[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6950-6951]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0004]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on
January 6, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue
or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2021-0004.

Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Tommy A. Phillips, Senior
Director--C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309

    Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue a traffic
control system (TCS) on the S line, from milepost (MP) S146.0, control
point (CP) Craggy, at Murphy Junction, to MP S228, CP New Line, at
Morristown, on the Gulf Division. This includes CPs at Craggy, Volga,
Ivy, Nocona, Walnut, Hot Springs, French, Del Rio, Big Creek,
Bridgeport, Huff, Leadvale, Lilac, and Douglas, and 20 automatic
signals. The main track between S146 and S228 will be converted to NS
Rule 171 operation. An automatic signal at MP S226.5 will be converted
to an operable approach signal. The signaled sidings within the
application limits will be made non-controlled, other than main track.

    NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that
operations no longer require TCS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-01423 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49691]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23265]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81915; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To List and Trade
Shares of the Hartford Municipal Opportunities ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule
8.600-E

October 20, 2017.
    On August 17, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade
shares of the Hartford Municipal Opportunities ETF under NYSE Arca Rule
8.600-E. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on September 6, 2017.\3\ On October 17, 2017, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The
Commission has not received any comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81505 (August 30,
2017), 82 FR 42147.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, which amended and replaced the proposed
rule change in its entirety, the Exchange, among other things,
clarified that: (i) The list of municipal securities included in the
section of the Notice entitled Hartford Municipal Opportunities ETF
are the Municipal Securities in which the Fund may invest at least
80% of its net assets; (ii) redemption orders are not subject to
acceptance by the distributor of the Fund; and (iii) the cut-off
time for receipt of orders is 1 o'clock p.m. Amendment No. 1 also
made non-substantive, technical amendments. Because Amendment No. 1
makes only clarifying and technical changes, and does not present
unique or novel regulatory issues, it is not subject to notice and
comment. Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-90/nysearca201790.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for this
proposed rule change is October 21, 2017. The Commission is extending
this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, as modified by
the recently filed amendment. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates December 5, 2017, as the
date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed
rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-90), as modified by Amendment
No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-23265 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45204-45205]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19255]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248]
RIN 2126-AC19

Hours of Service

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public listening session.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening
session concerning potential changes to its hours-of-service (HOS)
rules for truck drivers. On August 23, 2018, FMCSA published an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on four
specific aspects of the HOS rules for which the Agency is considering
changes: The short-haul HOS limit; the HOS exception for adverse
driving conditions; the 30-minute rest break provision; and the split-
sleeper berth rule to allow drivers to split their required time in the
sleeper berth. In addition, the Agency requested public comment on
petitions for rulemaking from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) and TruckerNation.org (TruckerNation). The Agency
encourages vendors of electronic logging devices (ELDs) to participate
to address potential implementation issues should changes to the HOS
rules be made. The listening session will be held at the U.S.
Department of Transportation in Washington, DC. The listening session
will be webcast for the benefit of those not able to attend in person.
The listening session will allow interested persons to present
comments, views, and relevant research on topics mentioned above. All
comments will be transcribed and placed in the rulemaking docket for
the FMCSA's consideration.

DATES: The listening session will be September 14, 2018, in Washington,
DC, at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590. The listening session will begin at 1 p.m.
(EDT) and end at 3 p.m., or earlier, if all participants wishing to
express their views have done so.

ADDRESSES: The September 14, 2018, meeting will be held at the U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
    You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0248
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Submissions Containing Confidential Business Information
(CBI): Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For special accommodations for the HOS
listening session, such as sign language interpretation, contact Ms.
Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for
Policy,<PHONE_NUMBER> or at [email protected], by Wednesday,
September 5, 2018, to allow us to arrange for such services. There is
no guarantee that interpreter services requested on short notice can be
provided. For information concerning the HOS rules, contact Mr. Tom
Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period for the ANPRM. Late comments will be considered to the
extent practicable.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is customarily not made available to the public by the
submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is eligible for
protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or
responsive

