[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21742-21746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07491]



[[Page 21742]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No: PHMSA-2022-0060]


Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities: Voluntary 
Adoption of API RP 1173 for Gas Distribution Systems

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces that the information collection request abstracted 
below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review and comment. A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment 
period soliciting comments on the information collections was published 
on September 6, 2022.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 
May 11, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The public is invited to submit comments regarding these 
information collection requests, including suggestions for reducing the 
burden, to Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted electronically at 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hill by telephone at 202-680-
2034 or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 1320.8(d), 
requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
(PHMSA) to provide interested members of the public and affected 
agencies the opportunity to comment on information collection and 
recordkeeping requests before they are submitted to OMB for approval. 
In accordance with this regulation, on September 6, 2022, PHMSA 
published a Federal Register notice (87 FR 54590) with a 60-day comment 
period soliciting comments on its intent to request OMB's approval of a 
one-time information collection titled: ``Voluntary Adoption of API RP 
1173 for Gas Distribution Systems.'' The proposed information 
collection would provide the data necessary to prepare the report 
required by section 205 of the Protecting Our Infrastructure of 
Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2020 for gas distribution 
systems.
    During the 60-day comment period, PHMSA received comments from the 
Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS) Industry Team, Atmos Energy 
Corporation (Atmos Energy), American Gas Association (AGA), 
Distribution Contractors Association (DCA), Natural Gas SMS 
Collaborative, NiSource Inc., MDU Utilities Group (MDUG), American 
Public Gas Association (APGA), Southwest Gas Corporation, and CMS 
Energy Corporation, a parent holding company of Consumers Energy 
Company. Commenters were overall supportive of the intent of section 
205. Note AGA, DCA and APGA are also members of the PSMS Industry Team. 
Similarly, the operator companies may be members of one or more of the 
other entities commenting. In addition to agreeing with comments of the 
PSMS Industry Team, AGA, DCA and APGA and some operators provided 
additional comments unique to their respective associations. Where AGA, 
DCA, APGA, or operator comments were in-line with the PSMS Industry 
Team, only the PSMS team comment is discussed. If AGA, DCA, APGA, or 
individual operator companies included unique comments in their 
separate responses, they are noted accordingly. Overall, PHMSA largely 
incorporated the PSMS Industry Team's comments. The comments and 
PHMSA's responses, organized by topic, are summarized and addressed 
below.

II. Comment Summary

    A summary of comments and PHMSA responses are detailed below.

A. Estimated Burden and Cost Related Questions

    Comment: The PSMS Industry Team stated that the information 
collection as written in the 60-day notice was overly complicated, 
burdensome, and confusing. The PSMS Industry Team stated the burden 
required to complete the questionnaire as drafted would be extensive, 
far exceeding the one-hour allocation outlined in the PHMSA 60-day 
notice. The PSMS Industry Team recommended that PHMSA utilize the 
existing annual survey already in place and facilitated by the PSMS 
Industry Team rather than creating new or disparate collection efforts. 
The PSMS Industry Team did not give specific estimates in the docket 
comments of burden hours to complete the draft form proposed in the 60-
day notice or modified version but specified that its recommendations 
would meet the intent of section 205 while reducing the burden on 
industry. PHMSA reached out to the PSMS Industry Team by email for 
further input on burden estimates. In response, the PSMS Industry Team 
specified that the PHMSA proposal as written in the 60-day notice could 
take about 2-4 hours per SMS program element as it would require 
individual operator employees to coordinate with other departments or 
groups in the organization to determine work burdens, staff hours 
worked or monetary costs. Based on their estimate of 2-4 hours per 
element, the estimated burden for PHMSA's proposed GD-SMS-2022 Form in 
the 60-day notice would be 26,280-52,560 hours (2-4 hours per element x 
10 elements x 1,314 responses). In contrast, the PSMS Industry Team 
specified that a version that aligns more with their survey and removes 
the detailed cost and labor hour questions could be more on the order 
of 3 hours to complete with the rationale that an individual could 
answer most of the questions without coordination or discussion with 
other internal work groups on cost or hours by SMS Program Element. 
Based on this estimate, the PSMS Industry Team's survey would result in 
an estimated burden of about 3,942 hours (1,314 responses x 3 hours).
    For costs, the PSMS Industry Team stated that the proposed GD-SMS-
2022 Form in the 60-day notice requests implementation percentages, 
costs, and manpower hours for each Program Element in RP 1173 instead 
of assessing steps in the SMS implementation journey as outlined in the 
Pipeline SMS Maturity Model. The PSMS Industry Team recommended that 
the questionnaire solicit information on the number of distribution 
operators who have made leadership commitments, conducted a gap 
analysis, identified gaps or improvement opportunities, prioritized gap 
closures, actively participated in external sharing events, developed a 
management review process and conducted a review, assessed safety 
culture, and evaluated SMS maturity. The PSMS Industry Team specified 
that each of these actions are steps in the implementation journey, 
increasing an operator's SMS maturity from basic RP 1173 conformance to 
system effectiveness. The PSMS Industry Team's Annual Survey asks 
operators to detail their level of participation in these discrete 
steps and has tracked responses since 2017. The PSMS Industry Team 
stated that PHMSA's draft form in the 60-day notice only sought to 
quantify the costs or hours to implement these elements, ignoring the 
more complex questions of implementation progress, effectiveness, and 
maturity. Further, the PSMS Industry Team stated that PHMSA's

