Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 1 Final Draft Chapter IV. Human Exposure A. Drinking Water Exposure BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN have been identified as drinking water disinfection byproducts under the Information Collection Rule ( U. S. EPA, 1994) and are being assessed for regulatory consideration in the Stage 2 Disinfectants/ Disinfection Byproducts Rule to be promulgated. Therefore, this section will examine the occurrence of these compounds in drinking water.

A. 1 National Occurrence Data for BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN This section presents the data collected from the Information Collection Rule ( ICR)

database, which provides data from surface and ground water systems serving at least 100,000 persons. This database includes information gathered for 18 months from July 1997 to December 1998.

Section A. 1.1 describes the ICR data set and analysis techniques used to present the data for the plants that submitted data under the ICR. The data in Sections A. 1.1 and A. 1.2 were taken from the online version of the ICR database ( U. S. EPA, 2002a), and the explanation of the methods used was taken from the Draft EPA Document on Stage 2 Occurrence and Exposure Assessment for Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts ( D/ DBPs) in Public Drinking Water ( U. S. EPA, 2000a). Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 2 Final Draft A. 1.1 ICR Plants The ICR generated plant level sets of data that link water quality and treatment from source to tap, and aid in understanding the seasonal variability in these relationships. The database contains information from 18 monthly or six quarterly samples from 7/ 97 to 12/ 98 from approximately 300 large systems covering approximately 500 plants. These samples were tested for influent and finished water quality parameters ( e. g., TOC, temperature, pH, alkalinity), DBP levels, and disinfectant residuals. Samples were collected at several locations throughout the distribution system to cover the entire range of residence times during which DBPs can form in the finished water. Over the 18 month period, approximately 1470 samples were taken from 305 plants with surface water as their source, and approximately 580 samples were taken from 123 plants with groundwater as their source. For more detailed information, such as sampling locations and frequencies, refer to the ICR Data Analysis Plan ( U. S. EPA, 2000b).

A. 1.2 Quarterly Distribution System Average and Highest Value for BCAN, DBAN,

DCAN, and TCAN This section describes the data analysis techniques employed for the analysis of observed data for water quality parameters, and for BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN concentrations. All data are categorized according to the types of source water  surface or ground. Plants having both surface and ground water sources ( mixed) or that purchase water are included in the surface water category. Quarterly Distribution System Average and Highest Value for the HANs are presented in Table IV 1. Data presented in the table have been taken from the ICR database Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 3 Final Draft as provided to avoid misrepresentation or misinterpretation. Therefore, although all data in the table are presented with two decimal points ( as provided in the ICR database), this does not necessarily represent the actual precision of the data.

The quarterly distribution system average is an average of the following four distinct locations in the distribution system.

Distribution System Equivalent ( DSE) location;

Average 1 ( AVG 1) and Average 2 ( AVG 2) locations: Two sample points in the distribution system representing the approximate average residence time as designated by the water system; and

Distribution System Maximum: Sample point in the distribution system having the highest residence time ( or approaching the longest time) as designated by the water system The quarterly distribution system highest value is the highest of the four distributionsystem samples collected by a plant in a given quarter. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 4 Final Draft Table IV 1. Haloacetonitriles Quarterly Distribution System Average and Highest Value Source Quarterly Dist. Sys. Plants N PctND % Mean µ g/ L Median µ g/ L STD µ g/ L Min µ g/ L Max µ g/ L p10 µ g/ L p90 µ g/ L BCAN SW Average 304 1411 20.55 1.14 0.88 1.21 0.00 13.13 0.00 2.63 High 304 1411 20.55 1.40 1.05 1.41 0.00 13.40 0.00 3.20 GW Average 108 524 50.38 0.73 0.00 1.10 0.00 7.38 0.00 2.13 High 108 524 50.38 0.99 0.00 1.48 0.00 13.00 0.00 2.70 DBAN SW Average 304 1397 43.88 0.75 0.27 1.12 0.00 7.78 0.00 2.25 High 304 1397 43.88 0.96 0.60 1.36 0.00 11.30 0.00 2.70 GW Average 108 523 37.86 0.82 0.43 1.17 0.00 8.93 0.00 2.15 High 108 523 37.86 1.10 0.80 1.39 0.00 10.00 0.00 2.60 DCAN SW Average 304 1406 10.10 2.21 1.74 2.09 0.00 17.13 0.00 4.53 High 304 1406 10.10 2.72 2.20 2.52 0.00 24.60 0.00 5.40 GW Average 110 524 57.63 0.87 0.00 2.08 0.00 17.65 0.00 2.35 High 110 524 57.63 1.25 0.00 2.72 0.00 21.00 0.00 3.70 TCAN SW Average 304 1393 96.91 0.03 0.00 0.30 0.00 7.28 0.00 0.00 High 304 1393 96.91 0.07 0.00 0.74 0.00 20.50 0.00 0.00 GW Average 110 515 97.67 0.14 0.00 2.07 0.00 39.60 0.00 0.00 High 110 515 97.67 0.17 0.00 2.20 0.00 41.54 0.00 0.00 Source: SW  Surface Water, GW  Groundwater Quarterly Dist. Sys: Quarterly Distribution System ( DS) Samples. Average  quarterly average of 4 locations in DS. High  highest of 4 locations in DS.

