[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40757-40765]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved
Information Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping System
Program

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 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. On August 27, 2015, (79 FR
44246), PHMSA published a notice and request for comments in the
Federal Register titled: ``Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a
Previously Approved Information Collection: National Pipeline Mapping
System (NPMS) Program (OMB Control No. 2137-0596),'' seeking comments
on proposed changes to the NPMS data collection. During the comment
period, which was extended until November 25, 2015, PHMSA received many
comments on ways to improve this data collection. We are publishing
this notice to address the comments received and to announce our
proposed path forward.

DATES: Written comments on this information collection should be
submitted by July 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please send comments regarding this information collection
request, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB,
Attention: Desk Officer for PHMSA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nelson, GIS Manager, Program
Development Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Modified or Dropped Attributes
    A. Positional Accuracy
    B. Highest Percent Operating Specified Minimum Yield Strength
    C. Decade of Installation
    D. Year of Last Corrosion, Dent, Crack, and Other ILI
Inspections
    E. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection
    F. Type of Coating
    G. Year of Original Pressure Test and Its Pressure
    H. Year of Last Pressure Test and Its Pressure
    I. Gas Storage Fields
III. Retained Attributes
    A. Pipe Diameter
    B. Wall Thickness
    C. Commodity Detail
    D. Pipe Material
    E. Pipe Grade
    F. Pipe Join Method
    G. Seam Type
    H. Onshore/Offshore
    I. Inline Inspection (Yes/No)
    J. Class Location
    K. Gas HCA Segment
    L. Segment Could Affect a High Consequence Area
    M. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number
    N. Abandoned Pipelines
    O. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/Maximum Operating
Pressure
    P. Pump and Compressor Stations
    Q. Mainline Block Valves
    R. Breakout Tanks
    S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes
IV. General Comments
    A. Reporting
    B. Burden
    C. Legality
    D. Data Security
    E. Industry Counter-Proposals
    F. Mandates and Recommendations
    G. Definitions
V. Timeline for Collection of New Data Elements
    A. Phase 1 Data Elements
    B. Phase 2 Data Elements
    C. Phase 3 Data Elements
VI. Summary of Impacted Collection

I. Background

    On July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246) PHMSA published a notice and
request for comments in the Federal Register titled: ``Pipeline Safety:
Request for Revision of a Previously Approved Information Collection:
National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Program (OMB Control No. 2137-
0596)'' seeking comments on proposed changes to the NPMS data
collection. Within this notice, PHMSA laid out its intentions to revise
the currently approved NPMS data collection to expand the data
attributes collected and to improve the positional accuracy of NPMS
submissions. On November 17, 2014, (79 FR 65295), PHMSA held a public
meeting to grant the public an opportunity to learn more about PHMSA's
proposal, to ask pertinent questions about the collection, and to offer
suggestions regarding the path forward. Details about the meeting,
including copies of the meeting's presentation files, can be found at:
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=101. PHMSA
encouraged participants of the meeting to submit comments on the
proposed attributes to docket PHMSA-2014-0092. During the 60-day
comment period, PHMSA received input from 28 different commenters
comprised of pipeline operators, industry and interest groups, and the
general public.
    On August 27, 2015, (80 FR 52084) PHMSA published another notice in
the Federal Register to address the many comments received and to
request additional comments on the revised path forward. During this
subsequent comment period, PHMSA received feedback and several
suggestions on how to improve the quality and efficiency of this
information collection. Commenters included:

AGA--American Gas Association
APGA--American Public Gas Association
API/AOPL--American Petroleum Institute/Association of Oil Pipelines
CPL--Chevron Pipeline Company
DOMAC--Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC
ETP--Energy Transfer Partners
GPA--Gas Processors Association
INGAA
John Russell
Lilah Haxton
MidAmerican Energy Company
Molly Wolf
NiSource Inc.
Northern Natural Gas Company
PST--Pipeline Safety Trust
SEP--Spectra Energy Partners
Southwest Gas Association
Tim Ligon
TPA--Texas Pipeline Association
TRANSCANADA CORP

    A public meeting was also held on September 10, 2015, (80 FR 52084)
and a technical workshop on November 25, 2015, (80 FR 65286). The
purpose of the second public meeting and the technical workshop was to
grant the public further opportunities to learn about PHMSA's proposal,
to ask pertinent questions about the collection, and to offer
suggestions regarding the path forward. Details about the second public
meeting and the public workshop can be found at: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=106.
    PHMSA is publishing this notice to address and respond to the
comments received. Please note that technical details pertaining to the
new data elements such as domains and reporting requirements for each
attribute can be found in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, (30-Day
Notice Version), which is attached to the docket.
    The data being requested is the first substantial update to NPMS
submission requirements since the NPMS standards were developed in
1998. The NPMS is

PHMSA's only dataset which tracks where pipe characteristics occur,
instead of how much/how many of those characteristics are in PHMSA's
regulated pipelines. PHMSA seeks to reduce duplication and will
consider the impact on the tabular data submitted through the annual
reports once the data elements described in this notice are being
collected. In PHMSA's last Congressional reauthorization, Section
60132(a) stated that PHMSA has the power to collect ``any other
geospatial or technical data, including design and material
specifications, which the Secretary determines are necessary to carry
out the purposes of this section. The Secretary shall give reasonable
notice to operators that the data are being requested.'' The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendation P-11-8 states that
PHMSA should ``require operators of natural gas transmission and
distribution pipelines and hazardous liquid pipelines to provide
system-specific information about their pipeline systems to the
emergency response agencies of the communities and jurisdictions in
which those pipelines are located. This information should include pipe
diameter, operating pressure, product transported, and potential impact
radius.'' Other NTSB recommendations are in section 4F with the
attributes they address.
    Specifically, the new data elements will:
     Aid the industry and all levels of government, from
Federal to municipal, in promoting public awareness of hazardous liquid
and gas pipelines and in improving emergency responder outreach.
Currently, 787 Federal officials, 1,208 state officials and 4,791
county officials have access to the online mapping application.
Providing these officials with an improved NPMS, containing system-
specific information about local pipeline facilities, can help ensure
emergency response agencies and communities are better prepared and can
better execute response operations during incidents.
     Permit more powerful and accurate tabular and geospatial
analysis, which will strengthen PHMSA's ability to evaluate existing
and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or
procedures.
     Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
     Allow for more effective assistance to emergency
responders by providing them with a more reliable, complete dataset of
pipelines and facilities.
     Provide better support to PHMSA's inspectors by providing
more accurate pipeline locations and additional pipeline-related
geospatial data that can be linked to tabular data in PHMSA's
inspection database.
     Better support PHMSA's research and development programs
by helping to predict the impact of new technology on regulated
pipelines.