[[Page 21743]]

draft form does not recognize that for many operators that have 
implemented RP 1173, parsing out these implementation costs and effort 
hours specific to this standard is not realistic. The PSMS Industry 
Team indicated that as Pipeline SMS implementation is embedded in every 
aspect of daily operations, attributing specific cost figures to 
individual program elements is infeasible, impractical, and should be 
removed.
    Atmos Energy stated that Questions 8b and 8c suggest that Pipeline 
SMS is ``implemented'' at a certain point in time and has a definite, 
discernible dollar amount that can be quantified and amassed for that 
implementation. Atmos Energy further stated that even if the data could 
be accurately captured, it would not provide a meaningful company 
comparison for PHMSA. Atmos Energy noted that the amount of time and 
costs that a company has expended and is still expending on instituting 
and continuing to develop PSMS would be dependent on the results of a 
gap analysis against the company's existing safety culture, the size 
and complexity of the organization, and time and pace at which the 
organization began its Pipeline SMS journey. Atmos Energy also stated 
that the questions and instructions do not provide guidance as to what 
factors or components should be included or excluded in these 
calculations, which would leave that determination up to the individual 
operator, only further precluding the gathering of usable comparative 
data. In summary, Atmos Energy stated that tracking and reporting 
quantifiable implementation efforts and costs do not align with the 
continuous improvement and ongoing development tenants of Pipeline SMS 
nor do they accurately reflect a company's safety culture or 
priorities.
    AGA stated that identifying implementation costs and hours specific 
to each element is not realistic for many large, multi[hyphen]state 
operators. Like the PSMS Industry Team's comments, AGA recommended 
capturing data outlined in the Pipeline SMS Maturity Model. Like Atmos 
Energy's comment, AGA specified concern regarding whether the 
information being requested in Questions 8 and 9 could be accurately 
captured, and whether it would provide a meaningful operator 
comparison. AGA stated that the proposed form failed to define 
``implementation'' and asking operators to disclose when elements were 
``fully implemented'' or ``complete'' does not reflect the guiding 
principles of SMS implementation or continuous improvement.
    The Natural Gas SMS Collaborative stated that direct cost figures 
do not effectively represent the efforts an operator may have put forth 
in support of safety management implementation and recommended PHMSA 
consider utilizing measures of maturity to effectively represent the 
operators' level of commitment and investment in Pipeline SMS.
    NiSource commented that an effective management system serves as 
the foundation of an operating model and NiSource experiences a 
distribution of costs across operations that may be prioritized based 
on their SMS Processes and Procedures. NiSource noted that these costs 
are spread and shared across the organization. NiSource provided some 
specific recommendations as alternatives if PHMSA chose not to adopt 
industry comment recommendations through the PSMS Industry Team and the 
Natural Gas SMS Collaborative, but otherwise supported the comments and 
alternatives proposed by those entities.
    MDUG, which consisted of at least four Operator Identification 
Numbers (OpIDs) and over 1 million customers served at the time of the 
60-day notice comment submittal, stated that it would not be able to 
accurately assess either the number of staff hours or the 
implementation costs by element. MDUG proposed removing question 8b 
(associated with staff hours) in the 60-day version and proposed the 
following in place of 8c (associated with costs): ``Prior to the 
decision to implement API RP 1173, did your organization do a cost 
analysis of the impact of internal or external resources?''
    PHMSA Response: PHMSA would like to thank all the entities for 
taking the time to submit comments. Regarding concerns with burden and 
cost, PHMSA has largely accepted the alternatives proposed by the 
commenters. For example, implementing an SMS program based on API RP 
1173 requires the operator to maintain procedures for Management of 
Change (MOC) to be applied to significant technology, equipment, 
procedural, and organizational changes. Section 204 of the PIPES Act 
directs PHMSA to update regulations to ensure that gas distribution 
operators include a detailed MOC process in their procedural manual for 
operations, maintenance, and emergencies. The regulation update will 
have to also address emergency response plans and record keeping 
requirements which are two of elements of API RP 1173. However, after 
considering the comments, PHMSA agrees that the alternatives proposed 
that align more closely with the industry's annual survey would still 
provide the information needed to complete the section 205 Report to 
Congress.
    Regarding the PSMS Industry Team's recommendation that PHMSA 
utilize the existing annual survey facilitated by the Pipeline SMS 
team, PHMSA believes that it must proceed with the information 
collection to better support the preparation of the report required by 
section 205. However, industry is welcome to provide data from industry 
developed surveys.
    Given that PHMSA has revised the questions to closely align with 
the PSMS Industry Team recommendations, PHMSA has adjusted the 
estimated annual burden hours to reflect the input provided by the PSMS 
Industry Team.
    PHMSA appreciates NiSource's and the Natural Gas Collective's 
suggestions for alternate questions if PHMSA chose not to adopt certain 
industry recommendations submitted in their comments. Since PHMSA 
largely incorporated the PSMS Industry Team recommendations, PHMSA did 
not incorporate the alternatives provided by NiSource. As part of the 
PSMS Industry Team comments and alternative questions that PHMSA 
incorporates, there is a question that touches on SMS maturity level. 
More specifically, question 16 in the 30-day Notice asks, ``Are you 
maintaining a method to evaluate PSMS maturity?'' In its comments, 
NiSource raised some interesting nuances that need to be considered for 
larger and complex operators just as APGA raised some interesting 
nuances for very small operators described later in this notice. PHMSA 
believes, by incorporating the alternative questions in the form, the 
necessary information can be collected from distribution operators of 
all sizes.
    PHMSA accommodated MDUG's suggestion to remove question 8b 
associated with staff hours by incorporating the PSMS Industry Team's 
suggested questions. PHMSA also accommodated MDUG's concern with 
question 8c associated with costs by incorporating the PSMS Industry 
Team's suggested questions. More specifically, the new question 8 asks 
``Have you performed a gap assessment or other comparable exercise to 
compare your pipeline safety and safety culture efforts to the concepts 
of safety management systems described in API RP 1173?'' The follow-up 
question 9 asks about barriers preventing an operator from implementing 
an SMS program. Among the options for barriers/challenges is financial 
considerations.

[[Page 21744]]

B. Suggestions To Enhance the Quality, Utility, and Clarity of the 
Collected Information

    PHMSA also received comments that made general suggestions to 
enhance the overall quality and clarity of the collection information. 
Some aspects are included in the comments above with others described 
below.
1. Refine Questions To Better Track Progress and Feasibility in 
Alignment With RP 1173 Principles
    Comments: The PSMS Industry Team and other commenters noted 
confusion with some of the terms used such as question 8 asking about 
element implementation and question 9 asking in what year the SMS 
program was fully implemented with elements selected in 8a. Commenters 
suggested that either PHMSA include the agency's definition of terms 
``fully implemented'' and ``initiated'' to support more accurate 
response or adjust questions in a way to ask operators if they have 
completed steps along the implementation journey, as reflected in the 
PSMS team survey, or their perceived maturity towards the PSMS Maturity 
Model.
    PHMSA Response: PHMSA would like to thank the commenters and SMS is 
a continuous improvement journey. The concept of an element being 
initiated was to indicate when it started in the Plan-Do-Check-Act 
(PDCA) cycle for a given operator. Fully implemented was meant to 
indicate when it at least made it through one PDCA cycle. However, 
PHMSA agrees fully implemented can still be confusing. PHMSA has 
modified the form to align with the questions recommended by the PSMS 
Industry Team.
2. Feasibility of the Form and API RP 1173 for Very Small Operators
    Comment: APGA discussed the feasibility of API 1173 and Safety 
Management Systems in general for very small operators. APGA proposed a 
very small operator be defined as a pipeline operator that:
    (a) Serves less than 20,000 natural gas distribution customers: and
    (b) Has total deliveries less than 10 billion cubic feet (BCF) 
annually.
    APGA commented that the principles of API RP 1173 are applicable to 
pipeline operators of all sizes. However, APGA stated that implementing 
all the prescriptive requirements and practices, as currently written, 
is not feasible for very small operators.
    For more context, APGA noted the following: A natural gas utility 
serving around 20,000 services typically employs less than 50 
individuals, including employees who offer customer support for 
billing, office administrators, accountants, human resources managers, 
supervisors, and field personnel. Ultimately a utility of this size 
will only have approximately 10 to 15 individuals working on or near 
the pipelines. There are 970 natural gas operators that operate less 
than 20,000 services, almost all of which are publicly owned natural 
gas systems. These natural gas distribution operators are committed to 
incorporating safety management system principles into their daily 
operations but believe the requirements and recommendations of API RP 
1173 PSMS were not written in a truly scalable way for operators of 
their size.
    APGA further commented that in the Annual Industry PSMS Survey, all 
pipeline operators are asked what barriers are in place that are 
preventing their voluntary adoption of API RP 1173. APGA stated that 
staffing, manpower, resources, and time are the leading reasons 
provided by those not yet implementing API RP 1173, such as those that 
would meet the ``very small operator'' designation. APGA commented that 
some operators also express frustration in understanding the 
justification for their implementation of API RP 1173. APGA noted that 
these public gas systems serve relatively few customers and operate 
minimal pipeline mileage. APGA stated that often their systems are 
newer, fully constructed of plastic pipe, and have relatively few 
leaks. APGA further stated that for them, the justification for 
developing a full PSMS program per API RP 1173 seems both unrealistic 
and unnecessary to further the safety of their system.
    APGA also noted that it has tools to assist small operators in 
understanding, adopting, and implementing pipeline safety management 
practices which are explained further in their comments posted in the 
docket. APGA stated that translating the intent of API RP 1173 in a 
manner that is relatable and actionable for ``very small operators'' is 
important for voluntary adoption of safety management systems 
principles. APGA noted their support of the PSMS Industry Team.
    APGA did not comment specifically on changes to the form that can 
best accommodate very small operators other than agreeing with the PSMS 
Industry Team comments on realigning the questions in a way that focus 
first on the principles of SMS in general before jumping into whether 
operators are aware of and specifically following elements of API RP 
1173.
    PHMSA Response: PHMSA thanks APGA for the comments and has decided 
to realign the questions in line with PSMS Industry Team comments. As 
PHMSA noted in the 60-day notice, while the act mandate pointed 
specifically to API RP 1173, there are other variations available and 
implemented, including a customized SMS.
3. Operator Name vs. Operator ID
    Comment: Atmos Energy commented that Question 1 directs operators 
to respond separately for each OpID on record. Atmos Energy stated that 
large multistate operators would have to file multiple submissions from 
different operator IDs assigned for distribution and transmission 
facilities and would further result in repetitive responses for PHMSA 
to review. Atmos Energy noted that they have eleven OpIDs, which would 
require the completion of eleven forms, with much of the information 
across those forms being repetitive. Atmos Energy requested that this 
question be limited to operator name as opposed to operator 
identification.
    PHMSA Response: PHMSA thanks Atmos Energy for the comment. While 
PHMSA acknowledges some operators have multiple OpIDs, limiting to just 
an operator name would cause challenges for data collection and data 
accuracy. For instance, it may not always be clear that an operator 
submission covers all OpIDs associated with that operator. Also, if 
there are any variations across OpIDs in any of the questions, PHMSA is 
interested in identifying and learning about those differences to 
inform our report to Congress. For example, number of customers served 
will likely be different for each OpID. Therefore, PHMSA is still 
requesting a separate report for each OpID.
4. Feasibility of Implementation
    Comment: Atmos Energy commented that question 13 in the 60-day 
version of the form appeared to ask companies to provide a 
justification for their decision not to implement PSMS. Question 13 
specifically asked ``If you do not plan on implementing an SMS program, 
what are the primary reasons for not implementing?'' Atmos Energy noted 
its commitment to the implementation of PSMS, while specifying that 
they recognize that PSMS, through RP 1173, is intended to serve as 
guidance for operators and its adoption is voluntary. Atmos Energy also 
noted if the intent of the question is aimed at determining what 
components may presently act as potential obstacles to an 
organization's voluntary adoption of PSMS, Atmos Energy requests that 
PHMSA clarify that intent in the question.

[[Page 21745]]

    MDUG proposed removing question 10 completely. Question 10 asked 
``If you have not implemented an SMS program, (a) are you currently in 
the process of implementing one and (b) how much progress have you made 
with implementing the 10 or more (if applicable) elements of the 
program?'' with a yes and no answer, a percentage of implementing by 
element. MDUG suggested adding an additional question after 15: ``If 
you have used the API maturity scale to assess your SMS program, what 
is your overall score (on a scale of 1-5)?''
    PHMSA Response: The original purpose of the question was to help 
provide input on the number of companies implementing a pipeline SMS 
and the feasibility of an operator of a natural gas distribution 
company to implement a pipeline SMS in line with the PIPES Act 2020 
section 205 language. PHMSA modified this question to align with the 
PSMS Industry Team recommendation. The question now asks ``What 
barriers are preventing you from implementing an SMS program per API RP 
1173 or other SMS? (Select all that apply).'' The question now appears 
as question 9 in the 30-day notice version.
    It should be noted that PHMSA added an NA (not applicable) option 
to the Industry Team recommended version to indicate if an operator is 
in the process of implementing SMS as part of the response to the new 
question 9. The Industry Team's recommended version of question 8 
``Have you performed a gap assessment or other comparable exercise to 
compare your pipeline safety and safety culture efforts to the concepts 
of safety management systems described in API RP 1173?'' suggested to 
skip question 9 if the answer was yes. However, PHMSA believes question 
9 would collect data on whether an operator performed an initial gap 
assessment. PHMSA added some language in the instructions to make the 
intent clearer.
    PHMSA believes it accommodated MDUG's request to remove question 10 
by incorporating the PSMS Industry Team's version of the questions. 
PHMSA did not specifically add MDUG's suggested question on maturity 
level score but did include a question on whether a submitter is 
maintaining a method to evaluate PSMS maturity in line with the PSMS 
Industry Team's version of the questions.
5. Comments Related to Damage Prevention and the Potential of 
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Mapping
    Comment: The Distribution Contractors Association (DCA) noted that 
PHMSA solicited comments on ``additional information that would be 
appropriate to collect to inform the reduction in risk to people, 
property, and the environment due to excavation damages.'' DCA 
commented that accurate mapping of underground utility pipelines has 
become a challenging and difficult task, and rather than restricting a 
user to limited features on a static map, GIS mapping allows for 
viewing customizable combinations of data layers in a single dynamic 
tool. DCA specified that underground facility damage prevention 
practices are more critical than ever particularly in light of the 2021 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and notes that encouraging the 
use of readily available GIS mapping technologies is clearly an 
effective way to ensure for the accurate locating of underground 
facilities. DCA commented that as a part of PHMSA's information 
collection effort, gathering as much information as possible regarding 
the current use of GIS mapping by pipeline operators would be 
appropriate when considering ways to reduce risks associated with 
excavation activities.
    PHMSA Response: PHMSA would like to thank the DCA for being a 
member of the PSMS Industry Team and providing comments on the 
importance of accurate mapping, the use of GIS, and in general 
following underground facility damage prevention laws and best 
practices. While PHMSA agrees with DCA's comments and is engaged in 
initiatives for damage prevention through prevention through 
organizations such as the Common Ground Alliance. That portion of the 
60-day information collection request was partly a carryover of 
language from other information collection efforts and has been removed 
from this 30-day notice to avoid confusion. PHMSA still encourages all 
operators and contractors to follow damage prevention laws and best 
practices. As it relates to API 1173, PHMSA also commends API for 
developing contractor guidance as a complement to API RP 1173. For more 
information, see https://pipelinesms.org/contractor-guidance/. If there 
are any aspects of GIS mapping or contractor engagement in general that 
could be useful to convey in the process of this information 
collection, operators are welcome to include those aspects.

III. Summary of Impacted Collections

    Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires 
PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected entities 
an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping 
requests. This notice identifies a one-time information collection that 
PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval.
    The following information is provided for this information 
collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control 
number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract 
of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected 
public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping 
burden; and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA requests comments on the 
following information:
    Title: Voluntary Adoption of API RP 1173 for Gas Distribution 
Systems.
    OMB Control Number: Will request from OMB.
    Current Expiration Date: TBD.
    Type of Request: Approval of an information collection.
    Abstract: This information collection request covers the collection 
of data from operators of natural gas distribution pipeline systems to 
ascertain how many gas distribution operators are voluntarily 
implementing API RP 1173, progress being made for those that have 
implemented or are implementing a pipeline SMS, and feasibility to 
implement a pipeline SMS based on size of the operator. PHMSA proposes 
collecting this information via the proposed GD-SMS-2022 form. PHMSA 
estimates that it will take each respondent approximately 3 hours to 
complete the proposed form.
    Affected Public: Natural gas distribution pipeline operators.
    Annual Burden:
    Estimated number of responses: 1,314.
    Estimated annual burden hours: 3,942.
    Frequency of Collection: Once.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for this information collections for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those

[[Page 21746]]

who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 
35, as amended, and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2023, under authority 
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2023-07491 Filed 4-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P