Plants: Number of plants sampled N: Number of samples PctND: Percent samples nondetect ( detection limits not provided)

Mean: Arithmetic mean of all samples Median: Median value of all samples STD: Standard deviation Min: Minimum Value Max: Maximum Value p10: 10th percentile p90: 90th percentile ND: Nondetected Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 5 Final Draft The median concentrations for all four chemicals were less than the corresponding mean concentrations, for both surface water and groundwater. The mean concentrations of BCAN ( averaged across the four sampling locations) were 0.73 and 1.14  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The median concentrations of BCAN were 0.00 and 0.88  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The mean concentrations of DBAN ( averaged across the four sampling locations) were 0.82 and 0.75  g/ L in groundwater and surface water,

respectively. The median concentrations of DBAN were 0.43 and 0.27  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The mean concentrations of DCAN ( averaged across the four sampling locations) were 0.87 and 2.21  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The median concentrations of DCAN were 0.00 and 1.74  g/ L in groundwater and surface water,

respectively. The mean concentrations of TCAN ( averaged across the four sampling locations)

were 0.14 and 0.03  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The median concentrations of TCAN were 0.00  g/ L in both groundwater and surface water. The lowest mean concentrations are associated with the highest percentage of nondetects, which are treated as zero in the calculation of the mean, median, standard deviation, and p10 values ( U. S. EPA,

2000a).

A. 2 Factors Affecting the Relative Concentrations of BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN in Drinking Water Sections A. 2.1  A. 2.5 contain investigational information on the effects of disinfection chemicals, influent bromide concentration, influent total organic carbon ( TOC) concentration, Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 6 Final Draft temperature and pH, and seasonal shifts, respectively in BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN concentrations.

A. 2.1 Disinfection Treatment Chlorination has been the predominant water disinfection method in the United States.

However, water utilities are considering a shift to alternative disinfectants. Therefore, there is a need to understand the occurrence of DBPs in drinking water and the factors that may influence their formation. Several published studies ( Boorman et al., 1999; Richardson, 1998; Lykins et al., 1994; Jacangelo et al., 1989; Miltner et al., 1990) reported on the formation of HANs and other DBPs under different disinfection conditions.

In a review on drinking water disinfection byproducts, Boorman et al. ( 1999) compared the concentrations of different drinking water disinfection byproducts, including BCAN, DBAN,

DCAN, and TCAN, formed by chlorination, ozonation, chlorine dioxide, and chloramination.

Most of the data that were available were from surface water systems that used chlorination. For the systems using chlorination, DCAN was present at the highest concentrations, with a median and a maximum concentration of 2.1 and 10 µ g/ L, respectively. The median and maximum concentrations of BCAN were 0.6 and 1.1 µ g/ L, respectively. The median concentrations of both DBAN and TCAN in chlorinated water were less than their limits of detection at < 0.5 and < 0.02 µ g/ L, respectively. The maximum concentrations of DBAN and TCAN in chlorinated water were 9.4 and 0.02 µ g/ L, respectively. The principal products formed by chloramination Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 7 Final Draft were similar to those formed by chlorination; additional information was not provided. HANs were not detected when the water was treated with ozone. Boorman et al. ( 1999) reported that chlorine dioxide formed oxidation by products similar to those formed by ozonation; additional details were not provided.

