11920 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 

1See Section 4133 of SAFETEA–LU (119 

Stat.1744) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31136). 

VI. Response to Public Comments and 

Agency Decision 

FMCSA has evaluated the public 

comments and issues this final decision 

affirming its provisional decision to 

renew the exemption. To date, the 

Agency has not received any crash 

reports concerning drivers or motor 

carriers operating under MPA’s 

exemption granted in 2018. For this 

reason, the Agency believes that drivers 

and motor carriers operating under this 

exemption would continue to achieve 

an equivalent level of safety. FMCSA 

also notes that Congress has recognized 

the unique aspects of the motion picture 

industry’s operations and has provided 

statutory exceptions from some HOS 

regulations.1

FMCSA acknowledges that, given the 

unique arrangements under which 

drivers in the motion picture industry 

routinely operate for multiple carriers 

over brief periods of time, paper RODS 

may prove more efficient than ELDs. In 

addition, MPA members are required to 

submit their RODS within 24 hours, 

rather than waiting for the 13-day 

period allowed by 49 CFR 

395.8(a)(2)(ii). According to MPA, these 

‘‘RODS are reviewed by a third-party 

auditing company, resulting in 

accelerated reporting of HOS 

compliance and an independent 

assessment of accuracy.’’ FMCSA 

concludes that extending the exemption 

for another five years, under the terms 

and conditions listed below, will likely 

maintain a level of safety that is 

equivalent to, or greater than, the level 

of safety that would be achieved 

without the exemption. 

VII. Exemption Decision 

A. Grant of Exemption 

FMCSA renews the exemption for a 

period of five years subject to the terms 

and conditions of this decision. The 

exemption from the ELD requirement 

under 49 CFR 395.8(a), is effective 

January 19, 2023, through January 19, 

2028, 11:59 p.m. local time, unless 

renewed or rescinded. 

B. Applicability of Exemption 

The exemption allows all CMV 

drivers providing transportation to or 

from a theatrical or television motion 

picture production site to complete 

paper RODS instead of using an ELD. 

C. Terms and Conditions 

When operating under this 

exemption, motor carriers and drivers 

are subject to the following terms and 

conditions: 

1. Motor carriers and drivers must 

comply with all other applicable 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (49 CFR parts 350 through 

399). 

2. Drivers operating under this 

exemption must submit their RODS to 

the motor carrier within 24 hours 

instead of the 13-day period otherwise 

allowed by 49 CFR 395.8(a)(2)(ii). 

3. Drivers must have a copy of this 

notice in their possession while 

operating under the terms of the 

exemption. The exemption document 

must be presented to law enforcement 

officials upon request. 

4. Drivers must not be subject to any 

out-of-service order or suspension of 

their driving privileges; and 

5. Carriers operating under this 

exemption may not have an 

‘‘Unsatisfactory’’ rating with FMCSA or 

be subject to any imminent hazard or 

out-of-service orders. 

D. Preemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 

381.600, during the period this 

exemption is in effect, no State shall 

enforce any law or regulation applicable 

to interstate commerce that conflicts 

with or is inconsistent with this 

exemption with respect to a firm or 

person operating under the exemption. 

States may, but are not required to, 

adopt the same exemption with respect 

to operations in intrastate commerce. 

E. Notification to FMCSA 

Motor carriers operating under this 

exemption must notify FMCSA within 

five business days of any crash (as 

defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any 

of their CMVs operating under the terms 

of the exemption. The notification must 

include the following information: 

1. Identity of Exemption: ‘‘MPA 

2023,’’ 

2. Name and USDOT number of the 

operating motor carrier. 

3. Date of the crash. 

4. City or town, and State, in which 

the accident occurred, or closest to the 

accident scene. 

5. Driver’s name and license number. 

6. Vehicle number and State license 

number. 

7. Number of individuals suffering 

physical injury. 

8. Number of fatalities. 

9. The police-reported cause of the 

crash. 

10. Whether the driver was cited for 

violation of any traffic laws or motor 

carrier safety regulations. 

