[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33406-33409]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0069]

Lotus Cars Ltd. Receipt of Petition for Renewal of Temporary
Exemption From the Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for renewal of a temporary
exemption from certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Lotus
Cars Ltd. has petitioned the agency for renewal of a temporary
exemption from certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208.
The basis for the application is that the petitioner avers that
compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has
tried in good faith to comply with the standard.\1\ This notice of
receipt of an application for renewal of temporary exemptions is
published in accordance with statutory and administrative provisions.
NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the applications, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: You should submit your comments not later than July 8, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-213,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 am and 5 pm,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers

    In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger
cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as ``advanced
air bags.'' \2\ The upgrade was designed to meet the twin goals of
improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted,
in moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by
air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-
speed crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issuance of the advanced air bag requirements was a culmination
of a comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address
the adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive
consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in
rear seats.
    The new requirements were phased-in, beginning with the 2004 model
year. Small volume manufacturers were not subject to the advanced air
bag requirements until the end of the phase-in period, i.e., September
1, 2006.
    In recent years, NHTSA has addressed a number of petitions for
exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The
majority of these requests have come from small manufacturers, each of
which has petitioned on the basis that compliance would cause it
substantial economic hardship and that it has tried in good faith to
comply with the standard. In recognition of the more limited resources
and capabilities of small motor vehicle manufacturers, authority to
grant exemptions based on substantial economic hardship and good faith
efforts was added to the Vehicle Safety Act in 1972 to enable the
agency to give those manufacturers additional time to comply with the
Federal safety standards.
    NHTSA has granted a number of these petitions, usually in
situations in which

the manufacturer is supplying standard air bags in lieu of advanced air
bags.\3\ In addressing these petitions, NHTSA has recognized that small
manufacturers may face particular difficulties in acquiring or
developing advanced air bag systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 (May 22,
2007), or grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 72 FR 17608 (April 9,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding those previous grants of exemption, NHTSA is
considering two key issues--
    (1) Whether it is in the public interest to continue to grant such
petitions, particularly in the same manner as in the past, given the
number of years these requirements have now been in effect and the
benefits of advanced air bags, and
    (2) To the extent such petitions are granted, what plans and
countermeasures to protect child and infant occupants, short of
compliance with the advanced air bags, should be expected.

While the exemption authority was created to address the problems of
small manufacturers and the agency wishes to be appropriately attentive
to those problems, it was not anticipated by the agency that use of
this authority would result in small manufacturers being given much
more than relatively short term exemptions from recently implemented
safety standards, especially those addressing particularly significant
safety problems.
    Given the passage of time since the advanced air bag requirements
were established and implemented, and in light of the benefits of
advanced air bags, NHTSA is considering whether it is in the public
interest to continue to grant exemptions from these requirements,
particularly under the same terms as in the past. The costs of
compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 are
costs that all entrants to the U.S. automobile marketplace should
expect to bear. Furthermore, NHTSA understands that, in contrast to the
initial years after the advanced air bag requirements went into effect,
low volume manufacturers now have access to advanced air bag
technology. Accordingly, NHTSA tentatively concludes that the expense
of advanced air bag technology is not now sufficient, in and of itself,
to justify the grant of a petition for a hardship exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements.
    NHTSA further notes that the granting of exemptions from motor
vehicle safety standards is subject to the agency's finding that the
petitioning manufacturer has ``tried to comply with the standard in
good faith.'' \4\ In response to prior petitions, NHTSA has granted
temporary exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements as a means
of affording eligible manufacturers an additional transition period to
comply with the exempted standard. In deciding whether to grant an
exemption based on substantial economic hardship and good faith
efforts, NHTSA considers the steps that the manufacturer has already
taken to achieve compliance, as well as the future steps the
manufacturer plans to take during the exemption period and the
estimated date by which full compliance will be achieved.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i).
    \5\ 49 CFR 555.6(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA invites comment on whether and in what circumstances (e.g.,
nature of vehicles, number of vehicles, level of efforts to comply with
the requirements, timing as to number of years since the requirements
were implemented, etc.) it should continue to grant petitions for first
time exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208
and petitions for renewed exemptions from those requirements. We note
that any policy statements we may make in this area would not have the
effect of precluding manufacturers from submitting subsequent petitions
for exemption. However, we believe it could be helpful for
manufacturers to know our general views in advance of submitting a
petition.
    We also request comment on the issue of, to the extent any future
hardship exemptions from the advanced air bag requirements are granted,
what plans and countermeasures to protect child and infant occupants,
short of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements, should be
expected. In this regard, we note the agency is authorized to condition
the granting of exemptions on such terms as the Secretary considers
appropriate.\6\ In responding to some recent petitions for exemption
from the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA has
considered the fact that the petitioner planned to install some
countermeasures for the protection of child passengers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b).
    \7\ See, e.g., grant of petition of Think Technology AS, 74 FR
40634-01 (Aug. 12, 2009); grant of petition of Ferrari S.p.A., 74 FR
36303-02 (July 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also invites comment on the likelihood that a child or infant
will be a passenger in any vehicles that would be produced and sold in
the U.S. under the requested exemptions.

II. Statutory Authority for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, provides the Secretary of
Transportation authority to exempt, on a temporary basis and under
specified circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety
standard or bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C.
30113. The Secretary has delegated the authority for implementing this
section to NHTSA.
    The Act authorizes the Secretary to grant a temporary exemption to
a manufacturer of not more than 10,000 motor vehicles annually, on such
terms as he deems appropriate, if he finds that the exemption would be
consistent with the public interest and the Safety Act and if he also
finds that ``compliance with the standard would cause substantial
economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried to comply with the
standard in good faith.''
    The Act also authorizes the Secretary to grant a temporary
exemption from a standard, for not more than 2,500 motor vehicles per
year, to a manufacturer of any size, on such terms as he deems
appropriate, if he finds that the exemption would be consistent with
the public interest and the Safety Act and if he also finds either that
    [dec221] The exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard;
    [dec221] The exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle easier and would not
unreasonably lower the safety level of that vehicle; or
    [dec221] Compliance with the standard would prevent the
manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an overall safety level
at least equal to the overall safety level of nonexempt vehicles.
    NHTSA established Part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle
Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory provisions
concerning temporary exemptions. Under Part 555, a petitioner must
provide specified information in submitting a petition for exemption.
These requirements are specified in 49 CFR 555.5, and include a number
of items. Foremost among them are that the petitioner must set forth
the basis of the application under Sec.  555.6, and the reasons why the
exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the
objectives of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301.
    A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its
total motor vehicle production in its most recent

year of production did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the
NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113).
    In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that
criterion, NHTSA considers whether a second vehicle manufacturer also
might be deemed the manufacturer of that vehicle. The statutory
provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do
not state that a manufacturer has substantial responsibility as
manufacturer of a vehicle simply because it owns or controls a second
manufacturer that assembled that vehicle. However, the agency considers
the statutory definition of ``manufacturer'' (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be
sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances.
Thus, NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer may be deemed to be a
sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled by a second
manufacturer if the first manufacturer had a substantial role in the
development and manufacturing process of that vehicle.
    While 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a Safety Act
standard are to be granted on a ``temporary basis,'' \8\ the statute
also expressly provides for renewal of an exemption on reapplication.
Manufacturers are nevertheless cautioned that the agency's decision to
grant an initial petition in no way predetermines that the agency will
repeatedly grant renewal petitions, thereby imparting semi-permanent
status to an exemption from a safety standard. Exempted manufacturers
seeking renewal must bear in mind that the agency is directed to
consider financial hardship as but one factor, along with the
manufacturer's ongoing good faith efforts to comply with the
regulation, the public interest, consistency with the Safety Act,
generally, as well as other such matters provided in the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), ``If an application
for renewal of temporary exemption that meets the requirements of Sec.
555.5 has been filed not later than 60 days before the termination date
of an exemption, the exemption does not terminate until the
Administrator grants or denies the application for renewal.'' This
petition for renewal has been submitted by the deadline stated in 49
CFR 555.8(e).

