{"operation":"document","citation":"PHMSA Guidance, Public Awareness Enforcement Guidance Part 195","title":"Public Awareness Enforcement Guidance Part 195","source_type":"guidance","agency":"Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration","status":"guidance","official":true,"published_on":"2015-12-07","effective_on":"2015-12-07","summary":"Public Awareness Enforcement Guidance Part 195 Document Public_Awareness_Enforcement_Guidance_Part195_12_7_2015.pdf (236.34 KB) The materials contained in this document consist of guidance, techniques, procedures and other information for internal use by the PHMSA pipeline safety enforcement staff. This guidance document describes the practices used by PHMSA pipeline safety investigators and other enforcement personn","machine_formats":{"json":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-public-awareness-enforcement-guidance-part-195-7fa024fb.json","markdown":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-public-awareness-enforcement-guidance-part-195-7fa024fb.md"},"app_url":"https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-guidance-public-awareness-enforcement-guidance-part-195-7fa024fb","source_url":"https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/enforcement/public-awareness-enforcement-guidance-part-195","body":"Public Awareness Enforcement Guidance Part 195\n\nDocument\n\n Public_Awareness_Enforcement_Guidance_Part195_12_7_2015.pdf (236.34 KB)\n\n        The materials contained in this document consist of guidance, techniques, procedures and other information for internal use by the PHMSA pipeline safety enforcement staff. This guidance document describes the practices used by PHMSA pipeline safety investigators and other enforcement personnel in undertaking their compliance, inspection, and enforcement activities. This document is U.S. Government property and is to be used in conjunction with official duties.\n\n          Issued Date: Monday, December 7, 2015\n\n<<<PAGE 1>>>\n\nPublic Awareness Enforcement Guidance\nSection 195.440\nIntroduction\nThe materials contained in this document consist of guidance, techniques, procedures and other information\nfor internal use by the PHMSA pipeline safety enforcement staff. This guidance document describes the\npractices used by PHMSA pipeline safety investigators and other enforcement personnel in undertaking their\ncompliance, inspection, and enforcement activities. This document is U.S. Government property and is to be\nused in conjunction with official duties.\nThe Federal pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR Parts 190-199) discussed in this guidance document\ncontains legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation and creates no new legal\nobligations. The regulation is controlling. The materials in this document are explanatory in nature and\nreflect PHMSA’s current application of the regulations in effect at the time of the issuance of the guidance.\nIn preparing an enforcement action alleging a probable violation, an allegation must always be based on the\nfailure to take a required action (or taking a prohibited action) that is set forth directly in the language of the\nregulation. An allegation should never be drafted in a manner that says the operator “violated the guidance.”\nNothing in this guidance document is intended to diminish or otherwise affect the authority of PHMSA to\ncarry out its statutory, regulatory or other official functions or to commit PHMSA to taking any action that is\nsubject to its discretion. Nothing in this document is intended to and does not create any legal or equitable\nright or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person or organization against PHMSA,\nits personnel, State agencies or officers carrying out programs authorized under Federal law.\nDecisions about specific investigations and enforcement cases are made according to the specific facts and\ncircumstances at hand. Investigations and compliance determinations often require careful legal and\ntechnical analysis of complicated issues. Although this guidance document serves as a reference for the staff\nresponsible for investigations and enforcement, no set of procedures or policies can replace the need for\nactive and ongoing consultation with supervisors, colleagues, and the Office of Chief Counsel in\nenforcement matters.\nComments and suggestions for future changes and additions to this guidance document are invited and\nshould be forwarded to your supervisor.\nThe materials in this guidance document may be modified or revoked without prior notice by PHMSA\nmanagement.\nPage 1\n\n<<<PAGE 2>>>\n\nGlossary\nFor a complete “Glossary of Terms” please refer to the following\nlink: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/Pipeline/TQGlossary/Glossary\n.html\nPage 2\n\n<<<PAGE 3>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(a)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nEach pipeline operator must develop and implement a written continuing public\neducation program that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum\nInstitute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162 (incorporated by reference, see\n§195.3).