[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 51342-51343]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-1(b), OMB Control No. 3235-0032; SEC File No. 270-28.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for approval of extension of the existing collection of
information provided for in the following rule: Rule 17f-1(b) (17 CFR
240.17f-1(b)) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.) (the ``Exchange Act'').
    Rule 17f-1(b) under the Exchange Act requires approximately 26,000
entities in the securities industry to register in the Lost and Stolen
Securities Program (``Program''). Registration fulfills a statutory
requirement that entities report and inquire about missing, lost,
counterfeit, or stolen securities. Registration also allows entities in
the securities industry to gain access to a confidential database that
stores information for the Program.
    We estimate that 1,000 new entities will register in the Program
each year. The staff estimates that the average number of hours
necessary to comply with the Rule 17f-1(b) is one-half hour. The total
burden is therefore 500 hours (1,000 times one-half) annually for all
participants.

    Rule 17f-1(b) is a registration obligation only. Registering under
Rule 17f-1(b) is mandatory to obtain the benefit of a central database
that stores information about missing, lost, counterfeit, or stolen
securities for the Program. Reporting institutions required to register
under Rule 17f-1(b) will not be kept confidential; however, the Program
database will be kept confidential. Please note that an agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: September 30, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23996 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                             SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
	WHEREAS, on July 17, 2009, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network ("LEAN") filed a complaint (civil action no. 1:09-0133) against Lisa Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (hereinafter LEAN v. Jackson), which complaint was amended on February 17, 2010;
	WHEREAS, in its complaint LEAN alleges that EPA has failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under the Clean Air Act related to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards for ozone in the Baton Rouge Area;
	WHEREAS, on March 5, 2010, EPA filed its answer to LEAN's amended complaint, denying any liability;
	WHEREAS, Clean Air Act sections 172(c)(5) and 182(d) and 185,  42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(5) and 7511a(d), and 7511d, set forth certain requirements applicable to areas classified as "severe" ozone nonattainment areas;
	WHEREAS, EPA reclassified the Baton Rouge area as a severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area effective June 23, 2003, and established a schedule for Louisiana to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions addressing the Clean Air Act's pollution control requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas;
	WHEREAS, in 2004 EPA promulgated a final rule ("the Phase 1 Implementation Rule") to implement the 8-Hour Standard, and purported to remove the need for states to include 1-hour ozone new source review elements as part of their federally approved State Implementation Plan;
 	WHEREAS, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) vacated those portions of the Phase 1 Implementation Rule that purported to remove the need for States to include 1-hour ozone new source review elements as part of their federally approved State Implementation Plan;
	WHEREAS, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ") has submitted to EPA for approval certain State Implementation Plan revisions relevant to Severe 1-Hour Requirements for major sources in the Baton Rouge Area, which submissions include: (1) a June 15, 2005 submittal titled "Severe Area Rule Update," (2) a December 20, 2005, submittal titled "New Source Review State Implementation Plan (SIP)," and (3) a November 9, 2007, submittal titled "General Rule Update."
	WHEREAS, EPA has not made any determination whether the June 15, 2005, December 20, 2005, and November 9, 2007, state implementation revisions submitted by LDEQ meet applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act;
	WHEREAS, the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation issued a memorandum dated October 3, 2007, noting that the effect of the South Coast decision is to restore the obligation for areas designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard to have in their State Implementation Plans new source review applicability thresholds and emission offsets pursuant to the nonattainment classification in effect for the area for the 1-hour ozone standard at the time of designation for the 8-hour standard;
	WHEREAS, EPA's Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, on April 29, 2009, sent a letter to the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality strongly encouraging the State to comply with the court decision in South Coast, and advising LDEQ that "EPA expects States to implement 1-hour nonattainment NSR requirements using thresholds and emission offsets based on the classifications for areas designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard;"
	WHEREAS, the Baton Rouge Area is currently designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard;
	WHEREAS, recent monitoring data suggests that the Baton Rouge area is currently meeting the 8-Hour Standard and may be eligible for redesignation to attainment;
	WHEREAS, LDEQ has submitted a request to redesignate to attainment for the 8-hour NAAQS the Baton Rouge nonattainment area;
	WHEREAS, certain requirements applicable to nonattainment areas terminate when an area is redesignated to attainment;
	WHEREAS, on March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.75 ppm, 73 Fed. Reg. 16,436 (Mar. 27, 2008).  EPA is reconsidering whether that standard is sufficient to protect public health.  EPA has proposed to promulgate a revised ozone standard within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.  75 Fed. Reg. 2938 (Jan. 19, 2010).  Complete, quality-assured data for 2008 and 2009, and preliminary data through September 30, 2010, suggests that the Baton Rouge area is not meeting the 0.75 standard; this same data suggests that the area is not meeting a standard within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm.
	WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to a settlement of the claims raised in this action without any admission or adjudication of fact or law, which they consider to be a just, fair, and equitable resolution of the claims raised;
	NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree to this settlement in the manner, terms, and conditions as follows:
                                 GENERAL TERMS
	1.	The parties to this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") are LEAN and EPA.
	2.	For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings provided below:
      	"Agreement" refers to this document.
      	"Baton Rouge Area" refers to the five-parish Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area, which includes Ascension, East Baton Rouge, Iberville, Livingston, and West Baton Rouge Parishes.
      	"EPA" means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or the Administrator's duly authorized representative, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