Richardson ( 1998) compared the relative concentrations of DBPs in drinking water using different treatment methods, and also reported that chlorination produced the highest concentration of DBPs, including BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN. Compared to chlorine treatment, chloramine produced 3% to 20% lower levels of by products, including HANs.

Richardson ( 1998) speculated that, as with the other halogenated by products of chlorination, the formation of the HANs may be caused by residual chlorine in the chloramination process, rather than by the chloramine itself. Richardson ( 1998) found that BCAN, DCAN, and TCAN were not produced by ozonation or chlorine dioxide in measurable quantities. However, DBAN was formed by ozone in the presence of elevated bromide, but not by chlorine dioxide disinfection.

When ozone was the primary disinfectant ( i. e., ozone followed by chlorine or ozone followed by chloramine) the formation of DBPs ( including HANs) was less than when chlorine or chloramine was the sole disinfectant. This was believed to be due to the destruction by ozone of DBP precursor material. In addition, lower levels of chlorine or chloramine are required when ozone is used as the primary disinfectant, and this also leads to lower levels of DBPs. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 8 Final Draft Lykins et al. ( 1994) investigated the formation of halogenated DBPs in the waterdistribution system, by predisinfecting and postdisinfecting the water with either chlorine or chloramine and holding the water for five days. Similar to the other investigators, Lykins et al.

( 1994) also found that the use of chlorine produced the highest concentration of halogenated DBPs and that, in general, the concentrations were less when chloramine was used or when ozone was used as a predisinfectant followed by either postchlorination or postchloramination. Lykins et al. ( 1994) found that relatively low concentrations of HANs were formed. The highest average concentration of total HANs ( 3.1  g/ L) was when chlorine was used, with or without ozonation.

The total HANs concentrations observed with the other process streams was < 1  g/ L. DCAN,

with a concentration of approximately 1.9  g/ L, was the predominant HAN when chlorine ( with or without ozone) was used, followed by BCAN ( 0.6  g/ L), DBAN (~ 0.4  g/ L), and TCAN ( 0.1  g/ L). In contrast, the average concentrations of BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN were 0  g/ L when the water was treated with chloramine or with ozone followed by chloramine.

Jacangelo et al. ( 1989) examined the impact of ozonation on the formation and control of DBPs in drinking water at four utilities. Treatment modifications were made on the process train at each full or pilot scale plant to incorporate ozone in the treatment process. The disinfection schemes that employed ozonation followed by chloramines as a disinfectant resulted in large decreases (> 90%) in HAN formation relative to chlorination and > 25% to > 90% decreases in HAN formation relative to chloramines only. For two utilities that measured individual HANs,

preozonation followed by chlorination decreased the total HANs by 29 35%, when compared Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 9 Final Draft with chlorination only. The concentrations of BCAN and DCAN decreased with ozonation, while the concentrations of DBAN increased at one facility and showed little change at the second facility. The concentrations of TCAN were less than the limit of detection (< 0.012  g/ L) with and without preozonation.

Miltner et al.( 1990) studied DBP formation and control in three surface water pilot plants employing three different disinfectant methods ( chlorine, ozone followed by chlorine, and ozone followed by chloramine). In an examination of the data using the Student's t test, the authors found that ozonation had no effect ( at p = 0.05) on the formation of BCAN, DCAN, or TCAN in simulated finished water and distribution water, and had no effect on the formation of DBAN in simulated finished water. However, the formation of DBAN in simulated distribution water was higher ( at p = 0.05) when ozonation was combined with chlorination or with chloramination than when chlorination was used alone.

A. 2.2 Bromide Concentration Ambient bromide levels appear to influence, to some degree, the speciation of HANs ( WHO, 2000). DCAN is by far the most predominant HAN detected in drinking water from sources with bromide levels of 20 µ g/ L or less. In treated water from sources with higher bromide levels ( 50   80  g/ L), BCAN was the second most prevalent HAN. None of the treated water from any of these sources had a DBAN concentration exceeding 0.5 µ g/ L, including treated water from one source that had a much higher bromide level, 170 µ g/ L ( WHO, 2000). However, Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 10 Final Draft Richardson ( 1998) found that when bromide was present in the source water, DBAN concentrations were greater than those of chloroform or dichloroacetic acid, which normally predominate.