\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) – Section 2 Public Awareness\nProgram Development: Section 2.3.1 Public Education; and Section 2.7\nProgram Development Guide. Also reference –Section 7 Program\nDocumentation and Recordkeeping: Section 7.1 Program Documentation;\nSection 7.2 Recordkeeping; and Section 7.3 Record Retention.\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that pipeline operators develop and implement a written\ncontinuing public education program, and that its program follow the guidance\nprovided in the API RP 1162.\n2. The sections of API RP 1162 noted above, provide recommendations on the\ndevelopment and implementation of the pipeline operator’s written continuing\neducation program.\n3. In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Co., [2-2008-6002] (Final Order –\nApril 26, 2010; Decision on Petition for Reconsideration-August 27, 2010)\nPHMSA held that the operator violated § 195.404(a) because the operator\nfailed to implement its public awareness program. Specifically, the operator\nfailed to communicate annually with emergency personnel. CO.\n4. In the Matter of Tesoro-High Plains Pipeline Company [3-2005-5006]\n(Final Order – January 11, 2006) PHMSA held that operator violated\n§ 195.404 because the operator failed to address the public, government\nofficials, and emergency officials in its public awareness program.\nStakeholders need to know how to recognize pipeline location markers, what\nkind of precautions they should take, what kind of properties the commodity\nbeing transported has and how to recognize and respond to a pipeline\nemergency. The operator contended that a change in ownership was the cause\nof the delay. However, it is critical that public education contacts are updated\nin a timely manner. In the event of a pipeline emergency, the public and\ngovernment officials must be able to reach the correct operator of the system\nimmediately. CP.\nPage 3\n\n<<<PAGE 4>>>\n\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\nExamples of\nEvidence\nOther Special\nNotations\n5. In the Matter of Mid-Valley Pipeline Company [3-2003-5022] (Final Order\n– January 3, 2006) PHMSA held that the operator violated § 195.404 because\nthe operator failed to address the public, government officials, and emergency\nofficials in its public awareness program. The operator contended that it\nissued calendars to right-of-way owners each year. However, the operator\ncould not demonstrate that this material met the requirements of the\nregulation. Stakeholders need to know how to recognize pipeline location\nmarkers, what kind of precautions they should take, what kind of properties\nthe commodity being transported has and how to recognize and respond to a\npipeline emergency. CP.\n1. The pipeline operator did not develop a written continuing public education\nprogram that follows the guidance provided in the American Petroleum\nInstitute’s (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162.\n2. The operator failed to implement – in its baseline message materials – a written\ncontinuing public education program that included emergency preparedness\ncommunications with emergency personnel and public officials.\n3. The operator failed to assess the effectiveness of its public awareness program\nevery four years, in accordance with Section 8.4, “Measuring Program\nEffectiveness”, and Table 8.1-Summary of Baseline Evaluation Program of API\nRP 1162.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\n1. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program\n2. Documented conversations with the operator personnel\n3. Operator records\nPage 4\n\n<<<PAGE 5>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(b)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nThe operator's program must follow the general program recommendations of API\nRP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of the operator's\npipeline and facilities.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) – Section 2 Public Awareness\nProgram Development: Section 2.6 Baseline and Supplemental Public\nAwareness Programs; Section 2.7 Program Development Guide; Section 2.8\nSummary of Program Recommendations; Also reference – Section 4 Message\nContent: Section 4.3.1 Potential Hazardous of Products Transported; and –\nSection 6 Recommendations for Supplemental Enhancements of Baseline\nPublic Awareness Program.\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that the operator's program follow the general program\nrecommendations of API RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and\ncharacteristics of the operator's pipeline.\n2. The guidance provided in the sections of API RP 1162 noted above, indicate\nhow a “one-size-fits-all” public awareness program across all pipeline systems\nwould not be the most effective approach. Section 195.440(b) requires that an\noperator assess the unique attributes and characteristics of its pipeline in\ndeveloping its public awareness program.