III. Overview of Petition

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
Part 555, Lotus Cars Ltd. (Lotus) has submitted a petition asking the
agency for renewal of its temporary exemption from certain advanced air
bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208. The basis for the application is
that compliance would cause the petitioner substantial economic
hardship and that the petitioner has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard. Lotus has requested a renewal of its exemption for a
period of two years, from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2011.
    Lotus is petitioning for a renewal of its exemption from certain
requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically,
the petition requests an exemption from the rigid barrier unbelted test
requirement with the 50th percentile adult male test dummy (S14.5.2),
the rigid barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile adult
female test dummy (belted and unbelted, S15), the offset deformable
barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile adult female test
dummy (S17), the requirements to provide protection for infants and
children (S19, S21, and S23), and the requirement using an out-of-
position 5th percentile adult female test dummy at the driver position
(S25) in FMVSS No. 208, which relate to the advanced air bag
requirements. Lotus has requested a two-year extension of its exemption
for the Elise platform, which includes a convertible, a coupe, and the
Exige variant of the coupe.
    In a Federal Register document dated September 7, 2006, Lotus was
granted a temporary exemption from the advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 listed above for the Elise.\9\ The exemption was granted
for the period from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2009. The basis for
the grant was that compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of
FMVSS No. 208 would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard
and that such exemption was in the public interest and consistent with
the objectives of traffic safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 71 FR 52851, 52859-62 (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25324).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lotus sought renewal of its exemption in a petition dated June 15,
2009. The basis for Lotus's application is substantial economic
hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with
the standard. Lotus is a corporation organized under the laws of
England. Lotus has never manufactured more than 6,000 vehicles in any
calendar or model year.\10\ Lotus maintains that its eligibility for a
financial hardship exemption has been confirmed four times since 1999
and the material facts underlying those determinations have not
changed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This number includes vehicles that Lotus has manufactured
for Tesla Motors, Inc.
    \11\ See 64 FR 61379 (Nov. 10, 1999); 68 FR 10066 (Mar. 3,
2003); 69 FR 5658 (Feb. 5, 2004); 71 FR 52851, 52859-62 (Feb. 5,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Elise platform is a sports car that has been the only model
Lotus sells in the United States. Lotus introduced the Evora in 2010,
which has a fully compliant advanced air bag system. The Evora is more
expensive than the Elise, which remains Lotus's lowest-priced, entry-
level model.
    Lotus set forth five factors that favor granting its exemption.
First, Lotus cited its continued financial hardship, which has been
exacerbated by the global recession that has hit the automobile
industry particularly hard. Second, Lotus noted the technical
roadblocks to including advanced air bags in the Elise discussed in the
2006 notice. Third, Lotus stated that the next-generation Elise is
behind schedule. Fourth, Lotus explained that the Evora's advanced air
bag system will not carry over to the Elise, and that the company faces
the challenge of developing a second advanced air bag system for the
next-generation Elise. Fifth, Lotus stated that it needs to continue
U.S. sales of the current Elise for 24 months while the development of
the next-generation Elise and its advanced air bag system continues and
is brought to completion.
    Lotus contends that it continues to experience substantial economic
hardship. Although Lotus states that it has had one profitable year in
the last five years, it has suffered a substantial cumulative loss over
a five-year period. Lotus's financial projections indicate that Lotus
will be profitable with or without an exemption. However, Lotus
contends that its projections of profitability with or without an
exemption do not preclude a finding that the requisite financial
hardship for a temporary exemption exists. Furthermore, Lotus states
that its profits would be used to pay debt incurred as a result of its
adoption of advanced air bags in the Evora and the next-generation
Elise. Lotus claims that, without the exemption, it would lose at least
750 U.S. sales of the Elise, costing Lotus $10.5 million in projected
profit, in addition to loss of market share of its entry-level model to
other brands.
    Lotus also alleges that it has made a good faith effort to develop
advanced air bags. First, it notes that it has developed the Evora
model with advanced air bags, as it promised in its original exemption
petition. Lotus stated that the final version of the next-generation
Elise with

advanced air bags has been delayed 24 months because the cost of the
Evora project was greater than expected, Lotus's revenues were less
than expected, and its financial constraints were exacerbated by the
global economic recession and automobile market downturn in late 2008.
As a result, Lotus alleges that it was unable to fully fund the next-
generation Elise program while developing the Evora.
    Lotus also reiterates that the Evora's advanced air bag system does
not carry over to the next generation Elise. Lotus notes that, after
discovering this, it reexamined the possibility of equipping the
current Elise with advanced air bags, in light of changes in the
supplier situation since its last effort in 2005. However, Lotus
concluded that advanced air bags for the current Elise remain
infeasible.
    Lotus also contends that an extension is in the public interest and
consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act, citing the reasons
stated in the September 2006 grant. Lotus states that the air bags in
the Elise do not pose a safety risk. In support, Lotus cites the fact
that there are no known injuries or deaths to infants, children, or
other occupants caused by its air bags; that its crashworthy design
provides a high level of safety without advanced air bags; and that its
passenger seat is fixed in the rearmost position. In addition, Lotus
makes clear in its owner's manual that it does not recommend the Elise
be used for transporting children. Lotus also notes that, if an
exemption is not granted, consumers would be adversely affected due to
the loss of the Elise from the marketplace. Further, Lotus notes that
the Elise is fuel efficient and it will comply with all other FMVSSs.

IV. Completeness and Comment Period

    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete and whether
the petitioner appears to be eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has tentatively concluded that the petition from
Lotus is complete and that Lotus is eligible for an extension of its
temporary exemption. The agency has not made any judgment on the merit
of the application, and is placing a non-confidential copy of the
petition in the docket.
    We are providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public
comments and other available information, we will publish a notice of
final action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: June 1, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-14180 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 21535]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at North American
Electric Reliability Corporation Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the
following meetings:

North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Member Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings
Board of Trustees Corporate Governance and Human Resources
Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, Compliance Committee, and
Standards Oversight and Technology Committee Meetings
The Ritz-Carlton, St. Louis, 100 Carondelet Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63105.
May 10 (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. central time) and May 11 (8:30 a.m.-12:00
p.m. central time), 2017.