A. 2.3 Total Organic Carbon ( TOC) Concentration Many researchers have documented that chlorine reacts with natural organic matter,

including algae, humic acid, fulvic acid, and proteinaceous material to produce a variety of DBPs,

including HANs ( Bieber & Trehy, 1983; Oliver, 1983; Reckhow and Singer, 1990; Reckhow et al., 1990). Reckhow et al. ( 1990) found that the disinfection of water containing humic acids resulted in higher concentrations of HANs than disinfection of water containing the corresponding fulvic acids.

A. 2.4 Temperature and pH In general, increasing temperature and/ or decreasing pH has been associated with increasing concentrations of HANs ( AWWARF, 1991; Siddiqui & Amy, 1993). Dihalogenated acetonitriles ( BCAN, DBAN, DCAN) are reported to undergo hydrolysis in water ( Bieber &

Trehy, 1983). Arora et al. ( 1997) analyzed results of a DBP survey and a two year DBPmonitoring study of more than 100 treatment plants of the American Water System ( a large water utility) from 1989 to 1991, and found that HANs hydrolyzed at pH levels > 9.0 and continued to degrade in the distribution system. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 11 Final Draft Different trends were observed in the HAN concentrations of different source waters. For two source waters, HAN levels formed rapidly for the first eight hours and continued to increase slowly or leveled off after 96 hours ( AWWARF, 1991). DBAN levels remained relatively stable over the 96 hours, as did BCAN and DCAN levels. For other sources, levels of HANs consisting mostly of DCAN increased rapidly up to 4   8 hours and began to decline by the end of the 96

hour period. For these sources, BCAN appeared to be slightly more stable than DCAN ( AWWARF, 1991).

A. 2.5 Seasonal Shifts Seasonal shifts in HANs were investigated by Krasner et al. ( 1989). In September 1987,

the US EPA's Office of Drinking Water entered into a cooperative agreement with the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies ( AMWA) to perform a study of the occurrence and control of DBPs. The AMWA contracted with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ( MWD) to provide management services for the project and to perform the DBP analysis. In addition, the State of California Department of Health Services ( CDHS), through the California Public Health Foundation ( CPHF), contracted with MWD to perform a similar study in California. Baseline data were gathered on 35 water treatment facilities, including 25 water utilities across the United States in the U. S. EPA study and 10 California water utilities in the CDHS study. Levels of BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN were measured. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 12 Final Draft During the first quarter ( spring 1988), a good correlation was found between the HANs and trihalomethanes, another class of disinfectant byproduct. In addition, Krasner et al. ( 1989)

reported that relatively high levels of the measured brominated DBPs were detected at some of the utilities. These findings suggested that the influence of bromide in the raw water should be evaluated. Therefore, chloride and bromide analyses were added to the protocol, beginning with the second quarter ( summer 1988) of sampling. Among the 35 facilities, bromide levels ranged from < 0.01 to 3.00 mg/ L. At the utility with the highest bromide levels (~ 3 mg/ L bromide) there was a shift in the distribution of DBPs from the chlorinated DBPs to the brominated DBPs,

resulting in DBAN as the major HAN detected. This is in apparent contrast to the findings of WHO ( 2000), which found that at high bromide levels, BCAN was the second most prevalent compound, following DCAN. While there were no clear trends of the concentrations of bromide ions or brominated acetonitriles with season in the composite analysis, DBAN levels were higher in the fall in the utility with the highest bromide levels. Some shifts in DBPs formed were also seen as the result of drought conditions and saltwater intrusion.

B. Exposure to Sources Other Than Drinking Water TCAN has been used as an insecticide ( Budavari et al., 1989). No data were located on exposure to BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN in food, air, or via dermal exposure when showering or swimming. Therefore, no assessment of overall exposure to any of the HANs can be performed. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 13 Final Draft C. Body Burden No data could be located on body burden. However, the results of Roby et al. ( 1986) that showed relatively rapid excretion of DCAN associated radioactivity ( at least 70% of the administered dose excreted within 6 days in rats or within 24 hours in mice) suggests limited potential for the bioaccumulation of the HANs.