      	"1-Hour Standard" refers to the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard of 0.12 parts per million promulgated in 1979, 44 Fed. Reg. 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979).
      	"8-Hour Standard" refers to the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard of 0.08 parts per million promulgated in 1997, 62 Fed. Reg. 38,856 (July 18, 1997).
      	"Settling Parties" refers to LEAN and EPA.
                               AGREED DEADLINES
	3.	Within five (5) days of the execution of this Agreement by both Settling Parties, the Settling Parties shall file a joint motion with the Court in LEAN v. Jackson, notifying it of this Agreement and requesting the Court enter an order holding litigation in abeyance pending completion of the process under section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act and during the period required to effectuate the terms of this Agreement, if EPA gives final approval and consents to this Agreement after the Clean Air Act section 113(g) process addressed in paragraphs 16 and 17 below.
	4.	If, by February 28, 2012, EPA has not taken final action redesignating the Baton Rouge Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will, by that date, sign a notice, to be published in the Federal Register, proposing action on (1) LDEQ's June 15, 2005 submittal titled "Severe Area Rule Update," (2) LDEQ's December 20, 2005, submittal titled "New Source Review State Implementation Plan (SIP)," and (3) LDEQ's November 9, 2007, submittal titled "General Rule Update."
	5.	If, by September 30, 2012, EPA has not taken final action redesignating the Baton Rouge Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA will, by that date, sign a notice, to be published in the Federal Register, taking final action on the three proposed actions referenced in Paragraph 4.
	6.	Within 30 days after EPA's completion of the obligations in paragraphs 4 and 5, or within 30 days after EPA has taken final action redesignating the Baton Rouge Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, LEAN and EPA shall jointly file with the Court in LEAN v. Jackson (civil action no. 1:09-01333) a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) to  dismiss without prejudice its First Amended Complaint except that such dismissal shall be with prejudice as to any claim against EPA to require EPA to take final agency action on (1) LDEQ's June 15, 2005 submittal titled "Severe Area Rule Update," (2) LDEQ's December 20, 2005, submittal titled "New Source Review State Implementation Plan (SIP)," and (3) LDEQ's November 9, 2007, submittal titled "General Rule Update."  If LEAN fails to do so, EPA may file such a motion and LEAN shall not oppose it. Dismissal of this Action pursuant to this Agreement shall not serve as a waiver or relinquishment of any other rights that LEAN may have under the Clean Air Act.  By way of example and not limitation, dismissal will not waive any of LEAN's right with respect to its position that Severe 1-Hour Requirements apply until the Baton Rouge Area achieves attainment with the applicable ozone standard that is current as of the time of any redesignation decision by EPA.
                           REMEDY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
	7.	If EPA fails to timely fulfill any duty under this Agreement, LEAN's sole judicial remedy shall be to the right to ask the Court to lift the stay described in paragraph 3, and to pursue the claims raised in its Complaint.  EPA does not waive or limit any defense relating to the claims raised in LEAN's Complaint, nor does EPA concede that it has any legal duty to take the actions called for in this Settlement Agreement.
	8.	The Settling Parties agree that contempt of court is not an available remedy under this Agreement.
                               AGENCY DISCRETION
	9.	Nothing in the terms of this Agreement shall be construed to limit or modify the discretion accorded EPA by the Clean Air Act or by general principles of administrative law.
                                 JURISDICTION
	10.	Nothing in the terms of this Agreement shall be construed to confer upon the district court jurisdiction to review any decision, either procedural or substantive, to be made by EPA pursuant to this Agreement.
                        EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
	11.	The Settlement Agreement shall not constitute an admission or evidence of any fact, wrongdoing, misconduct, or liability on the part of any Settling Party.
	12.	Except as set forth in this Agreement, the Settling Parties retain all rights, claims, defenses, and discretion they may otherwise have.
	13.	Nothing herein shall constitute an EPA finding or determination with respect to the three State Implementation Plan submissions referenced in Paragraph 4.
                                     COSTS
	14.	The Settling Parties shall each bear their own costs and fees, including but not limited to attorney's and expert witness fees
                                 MODIFICATION
	15.	This Agreement, including the deadlines set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5, may be modified or amended by written agreement by counsel for the Settling Parties.
                         CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 113(g)
	16.	The Settling Parties agree and acknowledge that final approval and entry of this Agreement is subject to the requirements of Clean Air Act § 113(g), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(g).  That subsection provides that notice of this proposed Agreement be given to the public, that the public shall have a reasonable opportunity to make any comments, and that the Attorney General, as appropriate, must consider those comments in deciding whether to agree to this Settlement.
	17.  	EPA shall submit a public notice of this Agreement to the Federal Register for publication and public comment within fourteen days of execution of this Agreement by the Settling Parties.  Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period EPA shall notify LEAN whether it consents to this Agreement.  This Agreement shall become final and effective on the date EPA notifies LEAN in writing that it consents to the Agreement.
                                EFFECTIVE DATE
	18.	This Agreement shall become effective upon signature by all Settling Parties, completion of the public process under section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, and EPA's notification to LEAN in writing of its final consent to the Agreement.
                          COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
	19.	No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted so as to constitute a commitment or requirement that EPA obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, or take actions in contravention of the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706, the Clean Air Act, or any other law or regulation, either substantive or procedural.
                           REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY
	20.	Each undersigned representative of the parties to this Agreement certifies that he or she is fully authorized by the party to enter into and execute the terms and conditions of this  Agreement.  By signature below, all Settling Parties consent to this Agreement.
FOR EPA:

Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General
Environment & Natural Resources Division

				 _________________________
Eric G. Hostetler
Environmental Defense Section
Environment & Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 23986
Washington, D.C. 20026-3986
(202) 305-2326

Date: ___________
FOR LEAN:

__________________________
Adam Babich
D.C. Bar. No. 382747
Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
6329 Freret Street
New Orleans, LA 70118-6321
(504) 862-8800

Date: ___________


[Federal Register: December 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 73358-73360]
[DOCID:fr02de08-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59014; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Require Limited
Partnerships To Obtain Shareholder Approval for the Use of Equity
Compensation and Make Other Clarifying Changes to the Listing
Requirements for Limited Partnerships

November 25, 2008.
    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 November 18, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), 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 prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change 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

    Nasdaq proposes to require limited partnerships to obtain
shareholder approval for the use of equity compensation and make other
clarifying changes to the listing requirements for limited
partnerships. Nasdaq will implement the proposed rule change upon
approval. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new

language is in italics; there are no proposed deletions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic manual of Nasdaq found at http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4360. Qualitative Listing Requirements for Nasdaq Issuers That Are
Limited Partnerships

    (a)-(j) No change.
    (k) Shareholder Approval. Each issuer that is a limited partnership
must obtain shareholder approval when a stock option or purchase plan
is to be established or materially amended or other equity compensation
arrangement made or materially amended, pursuant to which stock may be
acquired by officers, directors, employees, or consultants, as would be
required under Rule 4350(i)(1)(A) and IM-4350-5.
    (l) Auditor Registration. Each issuer that is a limited partnership
must be audited by an independent public accountant that is registered
as a public accounting firm with the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board, as provided for in Section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 [15 U.S.C. 7212].
    (m) Notification of Material Noncompliance. Each issuer that is a
limited partnership must provide Nasdaq with prompt notification after
an executive officer of the issuer, or a person performing an
equivalent role, becomes aware of any material noncompliance by the
issuer with the requirements of this Rule 4360.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Currently, NASDAQ rules require that issuers, except Limited
Partnerships (``LPs''), obtain shareholder approval for a variety of
corporate actions, including the issuance of equity compensation.
NASDAQ's shareholder approval requirements have not historically been
applied to LPs because their structure requires that public investors
have limited rights and that the general partners make all significant
decisions about the operation of the company. As such, limited partners
do not expect to have a voice in the operations of the partnership.
    Nonetheless, the Commission recently noted that the ``rationale for
treating an LP differently than, for example, a traditional corporation
with respect to shareholder input on equity compensation is less
compelling'' and that it is ``beneficial from a corporate governance
perspective'' to require shareholder approval for equity
compensation.\4\ As such, and in response to these findings by the
Commission, Nasdaq now proposes to expand the requirement to obtain
shareholder approval for equity compensation to entities that are LPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55796 (May 22, 2007)
(approving SR-NYSE-2007-28).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Nasdaq proposes to modify the rules applicable to LPs
to require that the auditor of a listed LP must be registered with the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB'') and that an LP
must notify Nasdaq of any material non-compliance with the corporate
governance rules. When Nasdaq adopted these requirements for other
companies in 2003 in response to requirements imposed by the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, Nasdaq inadvertently excluded LPs from these
requirements. Nonetheless, these requirements are already applicable to
LPs. Specifically, with respect to the proposed auditor registration
requirement, it is unlawful for an auditor to participate in the
preparation or issuance of an audit report with respect to any listed
company, including an LP, unless it is registered with the PCAOB.\5\
With respect to the proposed notification requirement, LPs have agreed
in Nasdaq's listing agreement, which each listed company must sign
prior to listing, to promptly notify Nasdaq in writing of any corporate
action or other event which will cause the company to cease to be in
compliance with NASDAQ listing requirements.\6\ As such, including
these changes in Nasdaq's rules are simply clarifying changes designed
to highlight the requirements and facilitate understanding and
compliance of the rules by LPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. 7212.
    \6\ See http://www.nasdaq.com/about/Listing_Agreement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general and with sections
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is
designed to help protect investors in LP securities against insider
self-dealing and the potential dilutive effect of equity compensation
plans and enhance the transparency surrounding the application of
NASDAQ's requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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 an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-084 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-084.
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 on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2008-084 and should be submitted on or before
December 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28495 Filed 12-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44246-44249]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17865]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0092]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Revision of a Previously Approved
Information Collection--National Pipeline Mapping System Program (OMB
Control No. 2137-0596).