II. Modified or Dropped Attributes

    PHMSA received wide-ranging comments that provided various points
of view on the proposed attributes and the effect the collection of
this data would have on the pipeline safety program, the pipeline
industry, and the general public. After much consideration, PHMSA will
modify or drop the following attributes, standards or components at
this time: Positional accuracy, Highest percent operating Specified
Maximum Yield Strength, Decade of Installation, Year of last corrosion,
dent, crack, and other ILI inspections, Coated/uncoated and cathodic
protection, Type of coating, Year of original pressure test and its
pressure, Year of last pressure test and its pressure, and Gas Storage
Fields. PHMSA reserves the right to reconsider these attributes in the
future. Complete details on all of the attributes, (such as format,
choices, and whether it is a required attribute), can be found in
Appendix A of the draft NPMS Operator Standards Manual, which is
attached to the docket.

A. Positional Accuracy

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. In the
2015 notice, PHMSA proposed that hazardous liquid pipeline operators
submit data with a positional accuracy of +/- 50 feet. Gas transmission
operators would be required to submit data at +/- 50 feet accuracy for
all segments which are in a Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 area; are
within a HCA or have one or more buildings intended for human
occupancy; an identified site (See Sec.  192.903); a right-of-way for a
designated interstate; freeway, expressway, or other principal 4-lane
arterial roadway as defined in the Federal Highway Administration's
``Highway Functional Classification Concepts'' within its potential
impact radius. All other gas pipeline segments were requested to be
mapped to a positional accuracy of +/- 100 feet. Multiple commenters
noted that the reference GIS layer supplied to determine the ``right-
of-way for a designated interstate; freeway, expressway, or other
principal 4-lane arterial roadway as defined in the Federal Highway
Administration's `Highway Functional Classification Concepts' within
its potential impact radius'' was spatially inaccurate and could not be
relied upon to definitively designate the right-of-way. PHMSA conducted
a close examination of the reference layer and came to the same
conclusion. Therefore, the positional accuracy definition is modified
to read as follows:

    Hazardous liquid pipeline operators must submit data with a
positional accuracy of +/- 50 feet. Gas transmission operators must
submit data at +/- 50 feet accuracy for all segments which are in a
Class 2, Class 3, or Class 4 area; are within a HCA or have one or
more buildings intended for human occupancy or an identified site,
(See Sec.  192.903), within its potential impact radius. All other
gas pipeline segments must be mapped to a positional accuracy of +/-
100 feet.

    Furthermore, multiple commenters requested more time to comply with
the new positional accuracy standard. They noted that the most
efficient and low-cost method of bringing their data into the new
standard is to update centerlines during scheduled in-line inspection
(ILI) runs. Commenters from INGAA requested a deadline of 2023 for
complying with the new standard. API commenters requested several years
to comply, and AGA also requested a seven-year period to bring 100% of
pipelines into the proposed accuracy standard. PHMSA seeks to reduce
the burden on operators to comply with this standard, and therefore
requires all pipelines submitted to the NPMS have the stated new
positional accuracy by the operator's 2024 submission (reflecting data
as of 12/31/2023). Operators may submit their centerlines with the new
accuracy standard earlier if some or all of their centerlines have been
brought into the new standard. To clarify, part of an operator's yearly
submission prior to 2024 may comply with the new 50/100 foot standard,
while part retains the current 500 foot standard.

B. Highest Percent Operating Specified Maximum Yield Strength

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice, which
defined this data element as ``hoop stress corresponding to the maximum
operating pressure (MOP) or maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP)
as a percentage of Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS). Report with
up to one decimal place.'' Commenters argued that PHMSA can calculate
this data element with the MAOP/MOP attribute plus pipe grade. However,
this is not true in all cases. Where the

allowable operating pressure differs from the actual operating
pressure, or when the pipe is of unknown or unlisted specification,
percent SMYS cannot be calculated. This data element is valuable to
PHMSA as it helps show where the pipe material is stressed. PHMSA has a
need to see where this attribute changes from year to year to help with
risk ranking and inspection planning. This attribute will be changed to
the following: Percent SMYS: Hoop stress corresponding to the maximum
operating pressure (MOP) or maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP)
as a percentage of SMYS. Choose one of the following categories: L20 =
<20%; L30 = >=20% and <30%; L40 = >=30% and <40%; L50 = >=40% and <50%;
L60 = >=50% and <60%; L72 = >=60% and <72%; L80 = >=72% and <80%; G80 =
>80%. Also, note that this new data element will eliminate the need for
the ``low-stress'' existing data element. ``Low-stress'' will be
removed from NPMS submissions. This information when contained in the
NPMS system is considered Sensitive Security Information (SSI) per
PHMSA's consultations with the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA).

C. Decade of Installation

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. PHMSA
asked operators to submit the ``predominant'' decade of installation on
a pipe segment, signifying 90% or more of the physical pipe represented
by the segment. In the comments and in the NPMS Operator Workshop held
on November 18, 2015, operators explained that the burden would be
lower if they could submit actual values, not predominant values. PHMSA
is modifying this attribute to be defined as either actual or
predominant, (90% or more of the represented segment), decade of
installation.

D. Year of Last Corrosion, Dent, Crack, and Other ILI Inspections

    These data elements will be modified from the 2015 notice.
Commenters expressed concern about how this element would be used. If a
null value was entered because a corrosion/dent/crack/other ILI
inspection was not required by regulation, it would be misleading for
PHMSA and its partners to view that segment as having increased risk.
In order to reduce the burden on operators and accurately evaluate a
pipe's condition and risk, PHMSA will create a new attribute which
streamlines the information in this data element and in the pressure
test elements (see sections H and I). The new elements are as follows:
(1) Assessment method for the most recent assessment: ILI = Inline
Inspection, DIR = Direct Assessment Method, or PT = Hydrostatic
Pressure Test). (2) Assessment Year: 4-digit year of last assessment.
These elements are mandatory submissions for pipeline segments that
must be assessed per Sec. Sec.  192 and 195. As described in the NPMS
Operator Standards Manual, operators can indicate whether a segment is
exempt from assessment, and if more than one assessment method was
performed concurrently the last time the segment was assessed, an
operator may indicate that in the additional assessment method fields,
which are optional.