D. Summary The ICR database ( U. S. EPA, 2002a) contains extensive information on concentrations of BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN in drinking water systems, and on how those concentrations vary with input water characteristics and treatment methods. The database contains information from six quarterly samples from 7/ 97 to 12/ 98, from approximately 300 large systems covering approximately 500 plants. The mean concentrations of BCAN were 0.73 and 1.14  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The mean concentrations of DBAN were 0.82 and 0.75  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The mean concentrations of DCAN were 0.87 and 2.21  g/ L in groundwater and surface water, respectively. The mean concentrations of TCAN were 0.14 and 0.03  g/ L in groundwater and surface water,

respectively. The median concentrations of BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN were less than their means in groundwater and surface water.

HANs are produced during water chlorination or chloramination from naturally occurring substances, including algae, humic acid, fulvic acid, and proteinaceous material. Reckhow et al. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 14 Final Draft ( 1990) found that disinfection of water containing humic acids resulted in higher concentrations of HANs than disinfection of water containing the corresponding fulvic acids.

The disinfection process producing the highest concentration of HANs was chlorination.

Chloramine produced lower levels of HANs. Most investigators ( Boorman et al., 1999;

Richardson 1998; Lykins et al., 1994; Jacangelo et al., 1989) found that the formation of HANs when ozonation was followed by chlorine or chloramine was less than when chlorine or chloramine was the sole disinfectant. Interestingly, Miltner et al.( 1990) reported that the formation of DBAN in simulated distribution water was higher ( at p = 0.05) when ozonation was combined with chlorination or with chloramination than when chlorination was used alone. In addition, Miltner et al.( 1990) found that ozonation had no statistically significant effect on the formation of BCAN, DCAN, or TCAN. Richardson ( 1998) found that BCAN, DCAN, and TCAN were not produced in measurable quantities by ozonation or chlorine dioxide. However,

DBAN was formed by ozone in the presence of elevated bromide, but not by chlorine dioxide disinfection.

Ambient bromide levels appear to influence, to some degree, the speciation of HANs.

DCAN is by far the most predominant HAN detected in drinking water from sources with bromide levels of 20 µ g/ L or less. In treated water from sources with higher bromide levels ( 50   80  g/ L), BCAN was the second most prevalent compound ( WHO, 2000). Richardson Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 15 Final Draft ( 1998) found that when bromide was present in the source water, DBAN concentrations were greater than those of chloroform or dichloroacetic acid, which normally predominate.

In general, increasing temperature and/ or decreasing pH has been associated with increasing concentrations of HANs ( AWWARF, 1991; Siddiqui & Amy, 1993). Although HANs form rapidly, they decay in the distribution system as a result of hydrolysis. HANs hydrolyzed at pH levels > 9.0 and continued to degrade in the distribution system ( Arora et al., 1997). The relative stability of individual HANs appears to be dependent on the specific source water ( AWWARF, 1991).

In general, there were no clear trends of the concentrations of HANs with season.

However, among 35 water treatment facilities investigated, Krasner et al.( 1989) found that at the facility with the highest bromide level (~ 3 mg/ L bromide), there was a shift in the distribution of HANs from chlorinated HANs to brominated HANs. At this facility DBAN was the major HAN detected, with the highest DBAN levels detected in the fall. This is in apparent contrast to the findings of WHO ( 2000), which reported that at high bromide levels, BCAN was the second most prevalent compound following DCAN.

TCAN has been used as an insecticide ( Budavari et al., 1989). No data were located on exposure to BCAN, DBAN, DCAN, and TCAN in food, air, or via dermal exposure when showering or swimming. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Haloacetonitriles EPA/ OW/ OST/ HECD IV 16 Final Draft No data could be located on body burden. However, the results of Roby et al. ( 1986) that showed relatively rapid excretion of DCAN associated radioactivity ( at least 70% of the administered dose excreted within 6 days in rats or within 24 hours in mice) suggests limited potential for the bioaccumulation of the HANs.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30691-30692]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-46-000]

Complaint of Michael Mabee Related to Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standards; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 12, 2020, pursuant to section 215(d) of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824o(d) and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.206 (2019), Michael Mabee, (Complainant) filed a formal
complaint alleging that Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standard (CIP-013-1) (Cyber Security Supply Chain Risk Management) does
not comport with Presidential Executive Order 13920: Securing the
United States Bulk-Power System; and does not fully address the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework,
as more fully explained in the complaint.
    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. All interventions,
or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended

access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 Eastern Time on June 11, 2020.