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites public comments on our intent to request the Office of
Management and Budget's approval to revise and renew an information
collection currently under OMB Control Number 2137-0596 titled:
``National Pipeline Mapping System Program.'' The collection currently
requires operators to submit geospatial data, attributes, metadata,
public contact information and a transmittal letter to the National
Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) program. The proposed revisions will
require operators to submit additional information to the NPMS.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on or
before September 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. PHMSA-2014-
0092 through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays.
     Instructions: Identify the docket number, PHMSA-2014-0092,
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 is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received in 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 19477) 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's 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-2014-0092.'' 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 the DOT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Nelson, Geospatial Information
Systems Manager, Program Development Division, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The NPMS is a geospatial dataset that contains information about
PHMSA-regulated gas transmission pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines,
and hazardous liquid low-stress gathering lines. The NPMS also contains
data layers for all liquefied natural gas plants and a partial dataset
of PHMSA-regulated breakout tanks.
    The original standards for the NPMS data collection were drafted in
1998 by a joint government/industry committee comprised of members from
PHMSA's predecessor agency the Research and Special Programs
Administration, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas
Association and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. With
the passage of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (codified at
49 U.S.C. 60132), gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline
operators are required to submit their geospatial data, attributes,
metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter to the
NPMS program. While the standards reflected the state of geospatial
data and positional accuracy at that time, they do not reflect the
current state of geospatial data and positional accuracy. PHMSA
requires more accurate and complete information about each pipeline,
liquefied natural gas plant or breakout tank than the minimal set of
attributes it receives with NPMS submissions. Collecting enhanced data
will strengthen PHMSA's ability to fulfill its strategic goals to
improve public safety, protect the environment and ensure
infrastructure is well-maintained. More accurate and complete NPMS data
will also help emergency responders and government officials create
better, more appropriate emergency response plans.
    Specifically, the new data will:
     Aid the industry and all levels of government, from
Federal to municipal,