to the ANPRM and this listening session, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please
mark each page of your submission as ``confidential'' or ``CBI.''
Submissions designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above
will not be placed in the public docket for the ANPRM and this
listening session. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Mr.
Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or [email protected]. Any commentary
that FMCSA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period for the ANPRM.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On August 23, 2018 (83 FR 42631), FMCSA published an ANPRM
concerning potential changes to its hours-of-service rules. The ANPRM
indicated the Agency is considering changes in four areas of the HOS
rules: The short-haul HOS limit [49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)(ii)(A)]; the HOS
exception for adverse driving conditions [Sec.  395.1(b)(1)]; the 30-
minute rest break provision [Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii)]; and the split-
sleeper berth rule to allow drivers to split their required time in the
sleeper berth [Sec.  395.1(g)(1)(i)(A) and (ii)(A)]. In addition, the
Agency requested public comment on petitions for rulemaking from the
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and
TruckerNation.org (TruckerNation). The ANPRM provides an opportunity
for additional discussion of each of these topics. The listening
session will provide interested persons to share their views on these
topics with representatives of the Agency. The Agency encourages ELD
vendors to participate to address potential implementation issues
should changes to the HOS rules be made.

III. Meeting Participation

    The listening session is open to the public. Speakers' remarks will
be limited to 2 minutes each. The public may submit material to the
FMCSA staff at the session for inclusion in the public docket, FMCSA-
2018-0248. The session will be webcast in its entirety, providing the
opportunity for remote participation via the internet. For information
on participating in the live webcast, please go to www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

IV. Questions for Discussion During the Listening Session

    In preparing their comments, meeting participants should consider
the questions posed in the ANPRM about the current HOS requirements.
Answers to these questions should be based upon the experience of the
participants and any data or information they can share with FMCSA.

    Issued on: August 30, 2018.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-19255 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43603-43604]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3617]

Joint Pediatric Advisory Committee and Drug Safety and Risk
Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a
Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee
and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general
function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to
FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA
is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 26, 2019, from 9 a.m. to
4:40 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Building 31, Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm.
1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked
questions including information regarding special accommodations due to
a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2019-N-3617. The docket will close on
September 24, 2019. Submit either electronic or written comments on
this public meeting by September 24, 2019. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of September 24, 2019. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before September 12, 2019, will be provided
to the committees. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate. You may
submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-3617 for ``Joint Pediatric Advisory Committee and Drug
Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting;
Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received

comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marieann Brill, Office of the
Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 32, Rm. 5154, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in
the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On September 26, 2019, the Pediatric Advisory Committee and
the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee will meet to
discuss the pediatric-focused safety review for OxyContin (oxycodone
hydrochloride) extended-release tablets, as mandated by the Food and
Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), and to
discuss pediatric data considerations for opioid analgesics labeling
and Pediatric Research Equity Act studies for opioids generally, using
Opana IR as an example.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
September 19, 2019. Oral presentations from the public will be
scheduled between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before September 11, 2019.
Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by September 12, 2019.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that FDA is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Marieann Brill (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 15, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17997 Filed 8-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63312-63313]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22095]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90062; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-075]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Make Qualified Contingent Cross Orders Available for FLEX
Trading

October 1, 2020.
    On August 3, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to make Qualified Contingent Cross Orders
available for FLEX trading. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 20, 2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89564 (August 14,
2020), 85 FR 51531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is October 4, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending this 45-day time period. The Commission
finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which
to take action on the proposal so that it has sufficient time to
consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates November 18,
2020, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-CBOE-2020-075).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22095 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 101)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29431-29435]
[DOCID:fr26my10-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0763; FRL-8826-9]

Coat Protein of Plum Pox Virus; Exemption from the Requirement of
a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus in or
on stone fruit and almond when expressed in these food commodities by
the plant-incorporated protectant, coat protein gene of plum pox virus.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 of Rutgers University (on
behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural
Research Service-Appalachian Fruit Research Station) submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus under the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 26, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 26, 2010, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0763. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 174 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the harmonized test guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://
www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

C. How Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0763 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 26, 2010. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0763, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

     In the Federal Register of November 14, 2008 (73 FR 67512) (FRL-
8388-3), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a

pesticide tolerance petition (PP 7E7231) by Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers University, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540 (on behalf of the United States
Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service-Appalachian
Fruit Research Station (USDA-ARS-AFRS), 2217 Wiltshire Rd.,
Kearneysville, WV 25430). The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus. This
notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner,
IR-4 (on behalf of USDA-ARS-AFRS), which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue....
'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that the Agency
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of
[a particular pesticide's] residues and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.