\n3. In the Matter of MarkWest Ranger Pipeline Company, LLC [2-2012-5007]\n(Corrected Final Order-April 18, 2013) PHMSA held that the operator violated\nSection 195.440(b) by failing to assess the unique characteristics and attributes\nof its pipeline facilities in its continuing public awareness education program. In\ndifferent years, the operator’s materials either contained general pipeline\ninformation or inaccurate information regarding the type of product\ntransported. The materials sometimes included some characteristics of the\nrelevant line, a highly volatile liquid pipeline, but it also comingled\ncharacteristics of other pipelines so that the reader would not know the\ncharacteristics of the specific product transported, and would not know what to\ndo if a leak occurred.\nPage 5\n\n<<<PAGE 6>>>\n\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The operator's program did not follow the general program recommendations of\nAPI RP 1162.\n2. The operator's program did not assess the unique attributes and characteristics of\nits pipeline and facilities.\n3. The operator’s program did not include an effectiveness evaluation process as\nrecommended by Section 8.4, “Measuring Program Effectiveness,” of API RP\n1162.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\nExamples of\nEvidence\n1. Documents from the operator identifying the unique attributes and\ncharacteristics of its pipeline and facilities.\n2. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program.\n3. Documented statements from operator personnel\n4. Operator Records\nOther Special\nNotations\nPage 6\n\n<<<PAGE 7>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(c)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nThe operator must follow the general program recommendations, including baseline\nand supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless the operator provides\njustification in its program or procedural manual as to why compliance with all or\ncertain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary\nfor safety.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) –Section 2 Public Awareness\nProgram Development: Section 2.6 Baseline and Supplemental Public\nAwareness Programs. Also reference – Section 6 Recommendations for\nSupplemental Enhancements of Baseline Public Awareness Program.\n70 FR 28843: The preamble states the following:\n“Under this Rule, each operator is required to develop and implement a public\nawareness program consistent with guidance provided in API 1162. The\noperator’s program must include all applicable elements of API RP 1162 that\nare baseline, or the operator must document the rationale and justification for\nwhy those elements are not included in its program. The operator must also\ndocument consideration as to the supplemental elements of RP 1162 and\nprovide the basis for program inclusion or exclusion of those elements.” 70 FR\n28837 (May 19, 2005).\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires operators to follow the general program\nrecommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP\n1162.\n2. The sections of API RP 1162 cited above are part of the baseline and\nsupplement requirements. These sections recommend further “enhancements”\nto supplement the operator’s basic public awareness program.\n3. In the Matter of Tampa Bay Pipeline Co., [2-2008-6002] (Final Order – April\n26, 2010; Decision on Petition for Reconsideration-August 27, 2010)\nPHMSA held that operator violated § 195.404(c) because the operator failed to\nfollow the baseline and supplemental recommendations of API 1162.\nSpecifically, the operator failed to include a minimum communication coverage\narea and the addresses of the affected stakeholders in its public awareness plan.\nCO.\nPage 7\n\n<<<PAGE 8>>>\n\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\nExamples of\nEvidence\nOther Special\nNotations\n1. The operator did not follow the general program recommendations, including\nbaseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162.\n2. Where the operator did not follow the general program recommendations,\nincluding baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, the operator\nhas not provided justification in its program or procedural manual as to why\ncompliance with all or certain provisions of the recommended practice are not\npracticable and not necessary for safety.\n3. The operator did not maintain records of key program elements to demonstrate\nthe level of implementation of its public awareness program.\n4. The operator did not follow the general program recommendations which\ninclude retaining records for each category – as required by API RP 1162\nSection 7.2 – for a minimum of five (5) years, or as defined in the operator’s\npublic awareness program, whichever is longer.\n5. The operator’s public awareness program did not specify the record retention\nperiod for each category – as required by API RP 1162 Section 7.2.\n6. The operator failed to complete an annual audit of its Public Awareness Program\nin accordance with API RP1162.\n7. The operator failed to have and follow a process for tracking and documenting\nthe implementation of audit recommendations in accordance with API RP 1162.\n8. The operator did not follow the Public Awareness Program audit procedures\npursuant to API RP 1162.\n9. The operator failed to track the implementation of audit recommendations.