in promoting public awareness of hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
in improving emergency responder outreach. Currently, 787 Federal
officials, 1,208 state officials and 4,791 county officials have access
to the online mapping application. Providing these officials with an
improved NPMS containing system-specific information about local
pipeline facilities can help ensure emergency response agencies and
communities are better prepared and can better execute response
operations during incidents.
     Permit more powerful and accurate tabular and geospatial
analysis, which will strengthen PHMSA's ability to evaluate existing
and proposed regulations as well as operator programs and/or
procedures.
     Strengthen the effectiveness of PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
     Allow for more effective assistance to emergency
responders by providing them with a more reliable, complete dataset of
pipelines and facilities.
     Provide better support to PHMSA's inspectors by providing
more accurate pipeline locations and additional pipeline-related
geospatial data that can be linked to tabular data in PHMSA's
inspection database.
    PHMSA discussed its NPMS information needs at the joint meeting of
the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, also known as the Technical
Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory
Committee, also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, on August 9, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia. Having
discussed with the joint committee some of the challenges involved with
gathering positional accuracy data for certain lines, PHMSA devised a
proposal that will allow us to gather crucial NPMS data for lines that
are in areas of the greatest consequence.
    The proposed changes to the NPMS Operator Standards Manual detailed
below can be found at: www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/Documents/Draft_Operator_Standards.pdf. The proposed changes to the attributes will be
part of an operator's annual NPMS submission. Unless otherwise marked,
all attributes will be linked to the geospatial pipeline file as
attributes at the pipe segment level.
    PHMSA understands that operators, through their annual report
submissions, are currently collecting and have the following
information and attributes that PHMSA specifically proposes to collect
as additional parts of the NPMS submission. Collecting this geospatial
information could lead to eliminating duplicate data requests from the
annual reports. PHMSA invites comment on how this expanded collection
of information could affect the annual report:
     Positional Accuracy: PHMSA proposes that for pipeline
segments located within Class 3, Class 4, High Consequence Areas (HCA),
or ``could-affect'' HCAs, operators submit data to the NPMS with a
positional accuracy of five feet. The degree of positional accuracy
needed is more stringent and important in these areas because of the
potential for greater consequence in the event of a pipeline incident.
PHMSA further proposes that for all pipeline segments located within
Class 1 or Class 2 locations, operators submit data to the NPMS with a
positional accuracy of 50 feet. PHMSA believes that a large number of
operators already have access to data with this degree of accuracy
within their GIS systems. The current accuracy requirement of 500 feet
does not allow PHMSA to effectively locate a pipeline to the degree
needed to respond to environmental and integrity threats. It also
hinders PHMSA in identifying special features on the pipeline that may
be relevant for emergency response considerations. The new degree of
accuracy will help emergency responders more effectively locate a
pipeline to the degree needed to respond to environmental and integrity
threats and help in emergency planning.
     Pipe Diameter: PHMSA proposes to require operators to
submit data on the nominal diameter of a pipe segment. Knowing the
diameter of a pipeline can help emergency responders determine the
impact area of a pipeline. This attribute also gives PHMSA the
opportunity to gain a broader understanding of the diameters of pipe
being operated in any given geographical region and to further assess
potential impacts to public safety and the environment.
     Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure (MAOP), Maximum
Operating Pressure (MOP): PHMSA proposes operators submit the maximum
MAOP or MOP for a pipeline segment in pounds per square inch gauge.
This information is critical because it affects important risk-ranking
algorithms and the potential impact radius of a pipeline, which can
influence emergency response planning.
     Pipe Grade: PHMSA proposes operators submit information on
the predominant pipe grade of a pipeline segment. This information is
essential in issues regarding pipe integrity and is a necessary
component in determining the allowable operating pressure of a
pipeline.
     Percent Specified Minimum Yield Strength (SMYS): PHMSA
proposes operators submit information pertaining to the percent at
which the pipeline is operating to SMYS. Specifically, operators would
submit hoop stress caused by the highest operating pressure during the
year as a percentage of SMYS. PHMSA uses the percentage of operating
SMYS to determine low- and high-stress pipelines, class locations, test
requirements, inspection intervals, and other requirements in the
pipeline safety regulations.
     Leak Detection: PHMSA proposes operators submit
information on the type of leak detection system used. The type of leak
detection used can drastically alter effective response times for
operators and emergency responders. Knowing the type of leak detection
system used during an incident will help emergency responders respond
appropriately in the event of a release.
     Pipe Coating/Type of Coating: PHMSA proposes operators
indicate the level of and types of coating on a pipeline segment. The
type of coating relates to the level of protection from external
corrosion a pipe has while in the ground. Understanding the level of
coating helps PHMSA assess pipe integrity and perform better risk
assessments.
     Pipe Material: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the
type of pipe material. Knowing the pipe material helps PHMSA determine
the level of potential risk from excavation damage and external
environmental loads. These can also be factors in emergency response
planning.
     Pipe Join Method: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on
the pipe joining method. PHMSA uses this information to identify high-
risk joining methods and will be used in PHMSA's risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
     Year of Construction/Installation: PHMSA proposes
operators submit data on the predominant year of original construction
(or installation). The year of construction determines which
regulations apply to a pipeline for enforcement purposes. The data
requested pertains to the year of construction and not the year the
pipe was manufactured. On the annual report, operators have the option
of selecting categories of years to report the year of installation. As
a result of this revised collection, operators will be able to submit
data on the specific year of construction or installation. Although