    Dated: May 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10841 Filed 5-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63865-63866]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26903]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2018-0745; FRL-9987-80-OGC]

Proposed Joint Stipulation, Endangered Species Act Claims

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed stipulation; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the EPA Administrator's October 16, 2017,
Directive Promoting Transparency and Public Participation in Consent
Decrees and Settlement Agreements, notice is hereby given of a proposed
joint stipulation and proposed stipulated notice of dismissal in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California in
the case of Ellis, et al., v. Keigwin, et al., No. 3:13-cv-01266. On
May 8, 2017, the court issued an order on summary judgment dismissing
claims against EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), but finding that EPA failed to perform
duties mandated by the Endangered Species Act (``ESA'') to consult with
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (``FWS'') regarding 59 EPA-
approved pesticide products containing either of the insecticidal
active ingredients clothianidin or thiamethoxam. The parties are
proposing to reach a settlement in the form of a joint stipulation on
the appropriate remedy for the court's finding of liability. Among
other provisions, the joint stipulation would set a June 30, 2022,
deadline for EPA to complete ESA effects determination for EPA's
registration reviews of clothianidin and thiamethoxam and, as
appropriate, request initiation of any ESA consultations with FWS that
EPA may determine to be necessary as a result of those effects
determinations. EPA is also taking comment on a proposed stipulated
notice of dismissal that would be entered with the court following
execution of the joint stipulation.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed joint stipulation and
stipulated notice of dismissal must be received by January 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2018-0745 online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method).
For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
generally will not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Dyner, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Law Office (2333A), Office of General Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Joint Stipulation and
Stipulated Notice of Dismissal

    On March 21, 2013, Plaintiffs (several beekeepers and public
interest organizations) filed suit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs brought claims
alleging that EPA had improperly denied a petition to suspend products
containing clothianidin and that EPA's registration of certain
clothianidin and thiamethoxam products violated certain registration
requirements of FIFRA, and violated section 7(a)(2) of the ESA because
EPA had failed to consult with FWS prior to issuing the registrations.
On May 8, 2017, the court granted EPA's summary judgment motion with
respect to the FIFRA claims and partially granted Plaintiffs' summary
judgment motion with respect to the ESA claims, finding that EPA had
failed to comply with the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
with respect to 59 clothianidin and thiamethoxam products. In its
order, the court also directed the parties to develop a briefing
schedule for determining the appropriate remedy and, concurrently, to
schedule a settlement conference to determine whether the parties could
settle the remedy proceeding outside of court.
    The proposed stipulation and stipulated notice of dismissal would
settle the remedy proceeding. Specifically, paragraph two of the
proposed stipulation provides that EPA would agree to complete ESA
effects determinations by June 30, 2022, for its FIFRA registration
reviews of clothianidin and thiamethoxam and, as appropriate, request
initiation of any necessary ESA consultations with the Services. As
provided in paragraph three of the proposed stipulation, EPA would also
agree to initiate informal consultation with the Services to begin an
informal dialogue between the agencies prior to EPA completing its
effects determinations.
    In addition, as described in paragraph one of the proposed
stipulation, defendant-intervenors Syngenta, Bayer and Valent (the
registrants of products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam) have
agreed to request that EPA voluntarily cancel the following 12 specific
products that contain either clothianidin or thiamethoxam under section
6(f)(1) of FIFRA:
    1. Adage Premier Seedcare, EPA Reg. No. 100-1450.
    2. Adage Deluxe, EPA Reg. No. 100-1449.
    3. Avicta Complete Corn 500, EPA Reg. No. 100-1399.
    4. TMX-MXM-FDL-TBZ FS, EPA Reg. No. 100-1426.
    5. Inovate Seed Protectant, EPA Reg. No. 59639-176.
    6. Inovate Neutral Seed Protectant Reg. No. 59639-187.
    7. Emesto Quantum, EPA Reg. No. 264-1125.
    8. Flower Rose & Shrub Care III, EPA Reg No. 72155-95.
    9. V10170 0.25G GL, EPA Reg. No. 59639-164.
    10. Meridian 0.14G, EPA Reg. No. 100-1346.
    11. Meridian 0.20G, EPA Reg. No. 100-1341.
    12. Aloft GC G Insecticide, Reg. No. 59639-214.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to
the proposed joint stipulation and