A. Overview

    The coat protein of plum pox virus is produced by a plant-infecting
Potyvirus in Prunus species, which include plum (cultivated and native
or wild species), peaches, almonds, nectarines, and cherries. Such
stone fruits are a natural source and sink for plum pox virus. When the
gene that is responsible for producing the coat protein in infected
plants is genetically engineered into uninfected plum trees, the plants
become resistant to the devastating disease this virus causes, which is
known as ``Plum Pox.'' The C5 HoneySweet Plum (C5 plum) tree has been
genetically engineered to contain the gene responsible for the coat
protein. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) fragments derived from the virus coat
protein gene cause the plant's natural protection mechanism, post-
transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS), to be primed to resist virus
infection, should it occur. Although non-engineered plants initiate
PTGS upon infection with the virus, the serious damage caused by the
virus (such as fruit degradation and leaf chlorosis) is not prevented.
    The exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
nucleic acids that are part of a plant-incorporated protectant
established under 40 CFR 174.507 covers the coat protein gene
(sometimes called the ``transgene'') of plum pox virus. The reason for
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus (as opposed to the coat
protein gene) is that insertion of the gene into the C5 plum includes
an open reading frame, and so the production of this protein, and thus
residues of the protein in or on food, is theoretically possible. In
the unlikely event that any protein is produced, dietary exposure could
result. However, no virus coat protein has been detected in the C5 plum
during years of extensive field trials, which is likely attributed to
the early initiation of the PTGS protective mechanism in the C5 plum
plants (Ref. 1). That is, while the coat protein of plum pox virus is
produced in non-transgenic Prunus species infected with plum pox virus,
it has not been observed (but is theoretically possible) in the
transgenic plums.

B. Mammalian Toxicity and Allergenicity Assessment

    To determine whether the coat protein of plum pox virus could
potentially cause toxicity or allergenicity, the petitioner submitted
results of an amino acid sequence similarity study. This study used two
methods to compare the deduced amino acid sequence of the plum pox
virus coat protein (as it could potentially be produced in the C5 plum)
with sequence databases of known food allergens, toxins, and
antinutrients. In the first analysis for overall similarity to toxins,
allergens and anti-nutrients, none of the sequence analyses produced
alignments greater than 35% identity over a window of 80 amino acids.
In the second analysis specifically for allergen epitopes (regions of
potential binding for triggering allergic reactions), there were no
matching regions of eight amino acids, which is considered the
threshold needed to indicate a potential hazard. These studies follow
the guidance of the Codex Alimentarius for the safety assessment of
foods derived from biotechnology (Ref. 2). Therefore, these data
demonstrated that no food allergenicity, toxicity, or antinutrient
effects would be expected from dietary exposure to the transgene, the
overlapping plum DNA, or the protein (if it were produced) in the C5
plum.

C. In vitro Digestibility

    Based upon the results of the submitted amino acid sequence
similarity studies discussed in Unit III.B., the fact that plum pox
virus coat protein has been in the human diet without adverse effects,
and the reasonable expectation that no plum pox coat protein will be
expressed in the C5 plum, the Agency granted the petitioner's waiver
request for an in vitro digestibility study.

D. Hypersensitivity

    The petitioner reported that since research began with the C5 plum
in 1992, approximately 80 trees have been tested. Neither Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) production staff, numbering approximately 20
people in the United States (West Virginia), nor personnel performing
testing in Spain, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Chile, have,
to the knowledge of EPA, experienced hypersensitivity or other adverse
effects. Therefore, no

hypersensitivity effects are expected from exposure to the coat protein
of plum pox virus (if it were produced) in the C5 plum. The Agency
expects to be notified if such a hypersensitivity incident were to
occur.