this information is currently collected in the annual report,
collecting this information geospatially rather than tabularly allows
PHMSA to run better risk-ranking algorithms through pattern analysis
and relating pipe attributes to surrounding geographical areas.
     Class Location: PHMSA proposes operators of gas
transmission pipeline segments submit information on class location at
the segment level. Class location is based upon number of dwellings
within 220 yards on either side of the pipeline in a one-mile segment
level. This data will help PHMSA determine whether operator IM plans
are adequate and complete.
     High Consequence ``Could Affect'' Areas: PHMSA proposes
hazardous liquid and gas transmission operators identify pipe segments
which could affect HCAs as defined by 49 CFR 192.903 and 195.450. Pipe
segments can be classified as affecting a populated area, an
ecologically sensitive area, or a sole-source drinking water area. This
information will increase the awareness emergency responders have of
potential areas of significant impact.
     Onshore/Offshore: PHMSA proposes operators designate
whether a pipe segment is onshore or offshore. As there is no
universally accepted onshore/offshore boundary, comparisons between the
NPMS (PHMSA-generated) offshore mileage statistics and operator-
generated annual report offshore mileage statistics do not match. This
collection will allow PHMSA to standardize and compare the statistics
for regulatory purposes.
     Inline Inspection: PHMSA proposes operators indicate
whether their system is capable of accommodating an inline inspection
(ILI) tool. PHMSA considers inline inspections of pipelines to be
better, safer, and more cost-effective than other inspection methods.
Knowing this information will help PHMSA determine the percentage of
the pipeline industry already employing this practice and could help
PHMSA address concerns related to NTSB recommendation P-11-17.
     Year of Last Inline Inspection and Year of Last Direct
Assessment: PHMSA proposes operators submit data detailing the year of
a pipeline's last corrosion, dent, crack or ``other'' ILI inspection.
PHMSA also proposes to collect the year of the last direct assessment.
This information is used to verify integrity of the pipeline and is a
key metric in PHMSA's pipeline risk calculations, which are used to
determine the priority and frequency of inspections.
     Year and Pressure of Original and Last Hydrostatic Test:
PHMSA proposes to collect data on a pipeline's original and most recent
hydrostatic test years and pressures. This information is used to
verify a pipeline's integrity and is a key metric in pipeline risk
calculations.
     Commodity Detail: PHMSA proposes operators submit
commodity details for pipelines if that commodity is crude oil, product
or natural gas. The choices for crude oil will be ``sweet crude'' or
``sour crude.'' The choices for product will be refined non-ethanol
blended gasoline, refined fuel oil or diesel, refined kerosene or jet
fuel, other refined and/or non HVL petroleum products, ethanol blended
gasoline, biodiesel blend and other biofuels. The choices for natural
gas will be pipeline-quality or tariff-quality natural gas, wet but
non-sour natural gas, sour but non-wet natural gas, and wet, sour
natural gas. Other choices may be added as the need arises. This level
of detail is required because of potential differences in leak
characteristics, rupture-impacted hazardous areas and a pipeline's
internal integrity. Emergency responders would also be able to better
respond to and be better prepared for pipeline incidents if they knew
what commodities were being transported in which locations.
     Special Permit: PHMSA proposes operators denote whether a
pipe segment is part of a PHMSA Special Permit and thus would have a
different maximum operating pressure than would otherwise be allowed.
The Special Permit number is also needed. This information allows PHMSA
to more easily locate these pipe segments and could help emergency
responders respond adequately in the event of an emergency.
     Wall Thickness: PHMSA proposes to collect data on the
nominal wall thickness of a pipe. This is a fundamental piece of
information about a pipe that is used for risk calculations.
     Seam Type: PHMSA proposes operators submit data on the
seam type of each pipe segment. This is a fundamental piece of
information about a pipe that is used for risk rankings and
evaluations, which are used as a factor in determining pipeline
inspection priority and frequency.
    PHMSA understands that operators may or may not have the following
attributes in their GIS systems and therefore, operators may need to do
additional research to compile this information:
     Abandoned Pipelines: PHMSA proposes that all gas
transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines abandoned after the
effective date of this information collection be mandatory submissions
to the NPMS. Abandoned lines are not currently required to be submitted
to the NPMS. Based on a recent incident in Wilmington, CA, where
confusion as to whether a pipeline was abandoned or not was a factor,
abandoned pipelines need to be identified to help ensure that they are
maintained in the proper manner in accordance with pipeline safety
regulations. Abandoned lines are at higher risk for excavation damage
and are a critical integrity management issue. Operators only need to
submit this data in the calendar year after the abandonment occurs.
     Offshore Gas Gathering Lines: PHMSA proposes operators of
offshore gas gathering pipelines make NPMS data submissions. This
information is not currently collected, but due to a rising rate of
incidents involving offshore gas gathering lines, PHMSA believes this
information is necessary to develop risk calculations and accurate
response measures for incidents involving such pipelines.
     Installation Method if Pipe Crosses Body of Water Greater
Than 100 Feet in Width: Due to recent incidents involving washed-out
pipelines, including the incident that occurred near Laurel, MT, PHMSA
proposes operators submit data on the installation methods of pipe
segments that cross bodies of water greater than 100 feet in width.
This information will give pipeline inspectors the ability to verify
the depth of cover of pipeline segments under water. PHMSA will also
use this information in risk-ranking algorithms. Operators will be able
to select from options such as open cut, trenchless technologies, pipe
spans, etc.
     Facility Response Plan: PHMSA proposes operators submit
the Facility Response Plan control number and sequence number for
applicable liquid pipeline segments. This information will be used by
PHMSA inspectors to verify compliance with PHMSA requirements and to
aid in emergency response efforts.
     Throughput: Throughput is used to denote a pipeline's
capacity by stating the pipelines ability to flow a measured amount of
product per unit of time. PHMSA proposes operators submit average daily
throughput so States can better identify shortages and implement
contingency plans for potential widespread pipeline service outages to
maintain an uninterrupted flow of energy supplies.
     Mainline Block Valve Locations: PHMSA proposes operators
submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of mainline
block valves, the type of valves and the type of valve operators. This
information is essential for first responders, as the extent and