\n10. The operator failed to complete a timely baseline effectiveness evaluation in\naccordance with API RP 1162.\n11. The operator failed to adequately measure whether the Public Awareness\nProgram’s audience understood and retained the key pipeline safety information\nin accordance with API RP 1162.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\n1. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program\n2. Documented statements from operator personnel\n3. Operator records\nPage 8\n\n<<<PAGE 9>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(d)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nThe operator’s program must specifically include provisions to educate the public,\nappropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation related\nactivities on:\n(1) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage\nprevention activities;\n(2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a hazardous liquid\nor carbon dioxide pipeline facility;\n(3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred;\n(4) Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a hazardous liquid\nor carbon dioxide pipeline release; and\n(5) Procedures for reporting such an event.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAlert Notice: ALN-91-04, NTSB Recommendations S P-91-3/P-91-4, 03/15/90\nNY leak/explosion: Requiring operators to extend their public\neducation/emergency preparedness programs.\nThe Alert notice noted that NTSB had released recommendations after a March 15,\n1990 propane leak and explosion in New York State. The NTSB recommendations\nincluded urging operators to extend their public awareness programs to persons who\nreside at elevations lower than and within 1-mile of the pipeline.\nSection 195.440(d) requires operators to establish continuing education programs to\nenable the public, appropriate government organizations and persons engaged in\nexcavation-related activities to recognize and report a hazardous liquid pipeline\nemergency to the operator, fire department, police, or other appropriate public\nofficials.\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) – Section 3 Stakeholder\nAudiences; Appendix B – Examples of Stakeholder Audiences; – Section 4\nMessage Content; Appendix C – Detailed Guidelines For Public Awareness\nMessages; and Table 2-1 – Summary Public Awareness Communications for\nHazardous Liquids and Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators.\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that an operator’s program specifically include\nprovisions to educate the public, appropriate government organizations, and\npersons engaged in excavation related activities.\n2. The sections of API RP 1162 noted above provide in-depth recommendations\nregarding the intended stakeholder audiences, as well as the content of the\nmessage(s) that should be delivered.\nPage 9\n\n<<<PAGE 10>>>\n\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\nExamples of\nEvidence\nOther Special\nNotations\n1. The operator’s program failed to have specific provisions to educate the public,\nappropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation\nrelated activities on the use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation\nand other damage prevention activities; or\n2. The operator failed to include specific provisions regarding the possible hazards\nassociated with unintended releases from a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\npipeline facility; or\n3. The operator failed to include specific provisions regarding the physical\nindications that such a release may have occurred; or\n4. The operator failed to include specific provisions regarding the steps that should\nbe taken for public safety in the event of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide\npipeline release; or\n5. The operator failed to include specific provisions regarding the procedures for\nreporting such an event.\n6. The operator failed to include specific provisions regarding the steps that should\nbe taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release.\n7. The operator failed to establish a continuing educational program to enable the\npublic, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in\nexcavations-related activities to recognize a natural gas and/or hazardous liquid\npipeline.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\n1. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program.\nPage 10\n\n<<<PAGE 11>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(e)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nThe program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school\ndistricts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) ) – Section 2 Message Content:\nSection 2.8 Summary of Program Recommendations; –Section 4 Message\nContent: Section 4.6 Pipeline Location Information; – 5 Message Delivery\nMethods and/or Media: Section 5.7 Pipeline Marker Signs; and Table 2-1 –\nSummary Public Awareness Communications for Hazardous Liquids and\nNatural Gas Transmission Pipeline Operators.\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that the pipeline operator’s program include activities to\nadvise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of its\npipeline facility and it pipeline facility locations.