[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59291-59294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23405]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

[145R5065C6; RX.59799806.1001001; RR85818000]


Notice To Reopen the Public Comment Period for Agency Information 
Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation is reopening the public comment 
period for the proposed information collection: Collection and 
Compilation of Water Pipeline Field Performance Data. In response to 
comments received during the 60-day public comment period, the Bureau 
of Reclamation has revised the information collection request and will 
publish a second Federal Register notice offering a 30-day comment 
period prior to submitting the information collection request to the 
Office of Management and Budget for approval.

DATES: Submit written comments on the information collection request on 
or before October 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send all written comments concerning this notice to Lee 
Sears, Materials Engineering Research Laboratory, 86-68180, Bureau of 
Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225; or via email to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this 
information collection or to request a copy of the collection 
instrument, please contact Lee Sears at 303-445-2392.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the Bureau of Reclamation announced its intentions of 
submitting the Collection and Compilation of Water Pipeline Field 
Performance Data information collection request to the Office of 
Management and Budget for approval. The required 60-day public comment 
period for this information collection request was initiated by a 
notice published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2014 (79 FR 
10842). The information being collected is required to comply with a 
request from Congress for the Bureau of Reclamation to assemble data on 
pipeline reliability for specific types of pipes.
    Comments were received from two entities regarding the information 
collection during the comment period that ended on April 14, 2014.

II. Summary of Proposed Changes, Comments and Responses

    Comments received that are similar in nature have been categorized 
into technical and general comments, and in some instances have been 
combined with related comments. Comments and our responses on general 
issues are arranged first, followed by comments and responses regarding 
the technical text of the information collection request.

[[Page 59292]]

General Comments and Responses

    Comment: Nonprofit organizations, such as the American Water Works 
Association, routinely conduct surveys and other studies. For these 
studies, the organizations generally protect the underlying data from 
public disclosure if the entity providing the data wishes to keep the 
data private (absent a legal action or other extraordinary 
circumstance). The survey instrument recognizes this issue and concern: 
``Privacy: Your name and facility name will not appear in our results. 
Access to documents and electronic files is restricted to the research 
staffs at Battelle, the Water Research Foundation, and the Bureau of 
Reclamation, who are working on the study.'' However, there is a 
possibility that a request for the data could be made under the Freedom 
of Information Act.
    Response: Access to documents and electronic files is restricted to 
the research staffs at Battelle, the Water Research Foundation, and the 
Bureau of Reclamation. Prior to sharing this data with the Water 
Research Foundation and the Bureau of Reclamation, Battelle will 
substitute unique identifiers for specific facility names to protect 
privacy should a request for data be made under the Freedom of 
Information Act. The information collection instrument has been revised 
accordingly.
    Comment: The stated expected completion time of ``up to 60 
minutes'' seems insufficient, especially for large utilities that may 
have numerous breaks to report and/or may require significant 
manipulation of their internal datasets to report the information as 
requested.
    Response: This estimate is based on discussions with large 
utilities. The language has been updated so that 60 minutes is 
clarified to be an estimate, not a maximum.
    Comment: It is important for the sample methodology to be available 
for comment. The survey and accompanying documents do not answer: (1) 
Which entities will be contacted; (2) how they will be selected; (3) 
what is the goal sample mix of respondents; or, (4) who within an 
entity will be contacted? These and other sampling issues are very 
important issues that warrant public notice and comment.
    Response: Selection is documented in Supporting Statement B. All 
large water utilities will be contacted.
    Comment: The survey should clearly indicate the type of pipe 
materials the survey covers.
    Response: The survey has been altered to clarify the types of pipe 
materials covered.
    Comment: If the survey considers distribution pipelines, the survey 
should divide the pipelines based upon pipelines that are: 12'' 
(distribution), and 14+'' in diameter (transmission), rather than using 
12'' as the dividing line between distribution and transmission 
pipelines.
    Response: The survey does not define 12'' and below as distribution 
lines and 14'' and above as transmission lines. We recommend staying 
with small less than 12'' and large greater than 12'', which can be 
argued as well, but the data can be sorted.
    Comment: The survey should provide a mechanism for respondents to 
answer whether they are satisfied with a particular pipe material/
method of corrosion protection.
    Response: This data is not necessary for the study.
    Comment: Question B1.b. of the survey instrument would be more 
accurate as ``Pipe Segment Identifier.''
    Response: This change has been incorporated.
    Comment: Question A6 of the survey instrument: To allow for better 
segmentation and balancing of the eventual utility sample after 
collection, States should be listed individually in the drop down menu 
in alphabetical order rather than in predetermined regions.
    Response: The drop down menu has been updated to incorporate this 
change.
    Comment: Question B1.d. of the survey instrument: Pipe manufacturer 
is data that is not gathered in many cases.
    Response: This data could help identify differences in pipes of the 
same type. This data will not be required to participate.
    Comment: While the supporting documents outline specifics of the 
survey instrument in detail, it was difficult to find similar clarity 
in the specifics of the sampling plan for the study. The selection of 
utilities to include in the database can introduce significant response 
bias if important factors such as installation, maintenance and soil 
conditions are not adequately understood and balanced in the database.
    Response: Selection is documented in Supporting Statement B. Bias 
will be limited by requesting data from all large water utilities.
    Comment: The survey does not seem to provide a framework for 
respondents to provide uniform and consistent information. Based on the 
examples provided, if a respondent has data that meets a certain 
threshold, it can then upload the data in any manner that it would 
like. Without a method to ensure uniformity in response, the data will 
vary greatly.
    Response: We allow this to encourage more responses and Battelle 
will standardize the data.