E. Additional Information

    The petitioner submitted scientifically based rationales, described
in Unit. III.E., to justify the requested waivers of the following
microbial pesticide toxicology data requirements: Tier I - acute oral
toxicity/pathogenicity (Harmonized Test Guideline 885.3050), acute
dermal toxicity/pathogenicity (Harmonized Test Guideline 885.3100),
acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity (Harmonized Test Guideline
885.3150), and acute injection toxicity/pathogenicity (Harmonized Test
Guideline 885.3200). The Agency uses the microbial pesticide data
requirements (see 40 CFR 158.2130) because the C5 plum has virus
sequences similar to microbial products based on plant viruses. Basing
the decision to grant the requested waiver of the data requirements on
the available data and information without requiring further toxicity
testing and residue data is similar to the Agency position regarding
toxicity testing and the requirement of residue data for microbial
products based on plant viruses from which this plant-incorporated
protectant was derived (see 40 CFR 158.2130). For microbial products,
further toxicity testing and residue data are triggered by significant
adverse acute effects in studies such as the mouse oral toxicity study,
to verify the observed adverse effects and clarify the source of these
effects (Tiers II & III).
    Several pertinent issues were considered by the Agency concerning
the potential for dietary hazards from the C5 plum before determining
whether to grant the petitioner's waiver requests. When considering
registrations for plant-incorporated protectants to be used in food
commodities, the potential for dietary exposure to novel proteins that
may possess toxic, allergenic, or antinutrient properties must be
evaluated. Sufficient information demonstrating that plant viruses are
both in the human diet and exist in the human intestine without
negative effects was reviewed by the Agency. Since Potyviruses contain
other proteins in addition to coat protein and are not the only plant
viruses found in food commodities, humans can be exposed to a wide
range of plant virus proteins (Ref. 3). Proteins of plant viruses,
including the coat protein from plum pox virus, neither act as
antinutrients when ingested, nor possess any properties that lead to
toxicity or allergenicity (Ref. 4). Therefore, based on the lack of
hazard from existing dietary exposure to plant viruses and the low
expected potential for expression of the plum pox coat protein, there
is a reasonable certainty of no harm from the aggregate exposure to the
residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus, should it be expressed.
    Another consideration is the product of the coat protein gene of
plum pox virus as inserted into the C5 plum. In the natural virus
infection, its replication intermediates do not require DNA since a
virus-encoded, RNA-Dependent RNA-polymerase is used. To express the
gene in a plant, a DNA copy must be made and incorporated into the
plant's genome, so that the plant will express messenger ribonucleic
acid (mRNA) homologous to the virus coat protein only. Often for a
Potyvirus, this means also adding a start codon and short leader
sequence since the viral start codon is distant from the coat protein
sequence in the normal viral RNA genome (Ref. 4). As discussed in Unit
III.B., a full sequence analysis and comparison with known toxins,
allergens, and antinutrients demonstrated that neither the coat protein
gene nor the plum pox coat protein gene inserted into the C5 plum were
sufficiently homologous to trigger an adverse reaction.
    Consideration of the low potential for production of protein is
important since the silenced inserted gene has an open reading frame.
Although there are known instances where suppression of gene-silencing
can occur (e.g., PTGS inhibition such as produced by some other plant
viruses, and low temperature growth), there are no foreseeable events
that would lead to a breakdown in resistance under field conditions for
the C5 plum. PTGS virtually eliminates the possibility of translation
of virus coat protein from viral mRNA. When the coat protein gene
insert is transcribed to the mRNA for the coat protein of plum pox
virus, the mRNA is quickly cleaved and thus cannot be translated into
the protein. If the plant becomes infected with the virus, the PTGS
mechanism rapidly degrades the mRNA from the virus and prevents the
production of new virions within the plant's tissues (Ref. 1).
    In light of these considerations, the Agency granted the
petitioner's requests to waive the listed data requirements.