E. Coated/Uncoated and Cathodic Protection

    These data elements will be modified from the 2015 notice. In that
notice, PHMSA proposed two related data elements: Coated/uncoated pipe
and type of coating. The operator was asked to identify whether the
pipe was ``effectively'' cathodic protection (CP) coated steel, no CP
coated steel, CP bare steel, no CP bare steel, or plastic. INGAA
requested that this attribute be changed to a yes/no choice to reduce
the burden on operators. PHMSA agrees that a yes/no choice is
sufficient for its internal needs and for the needs of its
stakeholders. Furthermore, PHMSA will remove the word ``effectively''
from the definition. The new data element is as follows: Whether the
pipe is coated (yes/no).

F. Type of Coating

    As explained in section F above, this data element will be dropped.
Submitting the type of coating increases the burden on operators and
PHMSA has determined that this data element is not necessary to serve
its internal needs and those of its stakeholders.

G. Year of Original Pressure Test and Its Pressure

    This data element will be dropped. As explained in section E, the
pressure test and ILI inspection elements are being rolled up into the
new Assessment Method element. The original pressure test and its
pressure will no longer be required. If the original pressure test was
the only assessment performed, it will be submitted as the Assessment
Method and its year will be noted in the Assessment Year field.
Operators will not be required to research the original pressure test
otherwise.

H. Year of Last Pressure Test and Its Pressure

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. As
explained in section E, the pressure test and ILI inspection elements
are being rolled up into the new Assessment Method element. The
requirement to always submit the year of the last pressure test has
been removed; however, if the method of assessment was a pressure test,
the year of the test is required in the Assessment Year field.

I. Gas Storage Fields

    This data element will be modified from the 2015 notice. Commenters
(Transcanada and Texas Pipeline Association) opposed this data element.
AGA requested that the choices for field type be changed to aboveground
tanks, underground cavern, depleted reservoir, or aquifer storage.
PHMSA accepts the proposal to change the storage field types per AGA's
request, but will also include a choice for injection wells. The new
choices are noted in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, Appendix A4.
Note that this element when contained in the NPMS system is considered
SSI per PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

III. Retained Attributes

    After careful consideration of the comments received, along with
the agency's pipeline safety goals, PHMSA has decided to move forward
with the proposal to collect geospatial data on the following pipeline
attributes with no substantial modifications.

A. Pipe Diameter

    PHMSA originally proposed requiring operators to submit data on the
nominal diameter, also called the nominal pipe size of a pipe segment.
Knowing the diameter of a pipeline can help emergency responders
determine the impact area of a pipeline in the event of a release. This
attribute also gives PHMSA the opportunity to gain a broader
understanding of the sizes of pipe being operated in any given
geographic region, and to further assess potential impacts to public
safety and the environment.
    PHMSA received eighteen comments in support of including mandatory
reporting of pipe diameter in the information collection. This included
industry associations such as INGAA, AGA, API, and AOPL, public
interest groups, and individual operators. Most concerns centered on
clarification regarding whether PHMSA was requesting nominal pipe size
or actual diameter. Nominal pipe size will be collected.

    PHMSA proposes to move forward with this attribute as originally
proposed. To clarify and be consistent with other reporting methods,
diameter will be reported as the Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) of the pipe
segment, which is the diameter in whole number inches, (except for pipe
less than 5''), used to describe the pipe size, (e.g., 8\5/8\'' outside
diameter pipe has a nominal pipe size of 8). Decimals are not accepted
for this measure (except for pipe with an outside diameter less than
5''). The primary benefit for incorporating this attribute is that a
larger pipe may pose a greater hazard during a rupture. Knowing the
location of large lines in relation to populated areas will help PHMSA
effectively prioritize inspections and emergency response planning.

B. Wall Thickness

    PHMSA originally proposed to collect data on the nominal wall
thickness of a pipe. PHMSA intends to collect this information as
originally proposed. Comments received on the last information
collection revision include support from Spectra Energy Partners and
Transcanada Corporation. AGA opposed collection of wall thickness,
claiming it can be derived from SMYS. However, this is not possible
when the pipe is of unknown or unlisted specification. Texas Pipeline
Association asked that an ``unknown'' option be added due to data gaps
for pre-1970 pipe. PHMSA will add an ``unknown'' option. API asked
whether wall thickness would be required for grandfathered natural gas
pipelines, and whether the lowest wall thickness per diameter could be
submitted. In this case, operators should choose the lowest wall
thickness value for that MAOP/MOP section. Otherwise, operators should
submit actual wall thickness values. PHMSA intends to collect this
information as originally proposed. For clarification, PHMSA is
requesting the nominal wall thickness. PHMSA analysts and inspectors
identified this as a fundamental piece of descriptive information for
pipeline risk. This information is especially critical for determining
the relative risk of corrosion.

C. Commodity Detail

    PHMSA proposed operators submit commodity details for pipelines if
the transported commodity is crude oil, product or natural gas, and
subcategories of each. The list of commodity choices is available in
the NPMS Operator Standards Manual (Appendix A). Other choices may be
added as the need arises. During the last comment period, supporters of
collecting commodity detail included AGA, INGAA, Southwest Gas
Association, and Texas Pipeline Association. API/AOPL noted that the
specific commodity can change on a daily basis, which could be
misleading for emergency responders. PHMSA understands this is the case
with many pipelines, and provides three fields, (CMDTY_DTL1,
CMDTY_DTL2, and CMDTY_DTL3), to represent up to three specific
commodities. The fields COMMODITY and CMDTY_DTL1 should represent the
commodity in the pipe on 12/31 of the previous year.
    PHMSA will move forward with this collection. This level of detail
is required because of potential differences in leak characteristics,
rupture-impacted hazardous areas and a pipeline's internal integrity.
Emergency responders will also be able to better respond to pipeline
incidents if they are prepared for the commodity which is likely being
transported.

D. Pipe Material

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit data on pipe
material. Operators will be required to submit data on whether a
segment was constructed out of cast iron, plastic, steel, composite, or
other material. PHMSA received no opposition from commentators.
    PHMSA proposes to move forward with this collection as originally
introduced. Knowing the pipe material helps PHMSA determine the level
of potential risk from excavation damage and external environmental
loads. These can also be factors in emergency response planning.

E. Pipe Grade

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators submit information on the
predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. AGA believed this
attribute was redundant because percentage of SMYS captured the risk
from pipe grade. Spectra asked that PHMSA collect this information as
actual, not predominant, values. This information is essential in
issues regarding pipe integrity, and is a necessary component in
determining the allowable operating pressure of a pipeline. The list of
pipe grades is available in the NPMS Operator Standards (Appendix A).
Operators are welcome to submit either actual or predominant (90% of
pipe segment) values.

F. Pipe Join Method

    PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the pipe join method.
Operators will indicate whether pipes within the segment were welded,
coupled, screwed, flanged, used plastic pipe joints, or other.
    AGA asked that an option be added to submit the predominant value
for this data. TransCanada opposed collecting this attribute. The Texas
Pipeline Association and commenter Molly Wolf asked that an ``unknown''
choice be added. PHMSA will include the requested ``unknown'' choice.
PHMSA analysts and inspectors would use this information to identify
high-risk joining methods and will be used in PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations. These models are used to determine pipeline inspection
priority and frequency.

G. Seam Type

    PHMSA proposed operators submit data on the seam type of each pipe
segment. Options include: SMLS = Seamless, LFERW = Low frequency or
direct current electric resistance welded, HFERW = High frequency
electric resistance welded, UNKERW = Electric resistance welded with
unknown frequency (possible if made around 1970), DSAW = Double side
submerged arc weld, SSAW = Single side submerged arc weld, SPRSAW =
Spiral single side submerged arc weld, EFW = Flash weld, LAPW = Lap
weld, FBW = Furnace butt weld, PLAS = Plastic or OTHER = Other unlisted
seam type, UNK = Unknown seam type.
    Spectra Energy Partners supported inclusion of this attribute.
TransCanada opposed collection, and commenter Molly Wolf recommended
adding an ``unknown'' option.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information with the possibility of
limiting it to Classes 3, 4, and HCAs. An ``unknown'' option has been
added. This information is used to determine which type of integrity
management inspection assessment should apply, is important for risk
analysis due to certain time-dependent risky seam types (e.g. LFERW),
and is used to confirm MAOP/MOP.

H. Onshore/Offshore

    PHMSA proposes operators designate whether a pipe segment is
onshore or offshore.
    Spectra Energy Partners and TransCanada were supportive of
collecting this attribute and asked that PHMSA issue a clear definition
of ``offshore.''
    PHMSA will move forward with this attribute as originally proposed.
PHMSA directs operators to the definition of an offshore pipeline found
in Sec. Sec.  191.3 and 195.2: ``Offshore means beyond the line of
ordinary low water along that portion of the coast of the United States
that is

in direct contact with the open seas and beyond the line marking the
seaward limit of inland waters.'' Frequently, comparisons between the
NPMS (PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage statistics and operator-
generated annual report offshore mileage statistics do not match. This
collection will allow PHMSA to standardize and compare the statistics
for regulatory purposes.

I. Inline Inspection (Yes/No)

    PHMSA originally proposed that operators indicate whether their
system is capable of accommodating an ILI tool. INGAA, Spectra Energy
Partners, and Transcanada supported collection of this attribute. AGA
opposed collection. APGA asked that PHMSA clarify it was not requiring
operators of transmission pipelines to make modifications to pipelines
to accommodate ILI tools. A comment from the November 2015 Operator
Workshop was to make this attribute predominant.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed.
This attribute is not collected on a predominant basis on the Annual
Reports, so PHMSA will not accept this attribute on a predominant basis
on the NPMS submission. For the purpose of this information collection,
this attribute denotes whether a line is capable of accepting an inline
inspection tool with currently available technology. There is no
attached mandate to modify the pipeline so that it can accommodate ILI
tools. ILI information is useful for tracking progress related to NTSB
recommendations P-15-18 and P-15-20 which recommend that all natural
gas transmission pipelines be capable of being in-line inspected and
that PHMSA ``identify all operational complications that limit the use
of in-line inspection tools in piggable pipelines.''

J. Class Location

    Operators of gas transmission pipeline segments will be required to
submit information on class location (Sec.  192.5) at the segment
level.
    PHMSA received four comments on this attribute (from AGA, Southwest
Gas Association, Spectra Energy Partners, and Texas Pipeline
Association) which were generally positive.
    PHMSA intends to collect this information as originally proposed.
This information is a critical measure of population risk, and is
necessary to ensure that integrity management rules are properly
applied to high-risk areas. Survey requirements vary based on class
location, and this data is valuable for prioritizing, planning, and
conducting inspections.

K. Gas HCA Segment

    PHMSA proposed gas transmission operators identify HCA pipe
segments as defined by Sec.  192.903. AGA, INGAA, Southwest Gas
Association, Spectra Energy Partners, Transcanada, and Texas Pipeline
Association supported collecting data regarding Gas HCAs.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with the Gas HCA segment attribute as
originally proposed. This information will help emergency responders
identify pipelines with greater potential for significant damage.
Additionally, these attributes identify pipelines subject to integrity
management procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority to map
high-consequence assets under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d). Gas operators are
only expected to submit information on whether or not that segment is
an HCA segment as defined in Sec.  192.903.

L. Segment Could Affect a High Consequence Area (HCA)

    PHMSA proposed hazardous liquid operators identify pipe segments
which could affect HCAs as defined by Sec.  195.450. Pipe segments can
be classified as affecting or not affecting each of the following: a
``highly populated area,'' an ``other populated area,'' an Ecological
Unusually Sensitive Area (USA), a Drinking Water USA, and a
Commercially Navigable Waterway. See Appendix A of the NPMS Operator
Standards for definitions. Spectra Energy Partners and the Texas
Pipeline Association supported this attribute, while Transcanada
opposed it.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with the ``could affect HCA''
attributes as originally proposed, noting that it only applies to
hazardous liquid pipeline segments. This information will help
emergency response planners identify pipelines with greater potential
for significant damage. Additionally it identifies pipelines subject to
integrity management procedures. PHMSA has explicit statutory authority
to map high-consequence assets under 49 U.S.C. 60132(d), and NTSB
recommendation P-15-5 states that PHMSA should ``revise the submission
requirement to include HCA identification as an attribute data element
to the National Pipeline Mapping System.'' This information will be
secured by limiting access to government officials to mitigate
potential security risks. Because of its unique sensitivity, the
Drinking Water USAs when contained in NPMSA are considered SSI per
PHMSA's consultations with TSA. See Section 4.D for additional details
on security levels for each attribute.