11. The driver’s total driving time and 

total on-duty time since the last ten (if 

operating under 49 CFR 395.3(a)) or 

eight (if operating under 49 CFR 

395.1(p)) consecutive hours off-duty 

prior to the crash. 

Reports filed under this provision 

shall be emailed to MCPSD@DOT.GOV. 

F. Termination 

Based on the safety record of drivers 

operating under the exemption up to 

this point, FMCSA has no basis to 

believe the drivers covered by this 

renewed exemption will experience any 

deterioration of their safety record. The 

exemption will be rescinded if (1) motor 

carriers and drivers operating under the 

exemption fail to comply with the terms 

and conditions of the exemption; (2) the 

exemption has resulted in a lower level 

of safety than was maintained before it 

was granted; or (3) continuation of the 

exemption would not be consistent with 

the goals and objects of 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315. 

Sue Lawless, 

Acting Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03192 Filed 2–14–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the Mazda Motor Corporation (Mazda) 

petition for exemption from the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard (theft prevention standard) for 

its CX–90 vehicle line beginning in 

model year (MY) 2025. The petition is 

granted because the agency has 

determined that the antitheft device to 

be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2025 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 

W43–439, NRM–310, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 11921 

1 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer 

must include a statement that their entire vehicle 

line is equipped with an immobilizer that meets 

one of the following standards: 

(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 

through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection 

and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011), 

as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543]; 

(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC– 

S338–98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment 

and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998); 

(3) United Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), 

Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of Vehicle 

Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with 

Regard to Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 

8, 2007; or 

(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), 

Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the 

Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized 

Use in effect on February 10, 2009. 

2 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). 

3 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3). 

4 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4). 

Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366– 

5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 

U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary of 

Transportation (and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to 

promulgate a theft prevention standard 

to provide for the identification of 

certain motor vehicles and their major 

replacement parts to impede motor 

vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated 

regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft 

prevention standard) to require partsmarking for specified passenger motor 

vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are 

subject to the parts-marking 

requirements may petition NHTSA, by 

delegation, for an exemption for a line 

of passenger motor vehicles equipped 

with an antitheft device as standard 

equipment that NHTSA decides is likely 

to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements. In accordance with this 

statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR 

part 543, which establishes the process 

through which manufacturers may seek 

an exemption from the theft prevention 

standard. 

49 CFR 543.5 provides general 

submission requirements for petitions 

and states that each manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA for an exemption of 

one vehicle line per model year. Among 

other requirements, manufacturers must 

identify whether the exemption is 

sought under section 543.6 or section 

543.7. Under section 543.6, a 

manufacturer may request an exemption 

by providing specific information about 

the antitheft device, its capabilities, and 

the reasons the petitioner believes the 

device to be as effective at reducing and 

deterring theft as compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements. Section 

543.7 permits a manufacturer to request 

an exemption under a more streamlined 

process if the vehicle line is equipped 

with an antitheft device (an 

‘‘immobilizer’’) as standard equipment 

that complies with one of the standards 

specified in that section.1

Section 543.8 establishes 

requirements for processing petitions for 

exemption from the theft prevention 

standard. As stated in section 543.8(a), 

NHTSA processes any complete 

exemption petition. If NHTSA receives 

an incomplete petition, NHTSA will 

notify the petitioner of the deficiencies. 

Once NHTSA receives a complete 

petition the agency will process it and, 

in accordance with section 543.8(b), 

will grant the petition if it determines 

that, based upon substantial evidence, 

the standard equipment antitheft device 

is likely to be as effective in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541. 

Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to 

issue its decision either to grant or to 

deny an exemption petition not later 

than 120 days after the date on which 

a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA 

does not make a decision within the 

120-day period, the petition shall be 

deemed to be approved and the 

manufacturer shall be exempt from the 

standard for the line covered by the 

petition for the subsequent model year.2

Exemptions granted under part 543 

apply only to the vehicle line or lines 

that are subject to the grant and that are 

equipped with the antitheft device on 

which the line’s exemption was based, 

and are effective for the model year 

beginning after the model year in which 

NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, 

unless the notice of exemption specifies 

a later year. 

Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the 

manner in which NHTSA’s decisions on 

petitions are to be made known. Under 

section 543.8(f), if the petition is sought 

under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes 

a notice of its decision to grant or deny 

the exemption petition in the Federal 

Register and notifies the petitioner in 

writing. Under section 543.8(g), if the 

petition is sought under section 543.7, 

NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing 

of the agency’s decision to grant or deny 

the exemption petition. 

This grant of petition for exemption 

considers Mazda Motor Corporation’s 

(Mazda) petition for its CX–90 vehicle 

line beginning in MY 2025. 

I. Specific Petition Content 

Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6 

Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, 

Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention, Mazda petitioned for an 

exemption for its specified vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

the theft prevention standard, beginning 

in MY 2025. Mazda petitioned under 49 

CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content 

requirements, which, as described 

above, requires manufacturers to 

provide specific information about the 

antitheft device installed as standard 

equipment on all vehicles in the line for 

which an exemption is sought, the 

antitheft device’s capabilities, and the 

reasons the petitioner believes the 

device to be as effective at reducing and 

deterring theft as compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements. 

More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) 

requires petitions to include a statement 

that an antitheft device will be installed 

as standard equipment on all vehicles in 

the line for which the exemption is 

sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each 

petition must list each component in the 

antitheft system, and include a diagram 

showing the location of each of those 

components within the vehicle. As 

required by section 543.6(a)(3), each 

petition must include an explanation of 

the means and process by which the 

device is activated and functions, 

including any aspect of the device 

designed to: (1) facilitate or encourage 

its activation by motorists; (2) attract 

attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or move a 

vehicle by means other than a key; (3) 

prevent defeating or circumventing the 

device by an unauthorized person 

attempting to enter a vehicle by means 

other than a key; (4) prevent the 

operation of a vehicle which an 

unauthorized person has entered using 

means other than a key; and (5) ensure 

the reliability and durability of the 

device.3

In addition to providing information 

about the antitheft device and its 

functionality, petitioners must also 

submit the reasons for their belief that 

the antitheft device will be effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft, including any theft data and other 

data that are available to the petitioner 

and form a basis for that belief,4 and the 

reasons for their belief that the agency 

should determine that the antitheft 

device is likely to be as effective as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541 in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft. In 

support of this belief, the petitioners 

should include any statistical data that 

are available to the petitioner and form 

the basis for the petitioner’s belief that 

a line of passenger motor vehicles 

equipped with the antitheft device is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
11922 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 

5 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5). 6See 85 FR 55368 (Sep. 8, 2020). 

likely to have a theft rate equal to or less 

than that of passenger motor vehicles of 

the same, or a similar, line which have 

parts marked in compliance with part 

541.5

The following sections describe 

Mazda’s petition information provided 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption 

from Vehicle Theft Prevention. 

II. Mazda’s Petition for Exemption 

In a petition dated April 21, 2023, 

Mazda requested an exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard for its CX–90 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2025. 

In its petition, Mazda provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the CX–90 vehicle line. Mazda stated 

that its MY 2025 CX–90 vehicle line 

will be installed with a passive, 

transponder based, electronic engine 

immobilizer antitheft device as standard 

equipment. Key components of its 

antitheft device will include a 

powertrain control module (PCM), 

immobilizer control module, security 

indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter 

with transponder key (transponder key), 

low frequency (LF) antenna, radio 

frequency (RF) receiver and a low 

frequency unit (LFU). The device will 

not provide any visible or audible 

indication of unauthorized vehicle entry 

(i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm) as 

standard equipment; however, Mazda 

stated that its device will incorporate a 

security indicator light which will 

provide a visual confirmation on the 

protection status of the antitheft device. 