F. References

    1. Ravelonandro, M., J. Kundu, P. Briard, M. Monison and R. Scorza.
2007. The Effect of Co-Existing Prunus Viruses on Transgenic Plum Pox
Virus Resistant Plums. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 738: International
Symposium on Biotechnology of Temperate Fruit Crops and Tropical
Species, pp. 653-656.
    2. Codex Alimentarius (2003) Foods Derived from Biotechnology,
United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization, World Health
Organization.
     3. Zhang, T., M. Breitbart, W. H. Lee, J.-Q. Run, C. L. Wei, S. W.
L. Soh, M. L. Hibberd, E. T. Liu, F. Rohwer, Y. Ruan. 2006. RNA Viral
Community in Human Feces: Prevalence of Plant Pathogenic Viruses. PLOS
Biology 4(1):108-118.
    4. Shukla, D. D., C. W. Ward. A. A. Brunt. 1994. The Potyviridae.
CAB International. University Press. Cambridge, UK.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).
    The Agency has considered available information on the aggregate
exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of
consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and to other related
substances. These considerations include dietary exposure under the
tolerance exemption for residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus,
all other exemptions in effect for residues of virus coat proteins and
virus coat protein gene plant-incorporated protectants, and exposure
from non-occupational sources. Exposure to the coat protein of plum pox
virus via the inhalation or dermal routes is not likely, since PTGS
virtually eliminates the possibility of translation of the coat protein
of plum pox virus from viral mRNA. In the event the protein is
expressed in the C5 plum, it would be contained within plant cells,
either eliminating the possibility of dermal and inhalation exposure,
or reducing those exposure routes to negligible levels. This same
evidence supports the Agency's conclusion that oral exposure from
drinking water would be highly unlikely. Even if exposure occurred
through an unlikely route, such as inhalation, the potential for the
coat protein of plum pox virus to be an allergen is low, as evidenced
by the lack of sequence homology with known allergens and the lack of
hypersensitivity incidents in

individuals handing C5 plum trees, fruits, and other plant tissues
during 18 years of research. Exposure via residential or lawn use to
infants and children is also not expected because the use sites for the
coat protein gene of plum pox virus are agricultural. In the unlikely
event that the C5 plum expresses any viral coat protein, oral exposure
from ingestion of fresh or processed fruit could occur, but as
discussed in Unit. III.E., the protein would not be expected to cause
any adverse reactions.

V. Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found the coat protein of plum pox virus to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and the coat
protein of plum pox virus does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that the coat protein of plum pox virus does
not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the
available information about consumption patterns among infants and
children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide
chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children
of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA
determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants
and children.
    Based on its review and consideration of all of the data and other
information submitted by the petitioner discussed in Unit III., in
addition to its previous knowledge of plant viruses and plant virus
coat proteins discussed in Unit III.E., EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the United States
population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus. This includes all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there
is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this conclusion
because the data available on the coat protein of plum pox virus
demonstrate a lack of toxicity and pathogenicity. Plum pox Potyvirus
(including the coat protein of plum pox virus) is not known to produce
any recognized toxins, novel proteins, antinutrients, virulence
factors, or enzymes normally associated with pathogen invasiveness or
toxicity in mammals. Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern
and, as a result, the Agency has concluded that the additional tenfold
margin of safety for infants and children is unnecessary in this
instance.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
     The Codex has not established a MRL for the coat protein of plum
pox virus.

VIII. Conclusions

     The Agency concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to the United States population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to residues of the coat protein of
plum pox virus. Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of
the coat protein of plum pox virus in or on the food commodities of
fruit, stone, Group 12; and almond.

 IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section
408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 7, 2010.
Steven Bradbury,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 174.531 is added to subpart W to read as follows:

Sec. 174.531  Coat protein of plum pox virus; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of the coat protein of plum pox virus in or on the food
commodities of fruit, stone, Group 12; and almond, are exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance in these food commodities when expressed by
the plant-incorporated protectant, coat protein gene of plum pox virus,
and used in accordance with good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2010-12579 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21742-21746]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07491]

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

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

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.

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.

    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

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