    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:
http://www.nerc.com/Pages/Calendar.aspx.
    The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may
address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:
Docket No. RR15-2, North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-
8529, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 3, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09342 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Note to Reader

Atrazine Monitoring Data: 2003-2008

July 2009

Objective

The purpose of this document is to provide:

an overview of the Agency’s atrazine monitoring data

context in which the monitoring data was collected

guidance in accessing the data

Introduction

As part of EPA’s reregistration for atrazine, the Agency required that
atrazine registrants conduct drinking water and ecological exposure
monitoring as stipulated in the Agency’s 2003 Atrazine Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED).  The resulting monitoring data has been
published in the Agency’s atrazine docket, which is available at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  under
docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0367.  To-date, the Agency has atrazine
data pertaining to community drinking water systems and ecological
monitoring in Midwestern streams, as well as water bodies associated
with sugarcane production areas.  Additional information regarding the
Agency’s work on atrazine is available at the Agency’s atrazine
website:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/

Atrazine Community Water Systems (CWS) Monitoring Program

Background and status updates regarding the program can be found at the
following link:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.h
tm#cws"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.ht
m#cws

All Atrazine Monitoring Program (AMP) data files contain the results for
all Community Water Systems (CWS) that have been monitored over a 6-year
period from 2003-2008.  Each data file includes a “ReadMe” worksheet
that explains the data contained in the file.  AMP data for 2003 and
2004 do not contain simazine data.  AMP data from the latter half of
2005 onward contain data for all triazine residues, including simazine.

Ecological Watershed Monitoring Program – Midwestern Streams

Background and status updates regarding the program can be found at the
following link:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.h
tm#ewmp"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.ht
m#ewmp

The Atrazine Ecological Exposure Monitoring Program (AEEMP) data file
contains atrazine data for 40 Midwestern streams.  Each stream has at
least two years of monitoring data collected during a four year period
from 2004 through 2008.

Ecological Watershed Monitoring Program – Sugarcane-Growing Areas

Background and status updates regarding the program can be found at the
following link:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.h
tm#ewmp"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.ht
m#ewmp

The sugarcane monitoring data file contains atrazine data for four water
bodies associated with sugarcane production.  Monitoring data presented
here were collected from 2005 through the early part of 2008.


[Federal Register: August 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 150)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44252-44253]
[DOCID:fr04au06-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 122 and 412

[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037; FRL-8206-2]
RIN 2040-AE80

Extension of Public Comment Period for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Regulation and Effluent
Limitation Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in
Response to Waterkeeper Decision Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On Friday, June 30, 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency
published a proposed rule entitled ``Revised National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitation
Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to
Waterkeeper Decision Proposed Rule.'' As initially published in the
Federal Register on June 30, 2006, written comments on the proposed
rulemaking were to be submitted to EPA on or before August 14, 2006 (a
45-day public comment period). Since publication, EPA has received
several requests for additional time to submit comments. Therefore, the
public comment period is being extended for 15 days and will now end on
August 29, 2006.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0037 by one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: &fnlhttp: //http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. EPA prefers to
receive comments submitted electronically.
    (2) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0037.
    (3) Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to:
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 4203M, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0037. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal

hours of operation and special arrangements should be made.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0037. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access''
systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Regulations
index at http://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the

EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http: //http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected

by the flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information contact
Kawana Cohen, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management
(4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: July 31, 2006.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
 [FR Doc. E6-12626 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 234 (Thursday, December 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73187-73188]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29057]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-415-001.
    Applicants: Anahau Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Anahau Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20131125-5247.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/16/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2333-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits Refund Report re
Service Agreement No 693 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-23-001.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
submits 2013-11-26-NSP-MSHL-Repl Meters-564 to be effective 12/2/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-464-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits 2014 TRBAA
Update Filing to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-465-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Company submit
Bridgeport Energy Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement to be
effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-466-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Hampshire.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Hampshire submits
Bridgeport Energy Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement to be
effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-467-000.
    Applicants: Western Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Western Massachusetts Electric Company submits
Bridgeport Energy Localized Cost Responsibility Agreement to be
effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-468-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits Queue Position Y2-
077; Original Service Agreement No. 3670 to be effective 11/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-469-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits SGIA and
Distribution Service Agreement with SEPV Mojave West, LLC to be
effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-470-000.
    Applicants: Rock River I, LLC.
    Description: Rock River I, LLC submits 2nd Revised MBR to be
effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-471-000.
    Applicants: Cabazon Wind Partners, LLC.
    Description: Cabazon Wind Partners, LLC submits 2nd Revised MBR to
be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-472-000.
    Applicants: Whitewater Hill Wind Partners, LLC.
    Description: Whitewater Hill Wind Partners, LLC submits 2nd Revised
MBR to be effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-473-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
Compliance waiver Order 784 re: 3rd prty prvsn ancllry srvcs to be
effective 11/27/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20131126-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/17/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 26, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29057 Filed 12-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58616-58622]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0024]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities, Revision to
Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Annual Report, Gas
Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Incident Report, and
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a notice in the Federal
Register of its intent to make several minor revisions to the
``Accident Report--Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems'' and the
``Incident Report--Natural and Other Gas Transmission and Gathering
Pipeline Systems.'' In addition, PHMSA proposed a number of revisions
to the ``Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems.''
PHMSA received 12 comments in response to that notice. PHMSA is
publishing this notice to respond to the comments, provide the public
with an additional 30 days to comment on the proposed revisions to the
forms and the instructions, and announce that the revised Information
Collections will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for approval.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by October 22, 2012 to
be assured of consideration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener by telephone at 202-366-
0970, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the docket number
PHMSA-2012-00024 by any of the following methods:
     Fax: 1-202-395-5806.
     Mail: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
Records Management Center, Room 10102 NEOB, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for the U.S. Department of
Transportation\PHMSA.
     Email: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
at the following email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Requests for a copy of the Information Collection should be
directed to Angela Dow by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at 202-366-
4566, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public
and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies two
revised information collection requests that PHMSA will submit to OMB
for approval. The information collections are titled: ``Incident and
Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators'' (2137-0522) and
``Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline: Recordkeeping and
Accident Reporting'' (2137-0047). The comments are summarized and
addressed below as specified in the following outline:

I. Background
II. Summary of Topic Comments/Responses
    A. Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems
    B. Gas Transmission Pipeline and Gathering Systems Incident
Report
    C. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report
    D. General Comments
III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for
Comments

I. Background

    PHMSA published a notice in the Federal Register on April 13, 2012,
(77 FR 22387) titled ``Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities, Revision to Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems
Annual Report, Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems Incident
Report, and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report.'' The
notice announced minor revisions to the hazardous liquid pipeline
systems accident report and the gas transmission and gathering pipeline
systems incident report to collect additional information relative to
incidents involving girth welds. The notice also announced revisions to
the annual report for gas transmission and gathering systems to address
certain National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and
the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of
2011.