\n2. The sections of API RP 1162 noted above provide guidance on the stakeholder\naudience, message types, and the frequency of message(s) to be delivered.\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The program does not include activities to advise affected municipalities, school\ndistricts, businesses, and/or residents of pipeline facility locations.\n2. The operator failed to provide the necessary information regarding its pipelines\nand who to contact should an incident occur.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\nExamples of\nEvidence\n1. Copy of operator’s maps identifying pipeline facility locations.\n2. Identification of municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents\naffected by the operator’s pipeline facilities.\n3. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program.\n4. Copies of the media used.\nOther Special\nNotations\nPage 11\n\n<<<PAGE 12>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(f)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nThe program and the media used must be as comprehensive as necessary to reach all\nareas in which the operator transports hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) –Section 2 Public Awareness\nProgram Development: Section 2.2 Overview for Meeting Public Awareness\nObjectives; – Section 3 Stakeholder Audiences; and –Section 5 Message\nDelivery Methods and/or Media; Appendix D – Detailed Guidelines for\nMessage Delivery Methods and/or Media; Table 2-1 – Summary Public\nAwareness Communications for Hazardous Liquids and Natural Gas\nTransmission Pipeline Operators; and Table 2-2 – Summary Public Awareness\nCommunications for Local Natural Gas Distribution (LDC) Companies.\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that the pipeline operator’s public awareness program\nand the media used to communicate its public awareness program must be as\ncomprehensive as necessary to reach all areas in which the operator transports\nhazardous liquid or carbon dioxide.\n2. The sections – and Appendix D – of API RP 1162 noted above indicate that not\nall methods [of message delivery] are effective in all situations. API RP 1162\nrecommends that an operator think “broadly” when developing its public\nawareness program and choice of media, such that its program and chosen media\nreach all areas in which it transports hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide.\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The program and the media used are not comprehensive enough to reach all\nareas in which the operator transports hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\nPage 12\n\n<<<PAGE 13>>>\n\nExamples of\nEvidence\n1. Identification of all areas in which the operator transports hazardous liquid or\ncarbon dioxide.\n2. Copy of the operator’s maps identifying pipeline facility locations.\n3. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program.\n4. Copies of the media used.\nOther Special\nNotations\nPage 13\n\n<<<PAGE 14>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(g)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nThe program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly\nunderstood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English speaking\npopulation in the operator's area.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) – Section 2 Public Awareness\nProgram Development: Section 2.3.1 Public Education. Also see – Section 4\nMessage Content; and Appendix C – Detailed Guidelines for Public Awareness\nMessages.\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that the operator’s program be conducted in English and\nin other languages commonly understood by a significant number of non-\nEnglish speaking persons affected by the operator’s pipeline.\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The program is not conducted in English and in other languages commonly\nunderstood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English\nspeaking population in the operator's area.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\nExamples of\nEvidence\n1. Identification of the non-English languages spoken in the operator's area (if\napplicable).\n2. Identification of the location(s) of the non-English speaking population in the\noperator's area (if applicable).\n3. Copy of operator’s maps identifying pipeline facility locations.\n4. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program.\n5. Documented statements from operator personnel.\nOther Special\nNotations\nPage 14\n\n<<<PAGE 15>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(h)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nOperators in existence on June 20, 2005, must have completed their written\nprograms no later than June 20, 2006. Upon request, operators must submit their\ncompleted programs to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility\noperator, the appropriate State agency.