M. Facility Response Plan Sequence Number, if Applicable

    PHMSA proposed operators submit the Facility Response Plan sequence
number for applicable liquid pipeline segments according to Part 194.
This is a 4 digit number (i.e., 0003) that is assigned by PHMSA and
provided to the operator in the Letter of Approval for the submitted
facility response plan. PHMSA will not collect the Control Number
attribute because it is no longer used to identify a FRP. There was no
significant commenter opposition to collecting this information.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally
proposed. Access to the relevant facility response plan sequence number
through NPMS would be beneficial to first responders in an emergency
situation, especially in areas with multiple pipeline facilities.
Furthermore, this would greatly reduce the workload of regional offices
and even operators tasked with ensuring compliance with response plan
regulations. Mapping the FRP sequence numbers allows PHMSA and its
partners to identify gaps in compliance, assists with facility response
plan reviews and approvals, and enables PHMSA to determine the
applicable FRP for any given pipe in the NPMS. Since applicable liquid
operators are required to have this information, PHMSA believes it
should be minimally burdensome to submit it.

N. Abandoned Pipelines

    PHMSA proposed that all gas transmission and hazardous liquid
pipelines abandoned after the effective date of this information
collection be mandatory submissions to the NPMS. Abandoned pipelines
are defined as those that are ``permanently removed from service''
according to Sec. Sec.  192.3 and 195.2. Abandoned lines are not
currently required to be submitted to the NPMS unless they are offshore
or cross a Commercially Navigable Waterway (note that these two types
of abandoned lines also require a certification of abandonment).
Operators would only need to submit this data in the calendar year
after the abandonment occurs. This data element will be submitted by
marking the pipe segment with a ``B'' in the STATUS_CD field,
symbolizing abandonment.
    AGA and Spectra Energy Partners supported the inclusion of this
attribute for newly abandoned lines only. The GPA opposed collection,
citing concerns over retaining records for which pipeline operators are
no longer responsible. In response, PHMSA notes its Letter of
Interpretation PI-08-0003

states abandoned facilities are still subject to PHMSA jurisdiction,
even if they are no longer subject to certain PHMSA regulations. Also,
49 CFR 192.727(g)(1) and 195.59(a) already allow for PHMSA to collect
information regarding certain abandoned facilities as part of the NPMS.
Last, as noted above, data regarding abandoned facilities collected
under this information collection is only required to be submitted in
the first calendar year after the abandonment occurs.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally
proposed. This information is important for PHMSA inspections,
particularly to enforce proper abandonment procedures. PHMSA inspectors
have identified incidents in the past involving lines which had been
mischaracterized as abandoned (i.e. still containing a commodity).
Additionally, there is a high level of public interest in this
information. Since operators are already required to map their lines,
PHMSA believes that identifying recently abandoned segments is not
exceedingly burdensome.

O. Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure/Maximum Operating Pressure

    PHMSA proposed that operators submit the maximum MAOP or MOP for a
pipeline segment in pounds per square inch gauge.
    PHMSA received comments in support of including this attribute from
Spectra Energy Partners and Transcanada. AGA, Texas Pipeline
Association, and an individual commenter opposed collection of this
attribute. AGA noted that, combined with the Highest Percent Operating
SMYS attribute, this attribute would increase the burden on operators.
Texas Pipeline Association noted that, without full knowledge of how
the MAOP/MOP was established, this attribute could lead to faulty
conclusions in assessing risk. PHMSA intends to collect this
information. While superficially similar to percent SMYS, MAOP/MOP is
not identical and captures different elements of pipeline risk.
Specifically, PHMSA inspectors identified it as an important element
for incident analysis. MAOP/MOP helps enforce pressure levels between
segments which are rated for different pressures. PHMSA engineers
further noted that it is useful for determining the potential impact
radius. This information when contained in the NPMS system is
considered SSI per PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

P. Pump and Compressor Stations

    PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial point file containing
the centroid of the dedicated property location of pump (for liquid
operators) and compressor (for gas transmission operators) stations.
Appendix A2 in the NPMS Operator Standards contains technical details
on submitting this information. API/AOPL, TransCanada, and the American
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers opposed this data collection due
to security concerns.
    PHMSA intends to move forward with this attribute as originally
proposed. Pump and compressor stations are vulnerable areas, and
emergency responders and planners need to know their locations for
adequate emergency planning. Proximity to a compressor station has also
been known to influence the level of stress on nearby segments, making
this information valuable for prioritizing inspection resources.
Additionally, the stations are often referenced as inspection
boundaries for PHMSA's inspectors. Regarding security concerns, this
information when contained in the NPMS system is considered SSI per
PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

Q. Mainline Block Valves

    PHMSA will collect mainline block valve locations and associated
attributes as described in the NPMS Operator Standards Manual, Appendix
A3. Valve location can assist emergency responders when working with
pipeline operators during an emergency, and it is useful to PHMSA
inspectors and partners to identify vulnerable points along a pipeline.
Commenters AGA, Transcanada, Texas Pipeline Association, and Energy
Transfer Partners opposed collecting this attribute, citing the
sensitivity of the data as a concern. AGA proposed that only emergency
valve locations be collected. PHMSA agrees that this dataset is
sensitive and is considered SSI per PHMSA's consultations with TSA.

R. Breakout Tanks

    PHMSA proposed to require the submission of breakout tank data.
This is currently an optional submission; this revision would make it
mandatory. PHMSA received positive comments from Texas Pipeline
Association and Spectra Energy Partners. TransCanada opposed collection
of this attribute.
    PHMSA intends to proceed with this attribute as originally
proposed. As detailed in Appendix A8 of the NPMS Operator Standards
Manual, this information will be stored as a point for each tank.
Please note that the operator contact information that was previously
collected in optional breakout tank submissions has been removed, as it
is already collected in the operator's transmittal letter which
accompanies his/her submission. As well, the commodity codes and
revision codes have been updated to match annual report codes and
existing NPMS codes, and a clarifying note has been added to the
TANKSIZE attribute. The breakout tank data helps inspectors locate
individual tanks because a tank farm may contain both breakout tanks
and other tanks.