II. Summary of Topic Comments/Responses

    During the two month response period, PHMSA received 12 comments
from the following stakeholders:

(1) Alliance Pipeline--Operator
(2) Energy Transfer--Operator
(3) National Grid--Operator
(4) Paiute--Operator
(5) SCANA Corporation--Operator
(6) Southwest Gas--Operator
(7) Jack Wilson--Public
(8) American Gas Association (AGA)--Trade Association
(9) American Petroleum Institute (API) and American Oil Pipelines
Association (AOPL);--Trade Associations
(10) Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)--Trade
Association
(11) Northeast Gas Association (NGA)--Trade Association
(12) Texas Pipeline Association--Trade Association

    The comments are summarized and addressed below by topic

A. Annual Report for Gas Transmission and Gathering Systems

    PHMSA solicited comments on proposed revisions to the current
version of the ``Annual Report for Natural and Other Gas Transmission
and Gathering Pipeline Systems'' (PHMSA F 7100.2-1, revised 06-2011,
Gas Transmission Annual Report). These proposed revisions were
referenced in a Federal Register notice published on April 13, 2012,
(77 FR 2387). This 30-day notice responds to the comments, which may be
found at http://www.regulations.gov, at docket number PHMSA-2012-0024.
The docket also contains the form and instructions as amended in
response to the comments. In general, the comments made by INGAA were
supported in writing by Alliance Pipeline and Energy Transfer and the
comments made by AGA were supported in writing by National Grid,
Northeast Gas Association, Paiute, and Southwest Gas.
    A1: PHMSA proposed to remove Part A, section 3 which asks operators
to list contact information under the category ``INDIVIDUAL WHERE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED'' and reserve the section. AGA
commented that they did not understand why this action was taken, as
the information requested should be beneficial. Northeast Gas
Association commented that the removed information should be added to
Part N of the form.
    A1. Response: PHMSA believes that the request for additional
contact information is not necessary. As it stands, Part N of the
report requests contact information for the person who prepared the
report. In an effort to reduce the potential for duplicative
information, PHMSA has removed and

reserved Part A, section 3 and will contact the preparer of the report
for further information as necessary.
    A2: Part A, section 5 allows for operators to identify a single
predominate ``COMMODITY GROUP'' (e.g., Natural Gas, Synthetic Gas, and
Hydrogen Gas) for which the report applies. PHMSA proposed to add
``Landfill Gas'' as a ``COMMODITY GROUP.'' INGAA commented that they
were opposed to the addition of ``Landfill Gas'' as a ``COMMODITY
GROUP.'' INGAA's basis for this opposition is that landfill gas is
indistinguishable from natural gas, unlike hydrogen and propane, which
are transported in dedicated pipelines. INGAA stated that requiring the
identification of landfill gas would create difficulties at
interconnection points of the pipeline for gas recipients who have no
means of distinguishing the receipt of landfill gas.
    INGAA also cited some confusion regarding the instructions for
filing reports for multiple commodities. INGAA interpreted the
instructions for Part A, section 5 to mean that in the case of an
operator having a 5,000-mile pipeline for natural gas and a 50-mile
hydrogen pipeline, the operator would have to file a separate report
for each pipeline. INGAA suggested that PHMSA clarify its instructions
if this interpretation is accurate.
    A2. Response: In regard to INGAA's concern about landfill gas being
indistinguishable from natural gas, an operator would not be required
to report information regarding landfill gas if the operator does not
select landfill gas as the predominate commodity transported in the
pipeline facility. The addition of ``Landfill Gas'' as a ``COMMODITY
GROUP'' will only collect mileage for pipelines that predominately
transport landfill gas.
    In response to INGAA's comment regarding the instructions for
filing reports for multiple commodities, PHMSA has revised the
instructions to provide examples. As detailed in the previous
paragraph, an operator with a pipeline facility that is used to
transport multiple commodities (e.g., landfill gas and natural gas)
should only file a report for the commodity that is predominately
transported in the pipeline facility. If an operator has two pipeline
facilities with different commodities (e.g., a 5,000-mile pipeline
facility containing predominately natural gas and a 1,500-mile pipeline
facility containing predominately hydrogen), the operator must file a
separate report for both pipeline facilities.
    A3: Part A, section 7 requires operators to identify ``INTERstate''
and ``INTRAstate'' pipeline facilities. Under the ``INTERstate''
portion, operators identify the states in which the pipeline exists.
PHMSA revised the ``INTERstate'' portion to include ``OCS portions.''
INGAA commented that Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) portions should
refer to the affected water body (e.g., Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic
Coast) and not the OCS block, which would require significant effort.
    A3. Response: PHMSA agrees with INGAA and has revised the form and
instructions to identify the OCS portions available for selection when
submitting annual reports as: OCS-Alaska, OCS-Atlantic, OCS-Gulf of
Mexico, and OCS-Pacific.
    A4: PHMSA proposed to remove Part A, section 8 titled: ``DOES THIS
REPORT REPRESENT A CHANGE FROM LAST YEAR'S FINAL REPORTED NUMBERS FOR
ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PARTs: PART B, D, E, H, I, J, K, or L?''
AGA opposed this removal and suggested that Part A, section 8 be
revised to allow operators the option of checking the box to say that
the only change from last year's report was the information in the
newly proposed Parts Q and R.
    A4. Response: The intent of Part A, section 8 was to reduce the
burden on operators who have little or no changes to the data that was
reported in their previous annual report. PHMSA has found that Part A,
section 8 posed a number of technical challenges to implement in regard
to ensuring data quality and has removed this section. However, to
reduce the burden on operators, PHMSA allows operators to pre-populate
their report with the data from the previous year's annual report
(excluding volume transported; integrity inspections; failures, leaks,
and repairs; and preparer's information). Furthermore, 49 CFR 191.22
supersedes the last portion of Part A, section 8 by requiring the
reporting of changes such as mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, and
new construction.
    A5: Part F collects information regarding integrity inspection and
subsequent actions. These inspection methods include in-line
inspections, pressure testing, and direct assessments, with an option
to identify ``other'' methods. INGAA commented that ``Direct
Examination'' should be added as a distinct method of inspection, as
direct examination is a rigorous and recognized inspection technique
which should not be aggregated with the ``other'' methods.
    A5. Response: PHMSA is not certain how many alternative inspection
techniques are currently used by operators. Therefore, PHMSA has
revised Part F, section 5(a) to incorporate a text box that will allow
for the identification of ``other'' inspection techniques to determine
if additional categories should be added in the future.
    A6: PHMSA proposed to revise the introductory text of Parts F and G
to add the following disclaimer: ``Part F ``WITHIN AN HCA SEGMENT''
data and Part G may be completed only if HCA Miles are greater than
zero in Part L.'' Paiute and Southwest Gas commented that the proposed
language is confusing and needs further clarification.
    A6. Response: PHMSA has revised the instructions to clarify the
intent of the disclaimer.
    A7: Part F is used to collect data on integrity inspections,
including the identification of the various types of inspections (e.g.,
in-line inspections, inspections based on pressure testing and direct
assessment) and a description of actions that were taken as a result of
the inspection. PHMSA proposed to revise Part F, section 6, which is
used to accumulate data from the various inspections identified in the
other sections of Part F, to collect additional information on pipe
replacement and abandonment in High Consequence Areas (HCAs). This
additional information included the number of conditions eliminated by
pipeline repairs or abandonment that are categorized as immediate, one-
year, or monitored conditions. Paiute and Southwest Gas commented that
this information appears to be repetitive and that the instructions
should be revised to include ``replacement'' and ``abandonment'' as a
reportable ``repair'' in the existing inspection methods and eliminate
the proposed revision. NGA is opposed to the proposed revision and
commented that the operator's priorities should be focused on replacing
pipe and meeting certain criteria and not counting all defects removed.
NGA further commented that this revision would result in a waste of
resources, huge burdens on operators, and no substantive value. INGAA
also commented that separate categories should not be added for
conditions eliminated by pipe abandonment. AGA commented that PHMSA
should add a category for other scheduled conditions to the proposed
revision in Part F to align with the other sections in Part F. INGAA
suggested that shorter pipe replacements (replacements made when
directly examining pipe as repairs) be addressed as ``repairs'' under
Part F, section 6(b) and (c). INGAA further