Technical Comments and Responses

    Comment: Question B1.i of the survey instrument: Resistivity is 
useful for corrosivity, while pH and acidity are essentially the same 
and never a significant factor for corrosion.
    Response: We will gather all data identified in the survey 
instrument if available. Soil pH is a significant corrosion 
consideration and therefore will be included in the survey instrument.
    Comment: Question B1.i. of the survey instrument: It will be 
critical to specify in advance the soil corrosivity data requested in 
the survey will be for the specific soils around the breakage, and not 
a general soil corrosivity profile throughout a given utility's service 
area. Generalized regional soil information may not provide adequate 
understanding of the causal factors in pipe breakage if a utility has a 
wide variety of soils present in its service area.
    Response: This question has been updated to request specific soil 
data near the break.
    Comment: Data Collection: Unless all of the data is collected only 
from drinking water, it is critical to provide a column to specify the 
liquid(s) being transported within the pipe (e.g. raw water, treated 
water, storm water, sewage, etc.) to understand the internal reactions 
that might be occurring between the liquid and the interior of the 
pipe.
    Response: A question has been added concerning quality of conveyed 
water (potable or non-potable).
    Comment: ``Break Type:'' definitions should be provided so that 
respondents across different utilities are reporting the same types of 
breaks in the same manner. This may require sub-categories including 
location of break (mid-pipe, at joint, etc.). As the debate over 
allowable break frequency or pipe service life ensues, understanding 
what types of breaks will likely be critical to assessing performance 
standards. Additionally, the types of breaks occurring may help point 
to installation issues or other causal factors that are not inherent to 
the types of pipe as well as help assess the adequacy of various 
protection and maintenance methods (such as corrosion control).
    Response: A question about location has been added to the survey.
    Comment: Causal information regarding breaks is critical, and 
should

[[Page 59293]]