S. Additional Liquefied Natural Gas Plant Attributes and Features

    PHMSA proposed to collect additional data attributes and features
for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants used in or affecting interstate
commerce (under PHMSA's jurisdiction). The new attributes include type
of plant, year constructed and capacity; the new features are
impoundments and exclusion zones. PHMSA received positive comments from
Texas Pipeline Association and Spectra Energy Partners. Appendices A5-
A7 of the NPMS Operator Standards Manual contain technical details on
submitting.
    PHMSA intends to proceed with this information as originally
proposed. The new LNG attributes and features will be protected by
limiting access to government officials.
    Geospatial information on the location and characteristics of LNG
plants helps PHMSA and emergency responder better understand potential
safety risks on a national and local level, respectively, and provides
location data which is not submitted on the Annual Report.

IV. General Comments

A. Reporting

    INGAA, API/AOPL, AGA, and GPA submitted comments indicating that
some of the proposed attributes appear to be duplicative of information
that PHMSA already collects, especially from the annual reports. PHMSA
acknowledges that some of the proposed attributes are also collected on
the annual report forms. Over time, PHMSA has noticed that there are
often discrepancies between the data submitted to the NPMS and the data
that is recorded in the annual reports. Data quality is a top priority
to PHMSA and its stakeholders. PHMSA plans to use to the geospatial
data to corroborate and to fill in any holes that exist in the data
collected via the annual reports.

B. Burden

    A number of operators commented highlighting the expected burden of
the proposed revisions to the information collection. Comments
submitted by INGAA, API TPA, Ameren, and MidAmerican claimed that PHMSA
greatly underestimated the expected burden of this revision. AGA,
Ameren Illinois, Laclede Gas Co. and TransCanada noted that a high
regulatory burden could divert resources from other safety initiatives
such as integrity management and infrastructure replacement activities.
Intermountain, Avista, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois, Southwest Gas,
AGA, and INGAA noted that many of the proposed changes were beyond the
capability of their existing GIS, and would require resources to
upgrade systems and hire individuals to convert non-GIS or paper
records to an appropriate format.
    PHMSA understands the concerns regarding the expected burden of
this collection and proposes operators use a phased-approach to submit
the data requested. PHMSA has agreed to give operators up to seven (7)
years to submit positional accuracy data. We believe this to be the
heaviest of burdens associated with this collection and hope that, by
giving operators more time to plan and allocate resources; this
timeframe reduces the annual associated burden significantly.
    During the comment period, many operators provided a list of
attributes that they would not take objection to sending. PHMSA
believes that operators currently have many of these attributes in
their GIS systems. For this reason, PHMSA requests that these
attributes be submitted during Phase 1 of this information collection.
PHMSA understands that some attributes will require additional layers
of data before they can be extracted and submitted to the NPMS. PHMSA
would not require submission of those particular attributes until Phase
2 of this information collection.

C. Authority

    INGAA, AGA, API/AOPL, and CenterPoint Energy submitted comments
suggesting that certain aspects of the proposal exceed what is
considered acceptable for an information collection regulated under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and that it should have been considered as a
rulemaking. These comments were received in response to the public
notice published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2015, (80 FR
52084).
    The ``Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act
of 2011,'' (the 2011 Act) (Public Law No: 112-90), was enacted ``to
provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline
transportation,'' and ``to provide for enhanced reliability in the
transportation of the Nation's energy products by pipeline.'' To
facilitate this goal of providing for enhanced safety of transporting
energy products via pipeline, Section 11 of the 2011 Act amended 49
U.S.C. 60132, (National pipeline mapping system), to require an
operator of a pipeline facility, (except distribution lines and
gathering lines), to provide to the Secretary of Transportation
particular information including, ``any other geospatial or technical
data, including design and material specifications, that the Secretary
determines are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. The
Secretary shall give reasonable notice to operators that the data are
being requested.'' 49 U.S.C. 60132(a)(4).
    Therefore, under Sec.  60132, PHMSA has the authority as delegated
from the Secretary, to request submission of this data as an
information collection pursuant to the procedural requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and a rulemaking
under the Administrative Procedure Act is not required, so long as
reasonable notice is given.
    With regard to the statutory requirement to provide reasonable
notice to operators that the data are being requested, PHMSA issued two
information collection notices in the Federal Register providing 60-day
comment periods each on July 30, 2014, (79 FR 44246), and August 27,
2015 (80 FR 52084) respectively, issued notices extending the comment
periods for these, held a public meeting on November 17, 2014, (79 FR
65295), September 10, 2015, (80 FR 52084), and a technical workshop on
November 25, 2015 (80 FR 65286), (information about the November 25,
2015 public workshop can be found at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=107). Therefore, PHMSA has provided a number
of advance notifications and opportunities to provide comments.
    API/AOPL further commented that the NPMS is intended for public
awareness, rather than for other roles such as risk management. Section
60132(d) requires the Secretary to maintain as part of NPMS a map of
designated high-consequence areas in which pipelines are required to
meet integrity management program regulations, therefore implying the
NPMS is to be used for pipeline safety purposes beyond public awareness
and emergency response. In addition to public awareness and information
to improve emergency response capabilities, PHMSA considers this data
as valuable for a number of purposes described in the Background
section of this notice.
    The GPA submitted comments requesting clarification as to the
facilities to which this information collection applies. In response to
these comments, PHMSA states the requirements of this information
collection apply only to facilities subject to 49 CFR parts 192, 193,
and 195.
    The GPA also respectfully suggests that providing information
regarding the location of refineries, processing plants, and treatment
facilities is not within PHMSA's current purview. PHMSA would note that
any facility where natural gas or hazardous liquids arrive and depart
by pipeline are part of the pipeline transportation system. While there
may be equipment on the grounds of such a facility that is unregulated
under Parts 192 or 195, such as storage wells and processing or
treatment equipment, it does not mean that the entire facility is
``non-jurisdictional.'' PHMSA collects information consistent with its
mission to ensure pipeline safety. PHMSA does not collect information
that has no relevance to pipeline and storage operations. With respect
to refineries used in the petroleum industry, they are non-
jurisdictional to PHMSA and we are not proposing to collect information
on refineries except that reporting the location of a particular
pipeline that ends at a refinery necessarily imparts ancillary
information on the location of the refinery. In any event we do not
believe the GPA's members generally include refineries.