commented that the instructions for the proposed ``replacement''
language be revised to only address long term replacements (class
changes). In addition, AGA commented that the instructions should be
revised to clarify that a ``replacement'' does not qualify as a repair.
    A7. Response: PHMSA disagrees with the suggestion made by Paiute
and Southwest Gas to include ``replacement'' and ``abandonment'' as a
reportable ``repair'' in the existing inspection methods. PHMSA
believes that the information regarding the number of actionable
anomalies eliminated from the system by removing pipe from service is
an important benefit of an integrity management program that should be
quantified. PHMSA notes NGA and INGAA's concern by acknowledging that
anomalies handled by replacement or abandonment may not be directly
examined and therefore, would not be able to be categorized by
immediate, one-year, and monitored conditions as proposed. Therefore,
PHMSA has revised the proposed Part F, section 6(d) and (e), both in
the form and instructions, to remove the categories and collect only
actionable anomalies eliminated by pipe replacement or abandonment. As
a result, the comment by AGA to add another category for other
scheduled conditions is no longer applicable. PHMSA agrees with INGAA's
comment pertaining to short pipe replacements that typically occur
after directly examining anomalies and are limited to several joints of
pipe. PHMSA has revised the instructions to specify that these
anomalies should be reported in Part F, section 6 (b) and (c), which
compiles the sum total of the anomalies and conditions that were
repaired for the calendar year. In an effort to address INGAA and AGA's
requests for clarification regarding the use of ``replacement,'' PHMSA
has revised the instructions to clarify that the anomalies collected
for ``replacement'' under Part F, section 6(d) only apply to a pipeline
facility in an HCA that has been abandoned and its transportation
functionality replaced by the operator with a new pipeline facility.
PHMSA has further revised the instructions to specify that if the
transportation functionality is not replaced by the operator, then the
anomalies should be identified as ``abandonment'' under Part F, section
6(f).
    A8: Part G addresses mileage of baseline assessments and
reassessments completed in a calendar year for HCA segment miles. PHMSA
did not propose any revisions to Part G. INGAA recommended that PHMSA
eliminate the distinction between baseline assessments and
reassessments since all baseline assessments should be completed by
2012, with the exception of new HCAs.
    A8. Response: Baseline assessments may not have been completed for
gas transmission pipelines placed in service any time after 2005.
Therefore, PHMSA will retain the baseline assessment category.
    A9: Part J allows for the identification of pipeline mileage
installed by decade. PHMSA proposed to revise Part J to separate the
column listed as ``Pre 40 or Unknown'' into two separate columns; one
for ``Pre 40'' and one for ``unknown.'' AGA commented that the column
listed as ``Pre 40'' should be revised to ``Pre 1940'' for consistency
purposes.
    A9. Response: PHMSA will make the suggested change.
    A10: Part K collects mileage of transmission pipe by specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS). PHMSA did not propose any revisions to
Part K. Northeast Gas Association (NGA) commented that the second row
in Part K should include all pipe greater than or equal to 20% SMYS up
through pipe equal to 30% SMYS inclusively, and the third row should be
changed to include pipe greater than 30% SMYS but less than or equal to
40% SMYS. NGA further commented that this revision would capture the
correct delineation of pressures specified on page 22388 of the April
13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal Register notice. This delineation
(untested gas transmission pipelines in HCAs operating at a pressure
greater than 30% SMYS) is based on the pressure range detailed in
section 23 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011. NGA also commented that Part K does not provide
information on whether the pipe had a post construction pressure test
and will probably require another box to separate the mileage by class
and HCA as detailed in Part R.
    A10. Response: PHMSA does not plan on using the information
collected under Part K to address the issue regarding untested gas
transmission pipelines in HCAs. PHMSA is planning on capturing data to
address that issue under the proposed Part R. Therefore, the SMYS
ranges in Part K will not require amendment.
    A11: Part M requests specific information regarding incidents,
leaks, and repairs. PHMSA did not propose any revisions to this Part.
AGA suggested that the cause definitions listed in this Part match the
definitions listed in the Gas Transmission Incident Report. Northeast
Gas Association suggested that the cause definitions match the
definitions listed in the gas distribution annual report, except for
the threat of stress corrosion cracking.
    A11. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22387) Federal
Register notice. This issue falls outside of the scope of those
revisions. However, PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next
review of the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    A12: Part M requests specific information regarding incidents,
leaks, and repairs. PHMSA did not propose any revisions to this Part.
INGAA commented that the columns for ``Incidents in HCA Segments'' and
``Failures in HCA Segments'' are redundant and should be removed
because they collect the same information which owners or operators
already provide on the Incident Reports.
    A12. Response: INGAA correctly notes that incidents in HCAs are
required on both the Gas Transmission Annual Report and individually on
incident reports. PHMSA has collected this data through two separate
reporting requirements since 2004. As predicted by INGAA, these two
data sets are inconsistent for most years. The largest discrepancy
occurred in 2010 when Gas Transmission Annual Report data indicated
five incidents and incident report data indicated nine incidents.
Accordingly, PHMSA has removed the ``Incidents in HCA's'' column in
Part M of the Gas Transmission Annual Report form. The definitions that
serve as the basis for collecting ``Failures in HCA Segments'' data do
not correlate with the definitions used to collect ``Incidents in HCA
Segments'' data. Therefore, PHMSA will continue to collect ``Failures
in HCA Segments'' data on the Gas Transmission Annual Report.
    A13: PHMSA proposed the new Part Q to collect mileage and record
information categorized by the methods used to determine the Maximum
Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP). Northeast Gas Association
commented that PHMSA should provide the full text of the applicable
methodology sections or a hyperlink to the sections. Commenters also
suggested that the use of the term ``segments'' be restricted since it
has no uniform measure.
    A13. Response: The instructions include the specific regulation and
a synopsis of the regulation contents. Operators can readily find the
full text in the regulations. PHMSA will