Pursuant to section 543.6(a)(3), Mazda 

explained that there are two methods of 

initiating the antitheft device operation 

process. Specifically, Mazda stated that 

the immobilizer system monitors two 

codes: (1) the transponder code, which 

the immobilizer control module checks 

with the transponder located in the 

transmitter; and (2) the immobilizer 

code, which the immobilizer control 

module checks with the powertrain’s 

electronic control module. Mazda also 

stated that there are two means of 

checking the transponder code: (1) 

when the immobilizer control module 

communicates with the transmitter 

which includes a transponder by LF 

antenna and receives a reply of 

transmitter in the RF receiver; and (2) 

when the immobilizer control module 

communicates with the transponder by 

coil antenna which is located in the 

push button start. If the transponder 

code matches with the immobilizer 

control module by either method 

mentioned above, and the ignition is 

turned to the ON position, the 

immobilizer control module checks the 

powertrain’s electronic control module 

with immobilizer code. Mazda further 

stated that the vehicle’s engine can only 

be started if the immobilizer code 

matches the code previously 

programmed into the immobilizer 

control module. If the immobilizer code 

does not match, the engine will be 

disabled. Communications between the 

immobilizer system control function 

and the powertrain’s electronic control 

module are encrypted. Mazda also 

stated that there are more than 15 × 106

different transponder codes, and each 

transponder is hard coded with a 

unique code at the time of manufacture. 

As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), 

Mazda provided information on the 

reliability and durability of its proposed 

device. To ensure reliability and 

durability of the device, Mazda 

conducted tests based on its own 

specified standards. Mazda provided a 

detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., 

low/high temperature exposure 

operation, high temperature endurance, 

thermal cycling, thermal shock 

resistance, thermal shock endurance, 

humidity temperature cycling, high 

temperature and humidity endurance, 

water, dust, vibration, connector and 

lead/lock strength, chemical resistance, 

electromagnetic field, power line 

variations, DC stresses, electrostatic 

discharge and push button start 

strength) and stated that it believes the 

device is reliable and durable since it 

complied with its own specified 

requirements for each test. Additionally, 

Mazda stated that its device is extremely 

reliable and durable because it is 

computer-based and does not rely on 

any mechanical or moving parts. Mazda 

further stated that any attempt to slampull its vehicle’s ignition will have no 

effect on a thief’s ability to start the 

vehicle without the correct code being 

transmitted to the electronic control 

modules. 

Mazda provided data from the 

Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), 

National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC), and Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety (IIHS) on the 

effectiveness of other similar antitheft 

devices installed on vehicle lines in 

support of its belief that its device will 

be at least as effective as those 

comparable devices. Specifically, Mazda 

stated that its device was installed on 

certain MY 1996 Ford vehicles as 

standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford 

Mustang GT and Cobra models, Ford 

Taurus LX, and SHO models and Ford 

Sable LS models). In MY 1997, Mazda 

installed its immobilizer device on the 

entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as 

standard equipment. When comparing 

1995 model year Mustang vehicle thefts 

(without immobilizers) with MY 1997 

Mustang vehicle thefts (with 

immobilizers), Mazda referenced the 

National Crime Information Center’s 

(NCIC) theft information which showed 

that there was a 70% reduction in theft 

experienced when comparing MY 1997 

Mustang vehicle thefts (with 

immobilizers) to MY 1995 Mustang 

vehicle thefts (without immobilizers). 

Mazda recognized that NHTSA 

requested data for vehicle sets that are 

as similar as possible to the vehicle for 

which the petition is written; 6 however, 

Mazda stated that there is no 

comparable data for Mazda’s SUV before 

and after the implementation of an 

immobilizer system, because all of 

Mazda’s similar vehicles have been 

equipped with a standard immobilizer 

from the onset of manufacture. In light 

of these considerations, Mazda stated 

that the NCIC and HLDI data provided 

supported its belief that the immobilizer 

system described in its petition will 

prove to be as, if not more effective, 

than the parts marking requirements of 

part 541 in reducing vehicle theft. 

