PHMSA Publishes 60-Day ICR for OPID and Operator Registry Forms

The DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a 60-day ICR revision notice in Monday’s Federal Register (79 FR 18118-18119, available on-line today) concerning proposals to revise two forms used by gas transmission and gas distribution pipeline operators to provide information to the National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators under authority of 49 CFR §191.22 and  §195.64.

Those two forms are:

• PHMSA F 1000.1, OPID Assignment Request; and

• PHMSA F 1000.2, Operator Registry Notification

OPID Assignment Request Changes

PHMSA is proposing to make the following changes to the OPID Assignment Request form:

• Align the gas distribution and gas transmission commodity choices with those found on the annual and incident reports;

• Modify the list for types of gas distribution operators to reflect the ownership structure of the operator;

• Collect the miles of pipe and facility descriptions for each state;

• Eliminate liquefied natural gas (LNG) plans and procedures as a separate safety program type; and

• Collect business cell phone numbers for contacts in addition to office phone numbers.

Operator Registry Notification Changes

PHMSA is proposing to make the following changes to the Operator Registry Notification form:

• Remove and revise instructions regarding pipeline safety program information submissions at several locations in the form and instructions;

• Reduce the number of notification types and the text describing each type to enhance clarity;

• Require Type B notifications to indicate whether the operator is assuming or ceasing operatorship of pipeline facilities;

• Require separate notifications for an acquisition and a divestiture;

• Allow an operator submitting a divestiture to request the deactivation of their OPID

• Align the gas distribution and gas transmission commodity choices with those found on the annual and incident reports;

• Collect data about miles of pipeline separate from facilities, such as breakout tanks, storage fields, and compressor stations, in Step 3;

• Require operators to provide data about pipeline facilities (Step 3) when they submit a change in entity operating (Type B) notification;

• Collect the miles of pipe and facility descriptions for each state; and

• Add a “Guidance for Selecting the Appropriate Notification Type” section to the instructions.

Burden Estimate

This ICR Notice provides a revised estimate of the burden that these collections will impose on the 2,328 Natural gas, 82 LNG facility and 335 Hazardous Liquid operators on an annual basis. Table 1 below shows a comparison of proposed revised ICR with the currently approved ICR for these forms. The current data comes from information submitted  to the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

	Current OPID	Current Notification	Proposed
Responses	2753	11012	630
Time Burden	2753	2753	630
Cost Burden	NR	NR	NR

Table 1: Burden Estimates

The currently approved OPID numbers are high because this was for the initial implementation of the program and all 2753 operators had to register. Only new operators and certain changes would be reported with this form now so the current annual collection requirement would be much less than 2753 submissions. PHMSA estimated that it would take one hour to complete the OPID Assignment Request form.

PHMSA originally estimated that there would be four notifications per year from each operator using the Operator Registry Notification form. They estimated that it would take 15 minutes for each of those notifications.

PHMSA does not routinely report the cost burden in its ICRs. They do, however, provide a cost estimate to OIRA. They most recently estimated that hourly cost for this ICR was $64.75 providing a total annual burden cost for both forms at $356,513.50.

The ICR notice does not make it clear what form the 630 responses would involve. It would seem that the one hour per submission would mean that it was the OPID Assignment Request. Either that or the proposed changes to the Operator Registry Notification form would take four times as long to complete. In either case, PHSMA should explain the basis for the change in the burden estimate.

Public Comments

PHMSA is soliciting public comments on these proposed form changes and the associated change in the ICR burden. Comments may be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.Regulations.gov; Docket # PHMSA-2014-0018). Comments need to be submitted by May 30^th, 2014.

PHMSA Clarifies Pipeline Safety Reporting

The Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice (78 FR 5866-5867) in Monday’s Federal Register (available on line yesterday) concerning certain reporting requirements for owner/operators of gas transmission pipelines and gathering lines. The notice extends the deadline for filing last year’s annual reports and notes discrepancies in many of the previously filed reports.

Filing Deadline Extension

PHMSA is extending the dead line for filing the 2012 annual report until June 15^th, 2013. This is due to the many recent changes in the reporting requirements and the fact that the new on-line reporting site has not yet been implemented. PHMSA expects to notify owner/operators by March 1^st that the new reporting system is operational.

OPID Validation

PHMSA had earlier extended the deadline for most pipeline and LNG owner/operators with Operator Identification Numbers (OPID) established prior to January 1, 2011, to validate their OPID data. They extended the deadline from June 30^th, 2012 to September 30^th, 2012. As of the end of November PHMSA notes that approximately 16% of those required to provide updated data have yet to do so.

Gas Transmission Annual Reports Discrepancies

Since 2004 PHMSA has collected data on gas transmission incidents in high consequence areas (HCA); first in the pipeline integrity management reports and, starting in 2010 in gas transmission and gathering annual reports. In addition owner/operators have been required to file incident reports and those reports have been required to indicate if the incident occurred in an HCA.

In this notice PHMSA indicates that there are serious discrepancies between the information provided in the incident reports and the annual reports. In only one year (2009) have the number of HCA incidents been the same in both sets of reports. Even then there were mismatches between the OPID of the submitting organizations. As a result, this notice reminds operators that:

“Gas transmission operators who have reported incidents in HCAs from 2004 through 2011 in either gas integrity management performance reports, gas transmission annual reports, or incident reports should submit supplemental reports as needed to correct the data.” (FR 78 5867)

LNG Annual Report Discrepancies

A similar problem exists in the annual reports that LNG operators have been required to submit to PHMSA since 2010. Incidents and safety related conditions (SRC) are required to be reported in the annual report as well as having to submit individual reports to PHMSA. Data from 2010 and 2011 show more incidents (2 vs 0) and SRCs (264 vs 5) reported in the annual reports than there have been individual reports submitted.

PHMSA notes that:

“LNG operators should review their annual reports and SRC reports and submit supplemental reports as needed to correct the data.”

Commentary

It is sad to see that there are so many discrepancies between regulatory reporting requirements and the actual data submitted to PHMSA. I suppose that it reflects the complexity of the regulatory environment. As such I applaud PHMSA’s publication of this notice rather than moving directly to taking to enforcement action. PHMSA does need the correct information to properly oversee the safety of the pipelines for which it is responsible.

On the other hand it is really sad to see that it has taken PHMSA so long to note some of these discrepancies. Just now trying to correct data inconsistencies that date back almost 10 years calls into question whether PHMSA has actually living up to its regulatory responsibilities. Hopefully this notice reflects a change in the attitude at PHMSA concerning those responsibilities.