D. Data Security

    PHMSA understands that the new data elements have varying degrees
of sensitivity, and that some are highly sensitive when contained in
the NPMS system. PHMSA has discussed the appropriate security
categorization for the new data elements with TSA and has reviewed all
comments regarding security submitted during the two 60-day notice
comment periods.
    The following new data elements when contained in the NPMS system
are considered SSI (Sensitive Security Information). These elements
will be kept in an SSI-compliant environment at PHMSA. PHMSA would only
release this information to covered persons with a need to know the
information, as defined in 49 CFR part 15.

SSI Elements
 Percent SMYS
 MAOP/MOP
 Segment ``could affect'' a Drinking Water USA
 Pump and compressor stations
 Gas storage fields
 Mainline block valves

    The elements in the list below are proposed to be restricted to
government officials by inclusion in the Pipeline Information
Management and Mapping Application (PIMMA), on www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov.
PIMMA is password-protected and available only to government officials
(who may see their area of jurisdiction). All PIMMA users are vetted to
confirm their identity and employment before a password is issued.
Pipeline operators may gain access to PIMMA but they will see only the
pipelines they operate. The elements below may also be provided in
shapefile or geodatabase format to requesting government officials upon
verification of identity and employment, and receipt of a signed letter
consenting to PHMSA's data security policy.
Elements Restricted to Government Officials
 Pipe diameter
 Commodity detail
 Pipe grade
 Seam type
 Decade of installation
 Wall thickness
 Inline inspection (yes/no)
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 Segment ``could affect'' a Highly Populated Area, Other
Populated Area, Ecological USA, or Commercially Navigable Waterway
 Assessment method
 Assessment year
 Coated/uncoated
 FRP sequence number
 The proposed new LNG plant attributes (type of plant, total
capacity, year constructed, impoundments, and exclusion zones)
 Breakout tank capacity

    The following elements are proposed to be displayed on the NPMS
Public Viewer, which can be accessed by the general public. The current
extent (one county per session) and zoom level (no closer than
1:24,000) restrictions will remain in place.
Public Viewer Elements
 Pipe material
 Pipe join method
 Onshore/offshore
 Abandoned lines
 LNG plant locations and attributes not listed under the
``elements restricted to government officials'' section
 Breakout tank locations and attributes (excluding capacity)

E. Industry Counter-Proposals

    Industry groups AGA, INGAA, API, and AOPL submitted comments which
included alternative plans for revisions to the NPMS. These plans
included support for a limited number of data elements in the 2015
Federal Register notice. The table below shows the elements supported
by the counter-proposals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Data element                                     Supported in counter-proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diameter......................................  AGA, INGAA, API, AOPL.
Commodity detail..............................  AGA.
Pipe material.................................  AGA, INGAA, API, AOPL.
Highest percent operating SMYS................  AGA.
Decade of installation........................  AGA.
Wall thickness................................  API, AOPL.
Inline inspection (yes/no)....................  INGAA.
Class location................................  AGA.
Gas HCA segment...............................  AGA, INGAA.
Segment ``could affect'' an HCA...............  INGAA.
Coated/uncoated (yes/no only).................  AGA, INGAA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA finds that all sets of attributes proposed by industry groups
are inadequate to meet PHMSA's risk assessment and emergency planning
goals as well as mandates from Congress and recommendations from NTSB.
The next section provides a table showing the new data elements which
will fulfill the recommendations and mandates.

F. Mandates and Recommendations

    In additional to satisfying DOT mission needs, PHMSA mission needs,
PHMSA internal group needs, PHMSA partner needs and PHMSA stakeholder
needs, this Information Collection is gathering geospatial information
which will be used to fulfill Congressional mandates and National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations. These mandates and
recommendations include:
     NTSB 15-4: Increase the positional accuracy of pipeline
centerlines and pipeline attribute details relevant to safety in the
National Pipeline Mapping system.
     NTSB 15-5: Revise the submission requirement to include
high consequence area identification as an attribute data element to
the National Pipeline Mapping System.
     NTSB 15-8: Work with the appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies to develop a national repository of geospatial data
resources for the process for High Consequence Area identification, and
publicize the availability of the repository.
     NTSB 15-22: Develop and implement a plan for all segments
of the pipeline industry to improve data integration for integrity
management through the use of geographic information systems.
     Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation
Act of 2011, Section 11: Any other geospatial or technical data,
including design and material specifications, that the Secretary
determines are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. The
Secretary shall give reasonable notice to operators that the data are
being requested.
    The following table shows the applicable data elements.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Information collection data
     Mandate or recommendation                   element(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB 15-4.........................  Positional accuracy, Diameter,
                                     Commodity detail, SMYS, MAOP/MOP,
                                     Seam type, Decade of installation,
                                     Wall thickness, Pipe join method,
                                     Inline Inspection y/n, Class
                                     location, Gas HCA segment, Segment
                                     ``could affect'' an HCA, Coated/
                                     uncoated.

NTSB 15-5.........................  Class location, Gas HCA segment,
                                     Segment ``could affect'' an HCA.
NTSB 15-8.........................  Class location, Gas HCA segment,
                                     Segment ``could affect'' an HCA.
NTSB 15-22........................  Pipe material, SMYS, MAOP/MOP, Seam
                                     type, Wall thickness, Pipe join
                                     method, Inline Inspection y/n, Year
                                     of last ILI inspection, Coated/
                                     uncoated, Pressure test.
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory         Diameter, Pipe material, SMYS, Seam
 Certainty, and Job Creation Act     type, Wall thickness, Pipe join
 of 2011, Section 11.                method, Inline Inspection y/n.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Definitions

    Several commenters, as well as attendees of the November 2015
Operator Workshop, expressed serious concerns about the use of the word
``predominant.'' These concerns centered on how the usage of
predominant attributes is poorly defined, difficult to verify
compliance with, and risks improper categorization of pipeline risk.
From a technical standpoint, operators indicated it was more difficult
for them to generalize values into a ``predominant'' value than to
submit actual values. For these reasons, submitting a ``predominant''
value will always be optional. Appendix A of the NPMS Operator
Standards details the data elements for which ``predominant'' is an
option.

V. Timeline for Collection of New Data Elements

    PHMSA has heard operators' and industry's concerns regarding the
amount of time needed to compile, research, and/or prepare the data
required for this information collection. PHMSA will collect the new
data elements in three phases. Phase 1 data will be collected the first
submission year after the effective date, Phase 2 data will be
collected the second submission year after the effective date, and
Phase 3 data will be collected in 2024. The data elements in each phase
are listed below:

Phase 1

 Pipe diameter
 Commodity detail
 Pipe material
 Pipe grade
 Wall thickness
 Pipe joining method
 MAOP/MOP
 SMYS
 Seam type
 Onshore/offshore
 Inline inspection (yes/no)
 Class location
 Gas HCA segment
 FRP sequence number
 Abandoned pipelines
 Pump and compressor stations
 Breakout tanks
 LNG plants

Phase 2

 Decade of installation
 Segment could affect an HCA
 Assessment method
 Assessment year
 Coated (yes/no)
 Gas storage fields
 Mainline block valves

Phase 3

 Positional accuracy conforms with new standards (note that
operators are encouraged to submit their centerlines with the new
accuracy standard as the data becomes available)

VI. Summary of Impacted Collection

    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) Frequency of collection, and (8) Estimate of total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden. PHMSA requests comments on the
following information collection:
    Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Expiration Date: 6/30/2016.
    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
    Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution
lines and gathering lines) must provide PHMSA geospatial data for their
pipeline system and contact information. The provided information is
incorporated into NPMS to support various regulatory programs, pipeline
inspections, and authorized external customers. Following the initial
submission of the requested data, the operator must make a new
submission to NPMS if any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and
improve the accuracy of the NPMS's information.
    Respondents: Operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and
liquefied natural gas pipelines.
    Number of Respondents: 1,211.
    Number of Responses: 1,211.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 171,983 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information.
    The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the
request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

    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 June 16, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2016-14712 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


ATTACHMENT B Summary of 8 Hour Ozone Values By Monitor Site COUNTY MONITOR LOCATION 2000 2002 Value 2001 2003 Value Allen Leo H. S. 0.088 0.088 Allen Fort Wayne 0.084 0.085 Boone Whitestown 0.088 0.089 Carroll Flora 0.087* 0.084 Cass ( MI) Cassopolis 0.09 0.093 Clark Charlestown 0.09 0.092 Clark ( IL) West Union 0.08* 0.075 Delaware Albany 0.089* 0.088 Elkhart Bristol 0.073 0.093* Floyd New Albany 0.083 0.086 Gibson Toyota 0.071 0.071 Greene Plummer 0.089 0.089 Hamilton Noblesville H. S. 0.093 0.096 Hancock Fortville 0.092 0.094 Hendricks Avon 0.088 0.085 Huntington Roanoke 0.086 0.084 Jackson Brownstown 0.085 0.085 Johnson Trafalgar 0.087 0.086 Lake Gary IITRI 0.083 0.084 Lake Hammond 0.092 0.09 Lake Lowell 0.079 0.081 LaPorte Michigan City 0.092 0.093 LaPorte LaPorte 0.084 0.087 Madison E. Elementary 0.091 0.095 Marion Mann Rd. 0.084 0.082 Marion Harding St. 0.086 0.085 Marion Fort Benjamin 0.089 0.092 Marion Naval Air Center 0.089 0.089 Morgon Monrovia 0.087 0.085 Porter Ogden Dunes 0.09 0.087 Porter Dunes Lake Shore 0.084 0.086 Porter Valpo 0.086 0.086 Posey St. Phillips 0.087 0.084 Shelby Fairland 0.093 0.094 St. Joseph Granger 0.09 0.093 St. Joseph South Bend 0.087 0.088 St. Joseph Potato Creek 0.083 0.084 Vanderburgh Mill Rd. 0.083 0.083 Vanderburgh Scott School 0.077 0.077 Vigo Terre Haute 0.079 0.077 Vigo Sandcut 0.091* 0.087 Warrick Alcoa 0.084 0.085 Warrick Boonville H. S. 0.08 0.081 Warrick Tecumseh H. S. 0.08 0.081 * Calculation based on two year average 4th high value.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64178-64180]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22375]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2569]

S9 Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals--
Questions and Answers; International Council for Harmonisation; Draft
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance entitled ``S9 Nonclinical
Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals--Questions and Answers.'' The
draft questions and answers (Q&As) guidance was prepared under the
auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly
the International Conference on Harmonisation. The draft Q&As guidance
provides recommendations for nonclinical studies for the development of
pharmaceuticals, including both small molecule and biotechnology-
derived products, intended to treat patients with cancer. The Q&As are
intended to provide additional clarity for topics discussed in the ICH
guidance entitled ``S9 Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer
Pharmaceuticals'' (S9 guidance).

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by November 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://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 http://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): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, 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-2016-D-2569 for ``S9 Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer
Pharmaceuticals--Questions and Answers; International Council for
Harmonisation; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability.'' Received
comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted
as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management 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.'' The Agency 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 http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to 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 this 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: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://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 Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration (CDER), 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling
CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding the guidance: John K.
Leighton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 2204, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Anne M. Pilaro, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 4025, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-8341.
    Regarding the ICH: Amanda Roache, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 1176, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is
committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical
procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of
harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical
requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
    ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization
initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and
industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer
representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of
technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products
for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding
members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation
of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of
Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association; CDER and CBER, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association
include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in
accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for
membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat,
which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an
international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of
the ICH Association.
    The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and
includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers.
    In the Federal Register of March 8, 2010 (75 FR 10487), FDA
announced the availability of the S9 guidance, and that

guidance was a significant advance in promoting anticancer drug
development. Since the S9 guidance was issued, some parties have
experienced challenges implementing the nonclinical recommendations for
developing anticancer pharmaceuticals outlined in that guidance. In
June 2016, the ICH Assembly endorsed the current draft Q&As guidance
entitled ``S9 Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals--
Questions and Answers'' and agreed that the draft Q&As guidance should
be made available for public comment. The draft Q&As guidance is the
product of the Safety Implementation Working Group (IWG) of the ICH.
Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Safety IWG.
    The draft Q&As guidance provides guidance on implementing the S9
guidance. The Q&As were developed by the IWG to provide additional
clarity for the nonclinical development of anticancer pharmaceuticals.
Topics addressed in the draft Q&As guidance include the patient
population covered by the S9 guidance, recovery groups in nonclinical
studies, development of antibody-drug conjugates, juvenile animal
studies, and the need for long-term toxicity studies when
pharmaceutical development moves to patients with earlier stage
diseases.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ``S9
Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals--Questions and
Answers.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: September 12, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-22375 Filed 9-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P