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\nAdvisory Bulletin: ADB-06-02 Submission of Public Awareness Programs\nOwners and Operators of Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipelines are required to\ncomplete a written public awareness program by June 20, 2006, [codified in the\npipeline safety regulations at §195.440(h)]. Also, certain intrastate operators – with\nthe exception of those operators that distribute gas through a master meter, or\npersons who distribute petroleum gas by pipeline as an incidental part of their\nprimary business – must develop a public awareness program by June 20, 2006, and\nsubmit the written program to the PHMSA Public Awareness Program\nClearinghouse by October 8, 2006 for review.\nCertain State pipeline safety agencies decided to conduct independent reviews of\nsome intrastate operators’ public awareness programs. Thus, those operators were\nexempted from the centralized [PHMSA public awareness program] review process,\nand were advised where to submit their programs for review by the October 8, 2006\ndeadline.\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) – 7 Program Documentation\nand Recordkeeping: Section 7.1 Program Documentation.\n& Source\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that operators have completed their written programs no\nlater than June 20, 2006.\n2. This regulation also requires operators to submit their completed programs upon\nrequest to PHMSA or, in the case of an intrastate pipeline facility operator, the\nappropriate State agency.\n3. In reviewing recordkeeping requirements, the inspector is reminded to refer back\nto §195.440(c) which requires an operator to follow the general program\nrecommendations of API 1162 including specific record retention requirements.\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The operator was in existence on June 20, 2005, but did not complete its written\nprograms by June 20, 2006.\n2. The operator was requested to, but did not submit its completed programs to\nPHMSA.\n3. The operator is an intrastate pipeline facility operator, and was requested to, but\ndid not submit its completed programs the appropriate State agency.\nPage 15\n\n<<<PAGE 16>>>\n\n4. The operator failed to complete its first program effectiveness evaluation by the\nrequired deadline, in accordance with API RP 1162.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\nExamples of\n1. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program.\nEvidence\nOther Special\nNotations\nPage 16\n\n<<<PAGE 17>>>\n\nEnforcement\nPublic Awareness Part 195\nGuidance\nRevision Date 12 7 2015\nCode Section §195.440(i)\nSection Title\nExisting Code\nLanguage\nThe operator’s program documentation and evaluation results must be available for\nperiodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\nOrigin of Code Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nLast Amendment Amdt. 195-84, 70 FR 28843, May 19, 2005\nInterpretation\nSummaries\nAdvisory\nBulletin/Alert\nNotice\nSummaries\nOther Reference\nMaterial\n& Source\nAPI RP 1162 (1st edition, dated December 2003) – Section 7 Program\nDocumentation and Recordkeeping: Section 7.1 Program Documentation;\nSection 7.2 Recordkeeping; Section 7.3 Record Retention; – Section 8 Program\nEvaluation; Appendix E – Additional Guidelines for Undertaking Evaluations\nand Table 8-1- Summary of Baseline Evaluation Program Documentation and\nRecordkeeping\nGuidance\nInformation\n1. The regulation requires that the operator’s program documentation and\nevaluation results be available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory\nagencies.\n2. The sections – and Appendix E – of API RP 1162 noted above recommend\noperators maintain records of key program elements, including all program\nevaluations; current – and expected – program evaluation results; and any\nfollow-up actions taken by the pipeline operator to demonstrate the level of\nimplementation of its public awareness program.\n3. In reviewing recordkeeping requirements, the inspector is reminded to refer back\nto §195.440(c) which requires an operator to follow the general program\nrecommendations of API 1162 including specific record retention requirements.\nExamples of a\nProbable\nViolation or\nInadequate\nProcedures\n1. The operator’s program documentation and evaluation results were not available\nfor periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.\n2. The operator did not maintain records of key program elements to demonstrate\nthe level of evaluation of its public awareness program.\n3. The operator failed to follow the program recommendations of API RP 1162 to\ndemonstrate that it had delivered the baseline message material for the affected\npublic in accordance with recommendations listed in Table 2.3 of the API RP\n1162.\nDepending on the circumstances, some of the examples listed in this section may be\ninadequate plans and procedures, and not probable violations. Thus, the\nenforcement tool to address these issues would be a Notice of Amendment and not a\nNotice of Probable Violation or a Warning Letter. Section 3 of the Enforcement\nPage 17\n\n<<<PAGE 18>>>\n\nProcedures provides guidance on selecting the appropriate enforcement action.\nExamples of\nEvidence\n1. Copy of the operator's written Public Awareness Program.\n2. Statements from operator personnel.\nOther Special\nNotations\nPage 18","truncated":false,"body_characters":34048}