eliminate the use of the term ``segments.''
    A14: PHMSA proposed the new Part Q to collect mileage and record
information by the MAOP determination method. SCANA Corporation
commented that clarification is necessary because they are unable to
determine whether or not reporting is required for every methodology
identified regardless of whether that methodology was used to determine
the MAOP.
    A14. Response: PHMSA intends for operators to report mileage under
the single code section heading used to establish the MAOP. In some
scenarios, 49 CFR 192.619(a)(1) through (4) may all have been
considered when establishing MAOP. In such cases, PHMSA expects for the
mileage to be reported under the section heading for the final
methodology that was used to determine the MAOP value. PHMSA has
revised the instructions to include this clarification.
    A15: AGA, NGA, Texas Pipeline Association, and SCANA Corporation
suggested that PHMSA allow for reporting relative to the proposed Parts
Q and R be extended, thereby, coming closer to the congressional
mandate of July 3, 2013, (18 months from signing date of the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011). AGA,
National Grid, NGA, and Texas Pipeline Association also suggested that
PHMSA revise the table to include a ``miles yet to be verified'' column
to allow for the reporting of pipeline segments where operators have
yet to verify mileage.
    A15. Response: PHMSA does not agree with the commenters' suggestion
to extend the calendar year 2012 reporting requirements for the newly
proposed Parts Q and R in the Gas Transmission Annual Report. Section
23 (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRESSURE) of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 requires that each owner or
operator report, not later than 18 months, on each pipeline segment for
which they do not have sufficient records to validate the MAOP of the
pipeline segment. PHMSA has determined that the most appropriate method
to collect this information is by the next Gas Transmission Annual
Report which has a due date of March 15, 2013. PHMSA is planning for
owners or operators to submit the newly requested information in Parts
Q and R in the Gas Transmission Annual Report by March 15, 2013, to
ensure that owners or operators comply with the ``not later than 18
months'' provision in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and
Job Creation Act of 2011. PHMSA does not agree with the comments from
AGA, National Grid, NGA, and Texas Pipeline Association to include a
separate column for ``miles yet to be verified.'' PHMSA has determined
that such mileage should be identified as mileage without records to
avoid confusion and comply with the reporting requirements. Therefore,
PHMSA has revised the instructions to specify that pipeline segments
that have not been verified be reported under the appropriate ``w/out
Recds'' column. Owners or operators that find verification records
after filing their Gas Transmission Annual Report may file a
supplemental report to update their submission. The Gas Transmission
Annual Report instructions contain the procedure for filing a
supplemental report.
    A16: AGA, NGA, National Grid, Paiute, Southwest Gas, and Texas
Pipeline Association suggested that the tables in Parts Q and R be
revised to adhere to Section 23 of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 and collect mileage in Class 1
and 2 locations in HCAs and all Class 3 and 4 locations. AGA also
suggested that the total miles each of the eight class/HCA locations
should be totaled for accuracy validation.
    A16. Response: In the April 13, 2012 (77 FR 22387) Federal Register
notice for this information collection revision, PHMSA expressed intent
to collect Part Q data only for Class 1 and 2 HCAs and all Class 3 and
4 locations. All of the Class 1 and 2 not in HCA rows should have been
blacked-out in the ``w/out Recds'' column. PHMSA has revised the report
form and instructions to not collect the reporting of mileage without
complete records in Class 1 and 2 locations which are not within HCAs.
    A17: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that
has not been subjected to a pressure test and pipeline mileage that is
not able to accommodate the passage of an instrumented internal
inspection device. AGA commented that PHMSA should collect pipeline
mileage of lines that have been subjected to post-construction tests of
at least 1.1, 1.2, and >= 1.25 times the MAOP, regardless of the
testing medium. AGA suggested that this information would be helpful to
comply with the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation
Act of 2011 and the address NTSB recommendation P-11-17. AGA, SCANA
Corporation, and INGAA also suggested collection of information
regarding pressure tests at or above 110% and less than 125% of MAOP,
since the regulations currently allow it for certain class locations.
    A17. Response: PHMSA agrees with the commenters and has expanded
Part R to collect data about the mileage of pipe in three bands of
pressure tests; miles tested to more than 1.25 times the MAOP, miles
tested to less than 1.25 times the MAOP but greater than or equal to
1.1 times the MAOP, and miles with a pressure test less than 1.1 times
the MAOP or no pressure test. Operators are required to report in each
pressure test band the number of miles able to accommodate internal
inspection and the number of miles not able to accommodate internal
inspection.
    A18: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that
has not been subjected to a hydrostatic pressure test. Several
commenters including NGA and Texas Pipeline Association recommended
that the table be revised to not restrict reporting to hydrostatic
pressure testing.
    A18. Response: PHMSA agrees that the test medium is irrelevant and
has amended the form and instructions accordingly.
    A19: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that
has not been subjected to a pressure test and pipeline mileage that is
not able to accommodate the passage of an instrumented inline
inspection device. Several commenters, including AGA and Texas Pipeline
Association, suggested that PHMSA expand the rows and columns in Part R
to collect information separately by the 30% SMYS criterion, the
different pressure test percentages and the vintage of pipeline as pre-
or post-1970 regulation.
    A19. Response: Although section 23 of the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 refers to gas
transmission pipelines operating over 30% SMYS, PHMSA does not consider
the SMYS level and pipeline vintage to be relevant to whether a
pipeline has been pressure tested or is able to be internally
inspected. PHMSA does not find this information to be relevant since
all pipelines placed in service after the effective date of Part 192
are required to be subjected to a post-construction pressure test and
will be reported in either the ``tested to more than 1.25 MAOP,''
``less than 1.25 MAOP but greater than or equal to 1.1 MAOP,'' or
``tested to less than 1.1 MAOP or not subjected to a pressure test''
bands specified in Part R.
    A20: PHMSA proposed the new Part R to collect pipeline mileage that
has not been subjected to a pressure test and pipeline mileage that is
not able to accommodate the passage of an