III. Decision To Grant the Petition 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of part 541, either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon substantial evidence, the 

standard equipment antitheft device is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541. 

NHTSA finds that Mazda has 

provided adequate reasons for its belief 

that the antitheft device for its vehicle 

line is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. This conclusion is 

based on the information Mazda 

provided about its antitheft device. 

NHTSA believes, based on Mazda’s 

supporting evidence, that the antitheft 

device described for its vehicle line is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. 

The agency concludes that Mazda’s 

antitheft device will provide four of the 

five types of performance features listed 

in section 543.6(a)(3): promoting 

activation; preventing defeat or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices 11923 

7The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that section 543.10(c)(2) 

could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers 

and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting 

part 543 to require the submission of a modification 

petition for every change to the components or 

design of an antitheft device. The significance of 

many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, 

NHTSA suggests that if a manufacturer with an 

exemption contemplates making any changes, the 

effects of which might be characterized as de 

minimis, it should consult the agency before 

preparing and submitting a petition to modify. 

circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

The agency notes that 49 CFR part 

541, appendix A–1, identifies those 

lines that are exempted from the theft 

prevention standard for a given model 

year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, the 

beginning model year for which the 

petition is granted and a general 

description of the antitheft device is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. 

If Mazda decides not to use the 

exemption for its requested vehicle line, 

the manufacturer must formally notify 

the agency. If such a decision is made, 

the line must be fully marked as 

required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if a manufacturer 

to which an exemption has been granted 

wishes in the future to modify the 

device on which the exemption is 

based, the company may have to submit 

a petition to modify the exemption. 

Section 543.8(d) states that a part 543 

exemption applies only to vehicles that 

belong to a line exempted under this 

part and equipped with the antitheft 

device on which the line’s exemption is 

based. Further, section 543.10(c)(2) 

provides for the submission of petitions 

‘‘to modify an exemption to permit the 

use of an antitheft device similar to but 

differing from the one specified in the 

exemption.’’ 7

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby announces a grant in full of 

Mazda’s petition for exemption for the 

CX–90 vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part 

541, beginning with its MY 2025 

vehicles. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95, 501.5 and 501.8. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03105 Filed 2–14–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

[Docket No: PHMSA–2023–0076] 

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection 

Activities 

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 six 

information collection requests 

abstracted below are 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 November 6, 2023. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 

18, 2024. 

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 (OMB), 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 angela.hill@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations 

§ 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 

November 6, 2023, PHMSA published a 

Federal Register notice (88 FR 76270) 

with a 60-day comment period soliciting 

comments on its intent to request 

OMB’s renewed approval of several 

information collection requests that are 

due to expire in 2024. 

During the 60-day comment period, 

PHMSA received one comment from 

National Propane Gas Association on a 

matter not pertaining to the proposed 

renewal of the impacted information 

collections. 

II. 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. 

PHMSA will request a three-year term of 

approval for each of the following 

information collection activities. 

The following information is provided 

for each 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: 

1. Title: Pipeline Safety: Integrity 

Management Program for Gas 

Distribution Pipelines. 

OMB Control Number: 2137–0625. 

Current Expiration Date: 5/31/2024. 

Type of Request: Renewal with no 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Abstract: The Federal Pipeline Safety 

Regulations require operators of gas 

distribution pipelines to develop and 

implement integrity management (IM) 

programs. The purpose of these 

programs is to enhance safety by 

identifying and reducing pipeline 

integrity risks. PHMSA requires that 

operators maintain records 

demonstrating compliance with these 

requirements for 10 years and that these 

records must include superseded IM 

plans. 

Affected Public: Operators of gas 

distribution pipeline systems. 

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Burden: 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

3,882. 

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 

723,192. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

2. Title: Post-Accident Drug Testing 

for Pipeline Operators. 

OMB Control Number: 2137–0632. 

Current Expiration Date: 8/31/2024. 

Type of Request: Renewal with no 

change of a currently approved 

information collection. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES