing or otherwise\nverify the characteristics of the pipeline\nto support a MAOP or MOP\ndetermination.\nPHMSA is supportive of the use of\nalternative technologies to verify pipe\ncharacteristics. Owners and operators\nseeking to use alternative or non-\ntraditional technologies in the\ndetermination of MAOP or MOP, or to\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:11 May 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nsroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES\n26824 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Notices\nmeet other regulatory requirements,\nshould first discuss the proposed\napproach with the appropriate state or\nFederal regulatory agencies to determine\nits acceptability under regulatory\nrequirements.\nPHMSA will issue more direction\nregarding how operators will be\nrequired to bring into compliance gas\nand hazardous liquid pipelines without\nverifiable records for the entire mileage\nof the pipeline. Further details will also\nbe provided on the manner in which\nPHMSA intends to require operators to\nreestablish MAOP as discussed in\nSection 23(a) of the Act.\nFinally, PHMSA notes that on\nSeptember 26, 2011, NTSB issued\nRecommendation P–11–14: Eliminating\nGrandfather Clause. Section\n192.619(a)(3) allows gas transmission\noperators to establish MAOP of pipe\ninstalled before July 1, 1970, by use of\nrecords noting the highest actual\noperating pressure to which the segment\nwas subjected during the five years\npreceding July 1, 1970. NTSB\nRecommendation P–11–14 requests that\nPHMSA delete § 192.619(a)(3), also\nknown as the ‘‘grandfather clause,’’ and\nrequire gas transmission pipeline\noperators to reestablish MAOP using\nhydrostatic pressure testing. PHMSA\nreminds operators that this\nrecommendation will be acted upon\nfollowing the collection of data,\nincluding information from the 2013\nGas Transmission and Gathering\nPipeline Systems Annual Report, which\nwill allow PHMSA to determine the\nimpact of the requested change on the\npublic and industry in conformance\nwith our statutory obligations.\nIssued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2012.\nAlan K. Mayberry,\nDeputy Associate Administrator for Field\nOperations.\n[FR Doc. 2012–10866 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–60–P\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nResearch & Innovative Technology\nAdministration\n[Docket ID Number RITA 2008–0002]\nAgency Information Collection;\nActivity Under OMB Review; Reporting\nRequired for International Civil\nAviation Organization (ICAO)\nAGENCY: Research & Innovative\nTechnology Administration (RITA),\nBureau of Transportation Statistics\n(BTS), DOT.\nACTION: Notice.\nSUMMARY: In compliance with the\nPaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44\nU.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice\nannounces that the Information\nCollection Request (ICR) abstracted\nbelow has been forwarded to the Office\nof Management and Budget (OMB) for\nextension of currently approved\ncollections. The ICR describes the\nnature of the information collection and\nits expected burden. The Federal\nRegister Notice with a 60-day comment\nperiod soliciting comments on the\nfollowing collection of information was\npublished on February 29, 2012 (77 FR\n12364). No comments were received.\nDATES: Written comments should be\nsubmitted by June 6, 2012.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff\nGorham, Office of Airline Information,\nRTS–42, Room E34, RITA, BTS, 1200\nNew Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,\nDC 20590–0001, Telephone Number\n(202) 366–4406, Fax Number (202) 366–\n3383 or Email jeff.gorham@dot.gov.\nComments: Send comments to the\nOffice of Information and Regulatory\nAffairs, Office of Management and\nBudget, 725–17th Street NW.,\nWashington, DC 20503, Attention:\nRITA/BTS Desk Officer.\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nOMB Approval No.: 2138–0039.\nTitle: Reporting Required for\nInternational Civil Aviation\nOrganization (ICAO).\nForm No.: BTS Form EF.\nType of Review: Extension of a\ncurrently approved collection.\nRespondents: Large certificated air\ncarriers.\nNumber of Respondents: 40.\nNumber of Responses: 40.\nTotal Annual Burden: 26 hours.\nNeeds and Uses: As a party to the\nConvention on International Civil\nAviation (Treaty), the United States is\nobligated to provide ICAO with\nfinancial and statistical data on\noperations of U.S. air carriers. Over 99%\nof the data filed with ICAO is extracted\nfrom the air carriers’ Form 41\nsubmissions to BTS. BTS Form EF is the\nmeans by which BTS supplies the\nremaining 1% of the air carrier data to\nICAO.\nThe Confidential Information\nProtection and Statistical Efficiency Act\nof 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501), requires a\nstatistical agency to clearly identify\ninformation it collects for non-statistical\npurposes. BTS hereby notifies the\nrespondents and the public that BTS\nuses the information it collects under\nthis OMB approval for non-statistical\npurposes including, but not limited to,\npublication of both Respondent’s\nidentity and its data, submission of the\ninformation to agencies outside BTS for\nreview, analysis and possible use in\nregulatory and other administrative\nmatters.\nComments are invited on: Whether\nthe proposed collection of information\nis necessary for the proper performance\nof the functions of the Department\nconcerning consumer protection.\nComments should address whether the\ninformation will have practical utility;\nthe accuracy of the Department’s\nestimate of the burden of the proposed\ninformation collection; ways to enhance\nthe quality, utility and clarity of the\ninformation to be collected; and ways to\nminimize the burden of the collection of\ninformation on respondents, including\nthe use of automated collection\ntechniques or other forms of information\ntechnology.\nIssued in Washington, DC on May 1, 2012.\nPat Hu,\nDirector, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,\nResearch and Innovative Technology\nAdministration.\n[FR Doc. 2012–10909 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]\nBILLING CODE 4910–HY–P\nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nResearch & Innovative Technology\nAdministration\n[Docket ID Number RITA 2008–0002]\nAgency Information Collection;\nActivity Under OMB Review;\nSubmission of Audit Reports—Part 248\nAGENCY: Research & Innovative\nTechnology Administration (RITA),\nBureau of Transportation Statistics\n(BTS), DOT.\nACTION: Notice.\nSUMMARY: In compliance with the\nPaperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44\nU.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice\nannounces that the Information\nCollection Request (ICR) abstracted\nbelow has been forwarded to the Office\nof Management and Budget (OMB) for\nextension of currently approved\ncollections. The ICR describes the\nnature of the information collection and\nits expected burden. The Federal\nRegister Notice with a 60-day comment\nperiod soliciting comments on the\nfollowing collection of information was\npublished on February 29, 2012 (77 FR\n12365). No comments were received.\nDATES: Written comments should be\nsubmitted by June 6, 2012.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff\nGorham, Office of Airline Information,\nRTS–42, Room E34, RITA, BTS, 1200\nNew Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,\nVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:11 May 04, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\\FR\\FM\\07MYN1.SGM 07MYN1","truncated":false,"body_characters":21564}