instrumented internal inspection device. Several commenters, including
AGA, National Grid, Paiute, SCANA, Southwest Gas, and Northeast Gas
Association suggested that PHMSA clarify the phrase ``not able to
accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices.''
Most of the commenters specified that operators will have varying
interpretations of this language that will result in poor data if
clarification is not provided. Several definitions were proposed by the
commenters. AGA suggested that a line that is able to accommodate the
passage of an internal inspection device be defined as a ``pipe of
appropriate physical and operational characteristics to allow
successful inspection via current commercially available in-line
inspection tools within the specified tool requirements and
tolerances.'' Northeast Gas Association suggested that a line that is
able to accommodate the passage of an internal inspection device be
defined as a ``pipe of appropriate physical and operational
characteristics to allow successful inspection via currently available
in-line inspection tools either meeting the requirements of Subpart O
192.921(1) in conjunction with ASME/B31.8S or acceptable to PHMSA via
180 day notification to them including tethered or un-tethered
devices.''
    A20. Response: PHMSA has amended the form and instructions for Part
R in response to comments to clarify the phrase ``not able to
accommodate the passage of instrumented internal inspection devices.''
As a result, PHMSA has revised Part R to collect ``Miles Internal
Inspection ABLE'' and ``Miles Internal Inspection NOT ABLE.'' The
instructions include the following definition for ``Internal Inspection
ABLE''--``A length of pipeline through which commercially available
devices can travel, inspect the entire circumference and wall thickness
of the pipe, and record or transmit inspection data in sufficient
detail for further evaluation of anomalies.''
    A21: AGA commented that a section for ``Additional Information''
should be added to report to allow for operators to include any
additional information which would assist in clarifying or classifying
the reported data. AGA suggested that this section could be become a
new Part S and be incorporated in the same manner as Part H in the Gas
Distribution Systems Annual Report (PHMSA F 7100.1-1).
    A21. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal
Register notice. Although the proposed revision from AGA may be
indirectly related, PHMSA would like more time to evaluate this
suggestion and will consider it during the next review of the form
which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    A22: Energy Transfer commented that PHMSA's estimate of two hours
of additional reporting burden should be increased by two or three
orders of magnitude.
    A22. Response: PHMSA's estimate of two hours is based on the amount
of time it takes to report the requested information. Although PHMSA
believes that two hours is appropriate for additional information
requested in the proposed report, PHMSA acknowledges that it may take
each operator varying amounts of time to report this information. In
consideration of this point and the commenter's suggestion, PHMSA is
revising the estimated amount of time to collect the proposed
information at four hours.
    A23: INGAA commented that the proposed reporting should be amended
to enable the use of a Fitness-For-Service approach for pre-regulation
pipe. INGAA specifies that this process focuses on pre-regulation pipe,
information on pipelines that have been subjected to a pressure test
other than 125% of MAOP, and pipelines that operate at or below 30%
SMYS.
    A23. Response: PHMSA acknowledges the potential value of a Fitness-
For-Service approach to address the proposed reporting of pre-
regulation pipe. However, such an approach requires further assessment
and discussion with stakeholders prior to its actual implementation,
and therefore would not be appropriate to apply at this time.
    A24: INGAA commented that the instructions for Part H ``MILES OF
TRANSMISSION PIPE BY NOMINAL PIPE SIZE (NPS)'' and Part I ``MILES OF
GATHERING PIPE BY NOMINAL PIPE SIZE (NPS)'' should specify that NPS
data be based on the most common nominal pipe sizes and reported as
integers (e.g., 6.625 inches should be reported as NPS 6).
    A24. Response: PHMSA agrees and has revised the instructions
accordingly.
    A25: INGAA suggested that the definitions, detailed in their
comment, for the terms ``Actionable Anomaly,'' ``Direct Examination,''
``OCS Portion,'' and ``Repair'' be incorporated into the instructions.
INGAA commented the suggested definitions for these terms are commonly
accepted industry definitions.
    A25. Response: PHMSA has incorporated the definition of actionable
anomaly and included some aspects of the repair definition suggested by
INGAA. There is no need to define direct examination or OCS portion.
    A26: Commenter Jack Wilson asked why hazardous liquid pipelines are
not being subjected to the same or similar annual reporting
requirements as gas transmission and gathering pipeline systems.
    A26. Response: The major revisions (the addition of Parts Q and R)
to the Gas Transmission Annual Report have been incorporated to collect
information that will be used to address portions of the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 that require
certain actions applicable to gas transmission pipelines. These actions
include record verification and pressure testing for pipelines that
have not been subjected to a pressure test greater than 1.25 times the
MAOP. In 2013, PHMSA will solicit comments in the Federal Register on
all aspects of the Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems
(PHMSA F 7000-1.1) which is authorized under OMB Control Number 2137-
0614 with an expiration date of January 31, 2014.

B. Gas Transmission Pipeline and Gathering Systems Incident Report

    PHMSA proposed to revise the ``Incident Report--Natural and Other
Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems'' (PHMSA F 7100.2, Gas
Transmission Incident Report) to make minor edits and to collect
additional information relating to incidents involving girth welds. The
form and instructions proposed by PHMSA in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR
22387) Federal Register notice and comments received in response to the
notice may be found at www.regulations.gov at docket number PHMSA-2012-
0024. The docket also contains the form and instructions as amended in
response to the comments.
    B1. PHMSA proposed revisions to Part C of the Gas Transmission
Incident Report to collect more information regarding incidents
involving girth welds. INGAA commented that this additional information
should be collected for all pipe and joint weld types.
    B1. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal
Register notice. Expanding the data collection beyond girth welds would
require significant additional resources. PHMSA will consider this
suggestion during the next review of the form which is scheduled to
take place in 2013.
    B2: Part G of the Gas Transmission Incident Report asks for the
apparent

cause of the incident. Section G5 of Part G requests information
relating to an apparent cause of material failure of the pipe or weld,
including ``Environmental Cracking-related.'' INGAA commented that
``Stress Corrosion Cracking'' (SCC), which is currently a subcategory
under ``Environmental Cracking-related,'' should be returned to Part G,
section G1 (``Corrosion Failure''). INGAA noted that their review of
the latest incident data revealed that no incident reports have
identified SCC as the apparent cause in Part G, section G5. INGAA noted
that operators have continued to identify SCC as the apparent cause in
Part G, section G1.
    B2. Response: PHMSA moved SCC from section G1 to section G5 in
2010. This change was made at the suggestion of industry to reflect the
fact that SCC is not truly corrosion. The SCC failure mechanism is more
appropriately reported under the material and weld failure category.
PHMSA has contacted those operators that have reported SCC as a
``Corrosion Failure'' and asked them to submit supplemental reports
identifying SCC as ``Environmental Cracking-related'' in Part G,
section G5.
    B3: INGAA commented that the Gas Transmission Incident Report used
to require operators to identify the manner in which the MAOP was
determined. INGAA suggested that this is a useful data element that
should be added back to the Gas Transmission Incident Report.
    B3. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal
Register notice. This issue falls outside of the scope of those
revisions. PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next review
of the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    B4: INGAA commented that definitions for the common industry terms
``Explode,'' ``Rupture,'' and ``Shutdown'' should be included within
the Gas Transmission Incident Report or instructions.
    B4. Response: PHMSA agrees and has included these definitions in
the instructions.

C. Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Systems Accident Report

    PHMSA proposed to revise the ``Accident Report--Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Systems'' (PHMSA F 7000-1, Hazardous Liquid Accident Report)
to make minor edits and to collect additional information relating to
accidents involving girth welds. The form and instructions proposed by
PHMSA in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal Register notice and
comments received in response to the notice may be found at
www.regulations.gov at docket number PHMSA-2012-0024. The docket also
contains the form and instructions as amended in response to the
comments.
    C1: On page 15 of the current Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
instructions, PHMSA provides guidance on reporting shutdowns. API and
AOPL commented that the previous version of the instructions provided
additional guidance regarding how and when shutdowns of pipeline
facilities must be reported, and that this guidance should be
reinstated to allow for uniform reporting amongst operators.
    C1. Response: PHMSA agrees and has incorporated the revision as
suggested.
    C2: On page 1 of the current Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
instructions, PHMSA provides guidance on reporting pipeline failures or
releases involving secondary ignition. API and AOPL commented that this
guidance is confusing and should be removed since operators must report
any release when a fire not intentionally set by the operator is
involved, irrespective of which party initiated the release or the
amount of damage.
    C2. Response: PHMSA agrees and has incorporated the revision as
suggested.
    C3: On page 13 of the current Hazardous Liquid Accident Report
instructions, PHMSA provides an ``Important Note'' regarding Part A,
Questions 9 and 10 to require the inclusion of commodity volumes
consumed by fire or explosion in the estimated volumes reported. API
and AOPL commented that this guidance is contrary to previous guidance
and will result in data that does not correlate with previous data. API
and AOPL further requested that PHMSA note this change to avoid
misinterpretation or incorrect analysis of the data.
    C3. Response: PHMSA has amended the instructions for Part A,
Questions 9 and 10 to remove the ``Important Note'' and to specify that
the volumes consumed by fire should only be reported as a dollar value
under Part D, Question 8.
    C4: Part A, Question 7 of the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report asks
for the local time and date of the initial telephonic report of the
accident to the National Response Center (NRC). The Hazardous Liquid
Accident Report instructions specify that the time reported should
reflect the time zone where the accident was physically located. API
and AOPL commented that the NRC puts a time stamp on each report based
on the Eastern Time Zone, and not the local time at the accident
location, and that PHMSA should note this discrepancy in the Hazardous
Liquid Accident Report instructions in order to reduce confusion.
    C4. Response: PHMSA will add the note suggested by API to warn
operators that the NRC report time stamp must be converted to local
time. PHMSA will also make this change in the Gas Transmission Incident
Report.
    C5: API and AOPL commented that the ``Supplemental Report'' section
on Page 8 of the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report instructions
incorrectly cites 49 CFR 191.15(c) from the natural gas regulations and
should be corrected to reference 49 CFR 195.54(b) from the hazardous
liquid regulations.
    C5. Response: PHMSA has corrected the regulation referenced in the
instructions.
    C6: Part G of the Hazardous Liquid Accident Report allows for the
reporting of ``Apparent Cause'' and Part G, section G6 applies to
``Equipment Failure.'' PHMSA did not propose revisions to this Part.
API and AOPL recommended that PHMSA revise Part G, section G6 to add
``abnormal wear'' as a sub-cause in an effort to reduce operator use of
the option ``other,'' thereby increasing the accuracy and specificity
of PHMSA's data. API and AOPL further recommended that the option
``none'' be added to Part G, section G6, and that the phrase ``Complete
the following if any Equipment Failure sub-cause is selected'' be
deleted. API and AOPL suggested that these proposed revisions will
further substantiate PHMSA's data.
    C6. Response: At this time, PHMSA is focusing on the proposed
revisions identified in the April 13, 2012, (77 FR 22387) Federal
Register notice. This issue falls outside of the scope of those
revisions. PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next review
of the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    C7: Part D of the hazardous liquid accident report allows for the
reporting of ``ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCE INFORMATION.'' PHMSA proposed to
revise Part D, Question 8(a), to delete the phrase ``paid/reimbursed by
the Operator.'' API and AOPL commented that PHMSA should not implement
the proposed deletion. API and AOPL suggested that the proposed
deletion would create a misleading impression that private individuals
must pay, or have paid, damages resulting from a release. They further
specified that it is only in extremely rare instances that an entity
other than the operator incurs any cost and, in those rare instances,
the operator is unlikely to know the costs incurred by other parties,
rendering them unable to provide an accurate response.

    C7. Response: PHMSA removed ``paid/reimbursed by the Operator''
from the form in response to questions from operators about whether
they should report total property damage or just the dollar amount paid
for by the operator. PHMSA expects operators to report total property
damage, regardless of whether the operator paid for the damage. In
cases where the operator has not paid for the damage, the dollar amount
must be estimated. PHMSA will remove ``paid/reimbursed by the
Operator'' from the form.
    C8: PHMSA proposed revisions in Part C of the report to collect
more information for incidents involving girth welds. API and AOPL
suggest that PHMSA restructure the form so that all the data will be
collected in a data field within Part C, rather than in the narrative
where it is unavailable for public examination and proper analysis.
    C8. Response: The revision proposed by the commenters would require
extensive modifications to the form and to the methods of data
analysis. PHMSA will consider this suggestion during the next review of
the form which is scheduled to take place in 2013.
    C9: API and AOPL commented that PHMSA should ensure that all
proposed changes are reflected in the instructions.
    C9. Response: PHMSA has revised the instructions to reflect the
proposed revisions.
    C10: Part A of the hazardous liquid accident report allows for the
reporting of ``Key Report Information.'' PHMSA did not propose any
changes to this Part. API and AOPL suggested that Part A, Question 10
be revised from ``Estimated volume of intentional and/or controlled
release/blowdown'' to ``Estimated volume of intentional and/or
controlled release/blowdown (HVL/CO2 releases only).'' API and AOPL
specified that adoption of the proposed modification would be
consistent with the original objective of the question -- to
differentiate information on HVL/CO2 releases where product is vented
or flared under the operator's control to facilitate repair following a
release, as opposed to what was released unintentionally during the
release event. API and AOPL further suggested that this revision be
detailed in the instructions as well.
    C10. Response: PHMSA agrees with the comment from API and AOPL and
has revised the form and instructions as suggested.

D. General Comments

    D1: AGA commented that PHMSA should involve industry more in the
deliberation process for implementing changes to the forms.
    D1. Response: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, PHMSA involves industry by seeking comments and
suggestions on proposed recordkeeping and reporting activities and will
continue to do so.

III. Proposed Information Collection Revisions and Request for Comments

    The following information is provided for each revised information
collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control
number; (3) Type of request; (4) Abstract of the information collection
activity; (5) Description of affected public; (6) Estimate of total
annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (7) Frequency of
collection. PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for each
information collection activity. PHMSA is only focusing on the
revisions detailed in this notice and will request revisions to the
following information collection activities.
    1. Title: Incident and Annual Reports for Gas Pipeline Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0522.
    Current Expiration Date: 1/31/2014.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: PHMSA is looking to revise the Gas Transmission Annual
Report (PHMSA F 7100.2-1) to collect additional information in response
to recent NTSB recommendations and the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. In addition, PHMSA is revising
the Gas Transmission Incident Report Form (PHMSA F 7100.2) to allow for
the submission of additional information regarding the pipe in relation
to girth weld failures.
    Affected Public: Gas transmission/gathering pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 21,864.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 83,144 (increase of 5,760).
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    2. Title: Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline:
Recordkeeping and Accident Reporting.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0047.
    Current Expiration Date: 12/31/2013.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: PHMSA is looking to revise the Hazardous Liquid Accident
Report Form (PHMSA F 7000-1) to allow for the submission of additional
information regarding the pipe in relation to girth weld failures.
    Affected Public: Hazardous liquid pipeline operators.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 847.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 51,329.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Comments Are Invited On

    (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 18, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-23335 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P