severity of property damage and life-threatening risks during high-
consequence incidents can be reduced if the appropriate valves on
affected segments are located and used more quickly. This information
will also assist PHMSA in accurate risk assessment.
     Storage Field Locations and Type of Storage: PHMSA
proposes operators submit a geospatial polygon file containing the
locations of storage fields and the field type. The footprint of the
storage field helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and
helps PHMSA provide accurate information to first responders.
     Refinery Locations/Gas Process/Treatment Plant Locations:
PHMSA proposes operators submit a geospatial point file containing the
locations of refineries (for liquid operators) and gas process/
treatment plants (for gas transmission operators). The location of
these facilities helps determine the impact to the surrounding area and
helps PHMSA provide accurate information to first responders.
     Breakout Tanks: PHMSA proposes to require the submission
of breakout tank data. As PHMSA regulates these tanks, knowing their
locations and attributes is an essential piece of knowledge.
     LNG Plants: PHMSA proposes to collect additional data
attributes for liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. These new attributes
include type of plant, capacity, impoundments, exclusion zones and year
constructed.
     Pump and Compressor Stations: PHMSA proposes operators
submit a geospatial point file containing the locations of pump (for
liquid operators) and compressor (for gas transmission operators)
stations. Pump and compressor stations are vulnerable areas, and
emergency responders need to know their locations for adequate
emergency planning. Additionally, the stations are often referenced as
inspection boundaries for PHMSA's inspectors.

B. Summary of Impacted Collections

    The following information is provided for this information
collection: (1) Title of the information collection, (2) OMB control
number, (3) Current expiration date, (4) Type of request, (5) Abstract
of the information collection activity, (6) Description of affected
public, (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden, and (8) Frequency of collection. PHMSA requests comments on the
following information collection:
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0596.
    Title: National Pipeline Mapping System Program.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revision of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
    Abstract: Each operator of a pipeline facility (except distribution
lines and gathering lines) must provide PHMSA geospatial data for their
pipeline system and contact information. The provided information is
incorporated into NPMS to support various regulatory programs, pipeline
inspections and authorized external customers. Following the initial
submission of the requested data, the operator must make a new
submission to NPMS if any changes occur so PHMSA can maintain and
improve the accuracy of NPMS's information.
    Respondents: Operators of natural gas, hazardous liquid, and
liquefied natural gas pipelines.
    Number of Respondents: 1,211.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Number of Responses: 1,211.
    Total Annual Burden: 420,516 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for the
Office of Management and Budget's clearance of this information
collection.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-17865 Filed 7-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76067-76068]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice, Naples Municipal Airport, Naples, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted by Naples Airport
Authority for Naples Municipal Airport under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47501 et. seq (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14
CFR part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure maps is November 23, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: W. Dean Stringer, Federal Aviation
Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Extension 117.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted for Naples Municipal Airport are
in compliance with applicable requirements of Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 150, effective November 23, 2010. Under 49
U.S.C. section 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
(the Act), an

airport operator may submit to the FAA Noise Exposure Maps which meet
applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected
aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect
such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation
with interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has
submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance
with the requirements of 14 CFR part 150, promulgated pursuant to the
Act, may submit a Noise Compatibility Program for FAA approval which
sets forth the measures the airport operator has taken or proposes to
take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the
introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the Noise Exposure Maps and
accompanying documentation submitted by Naples Airport Authority. The
documentation that constitutes the ``Noise Exposure Maps'' as defined
in Section 150.7 of 14 CFR part 150 includes: Figure 43, ``2010
Existing Conditions Noise Exposure Map; Figure 44, ``2015 Five-Year
Forecast Conditions Noise Exposure Map''; Figure 11, p. 31 and Figures
50-55 on pp. 124-134 are at required scale in supplemental fold-out map
entitled ``Consolidated Modeling Flight Tracks''; Section 5.6, pp. 110-
134; Section 3.1.2, pp 30-34; Section 2.4, pp. 23-27; Section 5.5, pp.
108; Table 2, p. 26; Section 5.5, p. 108; Table 7, p. 109. The FAA has
determined that these Noise Exposure Maps and accompanying
documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This
determination is effective on November 23, 2010.
    FAA's determination on the airport operator's Noise Exposure Maps
is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of 14 CFR part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the airport operator's
data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a Noise
Compatibility Program or to fund the implementation of that Program. If
questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific
properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a Noise Exposure Map
submitted under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the
FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise exposure
contours, or in interpreting the Noise Exposure Maps to resolve
questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered
by the provisions of Section 47506 of the Act. These functions are
inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning
responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are
not changed in any way under 14 CFR part 150 or through FAA's review of
Noise Exposure Maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed
overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties
on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that
submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning
agencies with which consultation is required under Section 47503 of the
Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator,
under Section 150.21 of 14 CFR part 150, that the statutorily required
consultation has been accomplished.
    Copies of the full Noise Exposure Maps documentation and of the
FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the
following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports
District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando,
Florida 32822.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on November 23, 2010.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-30588 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