stipulated notice of dismissal from persons who are not named as
parties to the litigation in question. If so requested, EPA will also
consider holding a public hearing on whether to agree to the proposed
joint stipulation and stipulated notice of dismissal. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
joint stipulation or proposed stipulated notice of dismissal if the
comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the ESA or FIFRA. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent should be withdrawn, the terms of the
proposed stipulation and stipulated notice of dismissal will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Stipulation
and Stipulated Notice of Dismissal

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed stipulated order of partial
dismissal?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-
OGC-2018-0745) contains a copy of the proposed stipulation and proposed
order of dismissal. The official public docket is available for public
viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available on EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/ogc/proposed-consent-decrees-and-draft-settlement-agreements and through www.regulations.gov. You may use
www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then
select ``search.'' It is important to note that EPA's policy is that
public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be
made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket.
    EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted
material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's
electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper
form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials
may be available electronically, you may still access any of the
publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: December 4, 2018.
Joseph E. Cole,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-26903 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10276-10277]
[DOCID:fr07mr07-173]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55373; File No. SR-BSE-2006-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2
Relating to the Boston Options Exchange's Minor Rule Violation Plan

February 28, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 6, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange (``BSE'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to the proposed rule change on June 28,
2006, and July 14, 2006, respectively. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as
amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend and make additions to sections of
the Boston Options Exchange (``BOX'') Rules related to its Minor Rule
Violation Plan (``MRVP''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on BSE's Web site at http://www.bostonstock.com/legal, at

BSE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the BSE included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter X of its rules relating to
the BOX MRVP to include five additional violations of BOX's rules
governing Market Makers doing business on BOX and the Intermarket
Linkage Rules. The rule proposal imposes sanctions for each violation,
which become more significant with each additional violation occurring
within a 24-month period.
    These provisions impose sanctions in BOX Rule Chapter X, Section
2(e) for contrary exercise advice infractions of Chapter VII, Section
1(c), (d), (f), and (g); in Section 2(f) for locked and crossed market
infringements of Chapter XII, Section 4; in Section 2(g) for Market
Maker assigned activity violations of Chapter VI, Section 4(e); in
Section 2(h) for a Market Maker's failure to respond to a request for a
quote within the

designated time limit of Chapter VI, Section 6(b)(ii)-(iii); and in
Section 2(i) for Inter-Market Linkage trade-through violations of
Chapter XII, Section 3(a). The sanctions imposed would include the
application of a fine for each violation and an increased fine amount
for repeat violations. In the instance of a trade-through violation,
the rule proposal would also allow BOX Regulation to require the
Options Participant \3\ to disgorge any gains from transactions in
violation of the trade-through rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BOX Rule Chapter I, Section 1(a)(40) for definition of
``Options Participants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes would
strengthen its ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities as a
self-regulatory organization and reinforce its surveillance and
enforcement functions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, facilitate
transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include File

Number SR-BSE-2006-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 10 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-11. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the BSE. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2006-11 and
should be submitted on or before March 28, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-4041 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39508-39509]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0078]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities, Revision to
OPID Assignment Request and National Registry Notification

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is preparing to request Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval for the revision of the Operator Assignment Request
(PHMSA F 1000.1) and National Registry Notification (PHMSA F 1000.2)
currently approved under OMB control number 2137-0627. PHMSA proposes
revising certain parts of the forms and instructions. In accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on the
proposed revisions.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
October 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
    E-Gov Website: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of DOT, West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2018-0078, at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You should know that anyone can 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.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000, (65
FR 19476) or visit http://www.regulations.gov before submitting any
such comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of DOT, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to receive confirmation of
receipt of your written comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped postcard with the following statement: Comments on: PHMSA-2018-
0078.'' The docket clerk will date stamp the postcard prior to
returning it

to you via the U.S. mail. Please note that due to delays in the
delivery of U.S. mail to Federal offices in Washington, DC, we
recommend that persons consider an alternative method (internet, fax,
or professional delivery service) of submitting comments to the docket
and ensuring their timely receipt at DOT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-
1246, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at DOT, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, PHP-30, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    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 an information collection revision
request PHMSA will be submitting to OMB for approval.