be added to the data required for participation and requested from 
eventual utility participants. Forensic understanding such as the 
type(s) of causal factors likely involved in the break is important to 
understanding the role of the material in the failure. If causal factor 
data are not available in a utility's database, they should be excluded 
from the sample due to this insufficiency.
    Response: This question is included in the survey. While we agree 
this piece of information is important, we expect many utilities may 
not document the causes. Because this column will be in our database, 
we will be able to compare data sets with and without this data. We are 
not planning to exclude utilities that do not have this data.
    Comment: It would be beneficial to better understand causal factors 
in breakage to also be able to cross-reference other site conditions 
that can significantly contribute to breakage such as the presence of 
stray current (nearby light rail operations or other stray current 
sources), bury depth and/or exposure, roadway or other surface traffic 
conditions that would lead to cyclic stress, presence of fixture 
restraint to compensate for hammering and surges, and pipe installation 
(such as if a water transmission line is installed within a crossing 
through a larger sewer or storm water pipe).
    Response: Some of these factors will be difficult to collect for 
many breaks events. While these data could be important, we do not want 
to require all of them for fear it would create an undue burden on the 
respondent. Burial depth has been added to the survey.
    Comment: Installation and maintenance capabilities and practices 
are likely key variables in the relative pipe breakage experience 
between utilities. It is easy to imagine significant sample bias if, 
for instance, utilities that predominantly use one type of pipe have 
poorer installation skills or maintenance programs than utilities that 
predominantly use a different type of pipe. Great care in balancing the 
utility sample base will be necessary, as well as perhaps standardizing 
and normalization of the resulting data base post collection.
    Response: While this could be true, it will be difficult to 
evaluate as these practices change over time. The data accuracy of the 
response would be based not only on the knowledge of the utility 
respondent, but also on the respondent history with its utility, which 
could vary greatly.
    Comment: ``The Bureau of Reclamation has obtained the services of 
an outside to survey water facilities and collect water data on water 
pipeline corrosion related failures. The information requested is 
required to comply with a request from Congress for the Bureau of 
Reclamation to assemble data on pipeline reliability for specific types 
of pipes.'' The following questions pertain to the statement above:
    1. Which entity?
    2. Just facilities or also water professionals, such as engineers?
    3. What type of data?
    4. Internal corrosion, external corrosion or both? How do you 
define and quantify a corrosion related failure? By percentage cause or 
other method?
    5. How do you define a failure?
    Response: Supporting Statements A and B have been revised and 
clarified to address these questions.
    Comment: While the notice focuses on failures, the survey asks for 
break/leak information--a leak appears to be very different from a 
failure, and a break could be different than a failure.
    Response: Breaks and leaks are the focus of the survey. Failure is 
equivalent to a break and leaks may lead to breaks/failures. Examples 
of break/leak type have been added to the information collection 
documents.
    Comment: The survey does not seem to limit the pipe materials 
surveyed. ``If it is determined that you have high-quality water 
pipeline performance data, we will email you, which will allow you to 
upload that data in any format you choose.'' The following questions 
and comments pertain to the statement above:
    1. Who will determine if the data is high quality?
    2. This would seem to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to 
standardize the content of the data provided.
    Response: The purpose of the data collection, ``to collect high-
quality field data on the performance of water pipelines of different 
materials,'' is clearly noted in the information collection instrument. 
Battelle will make the determination on data quality and will 
standardize the data provided.
    Comment: The Bureau of Reclamation indicates that it is only 
concerned with failures that require a pipeline to be taken out of 
service. If the Bureau of Reclamation's standard is used, the survey 
should require respondents to answer whether the leak/failure required 
the pipeline to be taken out of service. The Bureau of Reclamation has 
used a subset of the Department of Transportation oil and gas data 
instead of the dataset including all failures, lending further credence 
to this approach. Under this scenario, any failure that does not lead 
to a disruption in service is irrelevant.
    Response: A question has been added to the survey concerning the 
duration of service interruption caused by the break/leak.
    Comment: The survey should eliminate past leaks/breaks/failures 
that are not likely to occur now or in the future. There are numerous 
factors that could explain these past failures, including, but not 
limited to:
     Installation errors.
     Maintenance issues.
     Old technologies, such as leadite joints or lead caulked 
joints.
     Practices that have been modified so that the leak/break/
failure would not occur now.
    Response: This would be nearly impossible to eliminate. By 
collecting this data and documenting any known shifts in materials or 
practices, the failure rates will carry more value.
    Comment: The survey needs to define key terms and provide options 
for respondents to select certain types of breaks so that there is some 
uniformity. It is important for ``corrosion-related'' leaks/breaks/
failures to be defined to understand how the survey will evaluate the 
information. Multiple factors may be the cause of a particular failure, 
and the survey should provide a method to identify and rank the 
relative importance of concurrent causes of a leak or failure. This is 
especially important when dealing with potential corrosion-related 
problems where installation, maintenance or other issues may be the 
actual cause of the problem.
    When dealing with labeling failures, it is important that there are 
checks in place on the front and back ends of the survey. This is often 
challenging because many utility records are not complete enough to 
capture this information. This is particularly important in potential 
corrosion-related failures where installation, maintenance or other 
factors may be the cause of a corrosion-related failure. These factors 
include, but are not limited to:
     Installation problems with the pipe and/or corrosion 
protection.
     Soil type and/or soil conditions in specific areas of a 
pipe line.
     Environmental conditions.
     Frost depth, etc.
     Other contributing factors (road reconstruction may create 
impacts).
    Response: The question on break/leak type has been clarified to 
address this comment.
    Comment: The survey should capture whether the utility has provided 
specific training to categorize the cause of the failure, conducts 
forensic evaluations, maintains forensic records

[[Page 59294]]

and other issues to ensure accurate reporting.
    Response: This will be evident by the utility responses to the 
current questions.
    Comment: It is also important for there to be checks on the type of 
pipe and corrosion protection reported.
    Response: Battelle has a quality assurance/quality check process in 
place to check data from respondents.
    Comment: It is especially important that cast iron pipe failures 
are not inaccurately described as ductile iron pipe failures.
    Response: Battelle has a quality assurance/quality check process in 
place to check data from respondents.

III. Data

    Title: Collection and Compilation of Water Pipeline Field 
Performance Data.
    OMB Control Number: 1006-XXXX.
    Description of respondents: Large water utility and Federal 
facility pipe data managers.
    Frequency: One-time collection.
    Estimated completion time: 3 minutes (making participation 
decision); 15 minutes (online survey); 2 minutes (online refusal 
survey); 60 minutes (uploading data); and 2 minutes (data upload 
refusal survey).
    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 418 (making participation 
decision); 209 (online survey); 209 (online refusal survey); 68 
(uploading data); and 68 (data upload refusal survey).
    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Estimated Total of Annual Responses: 418 (making participation 
decision); 209 (online survey); 209 (online refusal survey); 68 
(uploading data); and 68 (data upload refusal survey).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 21 hours 
(making participation decision); 53 hours (online survey); 7 hours 
(online refusal survey); 68 hours (uploading data); and 3 hours (data 
upload refusal survey), for a combined total of 152 hours.

IV. Request for Comments

    We invite your comments on:
    (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
    (b) the accuracy of our burden estimate for the proposed collection 
of information;
    (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    We will summarize all comments received regarding this notice. We 
will publish that summary in the Federal Register when the information 
collection request is submitted to OMB for review and approval.

V. Public Disclosure

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Dated: September 25, 2014.
Richard W. LaFond,
Chief, Civil Engineering Services Division Bureau of Reclamation.
[FR Doc. 2014-23405 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P