P-18-0177 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-18-0177 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-18-0177 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0177 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0177 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-18-0177 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-18-0177 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0177 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75105-75106]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0213; FMCSA-2015-0323]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for seven
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are
taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0213 or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2015-0323 and choose the document to review. If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To
be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    On September 16, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for seven individuals from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (85
FR 57930). The public comment period ended on October 16. 2020, and one
comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment that was outside the scope of this
preceding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based on its evaluation of the seven renewal exemption
applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following
drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.
391.41(b)(8).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of September
and are discussed below.
    As of September 9, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following three individuals have satisfied the
renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and
seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Mark Anderson (NC)
Jeremy Bradford (AL)
Jeffrey B. Green (CA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0323. Their
exemptions were applicable as of September 9, 2020, and will expire on
September 9, 2022.
    As of September 16, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers:

Lee H. Anderson (MA)

Gary Combs, Jr. (KY)
Roland Mezger (PA)
Robert Thomas, Jr. (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0213. Their
exemptions were applicable as of September 16, 2020, and will expire on
September 16, 2022.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-25888 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18732-18733]
[DOCID:fr12ap06-52]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0130; FRL-7773-2]

Pesticide Product; Registration Applications; Correction and
Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of June 22, 2005,
concerning Pesticide Product; Registration Applications. This document
is being issued to correct the chemical name ``Ferric Sodium EDTA,''
and to replace it with ``Sodium Ferric Hydroxy EDTA.'' EPA is also
reopening the comment period on this application for an additional 30-
day period.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0130, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail. Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
    Hand Delivery. Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB)

(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection
Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington,
VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0130. The docket
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0130. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
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 regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
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 captured automatically 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage athttp://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/.

    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulation.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Peterson, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Does this Correction Do?

    FR Doc. 05-12200 published in the Federal Register of June 22, 2005
(70 FR 36153) (FRL-7714-7) is corrected as follows:
    On page 36154, in Unit II., Registration Applications, in paragraph
``1. File symbol: 42697-AR'', the active ingredient ``Ferric Sodium
EDTA'' is corrected to read ``Sodium Ferric Hydroxy EDTA.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Ferric Sodium EDTA.

    Dated: March 31, 2006.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-5338 Filed 4-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9903-9904]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03155]

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

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: ER10-2179-016; ER10-2181-016; ER10-2182-016.
    Applicants: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station, LLC, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the CENG
Nuclear Entities.
    Filed Date: 1/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20130131-5411.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-009.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. submits Notice of Non-
Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 1/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20130131-5395.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2178-004; ER10-2172-015; ER12-2311-004; ER11-
2016-010; ER10-2184-015; ER10-2183-012; ER10-1048-012 ER10-2176-016;
ER10-2192-015; ER11-2056-009; ER10-2178-015; ER10-2174-015; ER11-2014-
012; ER11-2013-012 ER10-3308-014; ER10-1020-011; ER10-1145-011; ER10-
1144-010; ER10-1078-011; ER10-1080-011; ER11-2010-012 ER10-1081-011;
ER10-2180-015; ER11-2011-011; ER12-2201-004; ER12-2528-003; ER11-2009-
011; ER11-3989-009 ER10-1143-011; ER11-2780-009; ER12-1829-004; ER11-
2007-010; ER12-1223-009; ER11-2005-012.
    Applicants: AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC, Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC, CER
Generation II, LLC, CER Generation, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company,
Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., Constellation Energy
Commodities Group Maine, LLC, Constellation Mystic Power, LLC,
Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., Constellation Power Source Generation,
Inc., Cow Branch Wind Power, L.L.C., CR Clearing, LLC, Criterion Power
Partners, LLC, Exelon Framingham, LLC, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
Exelon New Boston, LLC, Exelon West Medway, LLC, Exelon Wind 4, LLC,
Exelon Wyman, LLC, Handsome Lake Energy, LLC, Harvest Windfarm, LLC,
Harvest II Windfarm LLC, High Mesa Energy, LLC, Michigan Wind 1, LLC,
Michigan Wind 2, LLC, PECO Energy Company, Safe Harbor Water Power
Corporation, Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC, Tuana Springs Energy,
LLC, Wildcat Wind, LLC, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of AV Solar
Ranch 1, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20130131-5414.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-859-000.
    Applicants: ALLETE, Inc.
    Description: ALLETE, Inc. submits a Notice of Termination of a
Stated Rate, Full Requirements Agreement with the City of Nashwauk,
Minnesota.
    Filed Date: 1/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20130131-5404.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES11-25-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits Application for
Extension of Authorization to Consent to Borrowings in Connection with
Nuclear Fuel Lease and Request for Waiver of Competitive Bidding
Requirements.

    Filed Date: 1/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20130131-5408.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/13.

    Docket Numbers: ES11-27-001; ES11-26-001; ES11-28-001; ES11-29-001
ES11-30-003.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Joint Application of Entergy Gulf States Louisiana,
L.L.C. for Extension of Authorizations under Federal Power Act Section
204.
    Filed Date: 1/31/13.
    Accession Number: 20130131-5412.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/13.

    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: February 1, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03155 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P