B. OPID Assignment Request

    PHMSA intends to revise the OPID Assignment Request (PHMSA F
1000.1) form and its instructions. PHMSA proposes adding ``Underground
Natural Gas Storage'' as an additional facility type in step 2 of the
form. During fiscal year 2018, PHMSA began partnering with state
agencies to inspect and enforce PHMSA regulations for underground
natural gas storage facilities. Adding ``Underground Natural Gas
Storage'' as an additional facility type is essential for routing the
request to the proper state agency.
    PHMSA proposes collecting the state and number of miles when a
request includes liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) facilities serving fewer
than 100 customers from a single source. Collecting the state for LPG
facilities is crucial to determining which PHMSA region or state agency
should receive the request.
    There are eight safety programs in step 3 of the request, but only
three apply to underground natural gas storage facilities. PHMSA
proposes modifying step 3 to indicate the safety programs required for
underground natural gas storage facilities.
    PHMSA proposes modifying the instructions to explain PHMSA's past
actions for small LPG and master meter operators and future
expectations for these operators. Adding this information to the
instructions would provide clarity for operators and state agencies
inspecting the operators.

C. National Registry Notification

    PHMSA intends to revise the National Registry Notification form
(PHMSA F 1000.2) and its instructions. PHMSA proposes changing the name
of the form from ``Operator Registry Notification'' to ``National
Registry Notification'' to match the wording of the PHMSA regulations
requiring the notifications.
    PHMSA proposes adding ``Underground Natural Gas Storage'' as an
additional facility type in steps 1 and 3 of the form. During fiscal
year 2018, PHMSA began partnering with additional state agencies to
inspect and enforce PHMSA regulations for underground natural gas
storage facilities. Adding ``Underground Natural Gas Storage'' as an
additional facility type is essential for routing the notification to
the proper state agency.
    There are eight safety programs in a type C notification, but only
three apply to underground natural gas storage facilities. PHMSA
proposes modifying the type C portion of the form to indicate the
safety programs required for underground natural gas storage
facilities.
    Operators report various types of construction projects to PHMSA in
type F notifications. PHMSA proposes adding a single-select field to
describe the main purpose of the construction project.
    The type J notification section assumes that all LNG construction
builds new facilities. PHMSA proposes modifying the type J section to
recognize that a notification may be submitted for rehabilitation or
replacement of LNG facilities.
    In step 3 of the form, PHMSA collects data about the location of
the facilities covered by the notification. When the notification
covers onshore gas gathering, gas transmission, or hazardous liquid
pipelines, step 3 data includes the county(ies) for the pipelines.
PHMSA uses this county data to associate the notification to a specific
portion of the operator's pipeline system. When the notification covers
onshore gas gathering, gas transmission, hazardous liquid facilities,
or offshore pipelines or facilities, county data is not collected.
PHMSA proposes modifying the form to collect county data for onshore
gas gathering, gas transmission, and hazardous liquid facilities, and
offshore pipelines and facilities. This change would allow PHMSA to
associate each notification to a specific portion of the operator's
pipeline system.

D. Summary of Impacted Collections

    The following information is provided below for the impacted
information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2)
OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request;
(5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of
affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
    Title: National Registry of Pipeline and Liquefied Natural Gas
Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0627.
    Current Expiration Date: 7/31/2020.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Abstract: The National Registry of Pipeline and LNG Operators
serves as the storehouse for the reporting requirements for an operator
regulated or subject to reporting requirements under 49 CFR part 192,
193, or 195. This registry incorporates the use of two forms: (1) OPID
Assignment Request (PHMSA F 1000.1) and (2) National Registry
Notification (PHMSA F 1000.2). The burden estimate for this information
collection is increasing by 10 responses and 10 burden hours to account
for PHMSA F 1000.2 Part F notifications.
    Affected Public: Operators of Pipeline Facilities.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Total Annual Responses: 689.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 689.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Comments are invited on:
    (a) The need for the proposed collection of information, including
whether the information will have practical utility in helping the
agency to achieve its pipeline safety goals;
    (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information;
    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 3, 2018, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2018-17052 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P