[Federal Register: October 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 190)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50936-50939]
[DOCID:fr02oc09-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693; FRL-8965-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone
Attainment Contingency Measures for the San Joaquin Valley, CA

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 14, 2009, EPA proposed to disapprove the attainment
contingency measures in the extreme area plan for attainment of the 1-
hour ozone standard in California's San Joaquin Valley. EPA is now
proposing to approve these contingency measures and to withdraw its
proposed disapproval. This proposed approval is based on technical
information provided to EPA by the California Air Resources Board.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by November 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0693, by one of the following methods:
    1. Agency Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the online instructions to submit comments.
    2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions.
    3. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Mail or deliver: Ms. Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous access systems, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA Region 9,
415-972-3957, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.

I. Summary of EPA's July 14, 2009 Proposed Action on the SJV 1-Hour
Ozone Plan

    On July 14, 2009 at 74 FR 33933, EPA proposed to approve in part
and disapprove in part State implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted to EPA by the State of California. California made these
submittals to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements applicable to
the San Joaquin Valley, California ozone nonattainment area (SJV area).
The SJV area became subject to these requirements following its 2004
reclassification from severe to extreme for the 1-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 69 FR 20550 (April 15, 2004). In
1997, we revised the ozone NAAQS by lowering the level to 0.08 ppm and
extending the averaging time to eight hours \1\ and subsequently
revoked the 1-hour ozone standard. The SJV area, however, remains
subject to most of these CAA requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard
through the anti-backsliding provisions in EPA's rule implementing the
8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule). See 40 CFR 51.905(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). In 2008 we lowered the 8-
hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
The references in this proposed rule to the 8-hour standard are to
the 1997 standard as codified at 40 CFR 50.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed to approve California's 1-hour ozone SIP submissions
for the SJV area as meeting the applicable 1-hour requirements as
provided under the CAA and interpreted in the Phase 1 Rule for
attainment demonstrations, rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstrations and
related contingency measures, and other control requirements. EPA also
proposed to disapprove the contingency measures that would take effect
if the area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date. A complete discussion of EPA's proposed
actions is in the July 14, 2009 proposal.
    The three SIP submissions that are the subject of our July 14, 2008
proposal are, first, the ``Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration
Plan'' adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) in 2004 and amended in 2005. We refer to the plan and its
amendment, collectively, as the ``2004 SIP'' in this proposed rule. The
2004 SIP addresses CAA requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone areas
including control measures, ROP and attainment demonstrations, and
contingency measures.
    The second SIP submission addressed in the July 14 proposal, is
``Clarifications Regarding the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan'' (2008 Clarifications) adopted by the SJVAPCD in
2008. The 2008 Clarifications provide updates to the 2004 SIP related
to reasonably available control technology (RACT) measures adopted by
the SJVAPCD, the ROP demonstrations, and contingency measures.
    The third SIP submission addressed in the July 14 proposal is the
``2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State
Implementation Plan,'' adopted by the California Air Resources Board
(ARB) in October, 2003 (2003 State Strategy). This strategy document,
as modified by the ARB resolution adopting it, identifies ARB's
regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and particulate matter in California,
including specific commitments to reduce emissions in the San Joaquin
Valley. The 2004 SIP relies in part on the 2003 State Strategy for the
reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and ROP for the 1-hour
ozone standard. A complete description of each of these SIP submittals
can be found in the July 14, 2009 proposal.

II. Contingency Measures

A. Requirements for Contingency Measures for the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

    CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) require that SIPs contain
contingency measures that will take effect without further action by
the State or EPA if an

area fails to attain the ozone standard by the applicable date (section
172(c)(9)) or fails to meet a ROP milestone (section 182(c)(9)).
    In 1992, EPA issued a General Preamble describing our preliminary
views on how we intended to review 1-hour ozone plans submitted to meet
these and other CAA requirements. See ``General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). The General Preamble as well as other EPA
guidance documents related to 1-hour ozone plans continue to guide our
review of the 1-hour ozone requirements that remain applicable
following revocation of that standard.
    The Act does not specify how many contingency measures are needed
or the magnitude of emission reductions that must be provided by these
measures. However, EPA provided initial guidance interpreting the
contingency measure requirements in the General Preamble at 13510. Our
interpretation is based upon the language in sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) in conjunction with the control measure requirements of
sections 172(c), 182(b) and 182(c)(2)(B), the reclassification and
failure to attain provisions of section 181(b) and other provisions. In
the General Preamble, EPA indicated that States with moderate and above
ozone nonattainment areas should include sufficient contingency
measures so that, upon implementation of such measures, additional
reductions of 3 percent of the emissions in the adjusted base year
inventory (or such lesser percentage that will cure the identified
failure) would be achieved in the year following the year in which the
failure is identified. States may use reductions in either of the two
precursors to ozone formation--volatile organic compounds (VOC) or
nitrogen oxides (NOX)--to meet the contingency measure
requirement. See General Preamble at 13520. States may also use a
combination of NOX and VOC reductions to meet the
requirement. See General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. Finally, States
must show that their contingency measures can be implemented with
minimal further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking
actions.
    In subsequent guidance, EPA stated that contingency measures could
be implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment
date.\2\ Under this policy, States are allowed to use excess reductions
from already adopted measures to meet the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) contingency measures requirement. The key is that the CAA
requires extra reductions that are not relied on for ROP or attainment
and that will provide a cushion while the plan is being revised to
fully address the failure. Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from
implementing such measures before they are triggered. This approach has
been approved by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997);
62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 66 FR 586
and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). In the only adjudicated challenge to
this approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th
Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, EPA, to EPA Air Branch
Chiefs, Regions I-X, entitled ``Early Implementation of Contingency
Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,''
August 13, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, EPA designated and classified most areas of the country
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). At
the same time, we issued the Phase 1 rule. 69 FR 23951 (April 30,
2004). The Phase 1 rule provided that the 1-hour ozone standard would
be revoked in most areas of the country (including the SJV area),
effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 and 70 FR
44470 (August 3, 2005).
    The Phase 1 rule also set forth anti-backsliding principles to
ensure continued progress toward attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard by identifying which 1-hour ozone standard requirements remain
applicable after revocation of that standard. 40 CFR 51.900(f). In the
Phase I rule, EPA initially determined that contingency measures for
the 1-hour ozone standard would not be required once the standard was
revoked. See 70 FR 30592 (May 26, 2005). However, the DC Circuit in
South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., v. EPA, 472 F.3d
882 (DC Cir. 2006), rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245 (2007), vacated the
provision of the Phase 1 rule that waived the 1-hour contingency
measure requirements. Consequently, areas subject to the anti-
backsliding requirements, such as the SJV area, must continue to meet
the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) requirements. We have proposed
to revise 40 CFR 51.900(f), the regulatory definition of ``applicable
requirement'' for purposes of the anti-backsliding provisions in 40 CFR
51. 905, in order to remove the vacated provision and to add language
consistent with the Court's holding that contingency measures for
failure to attain or to make reasonable further progress toward
attaining the 1-hour standard continue to apply in such areas. See 74
FR 2936 (January 16, 2009).

B. EPA's July 14, 2009 Proposal on the Attainment Contingency Measures
in the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan

    One-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme under CAA
section 181(b)(3) must demonstrate attainment ``as expeditiously as
practicable'' but not later than the date specified in CAA section
181(a), November 15, 2010. The 2004 SIP contains a demonstration that
the SJV area will attain the 1-hour ozone standard by that date. In our
July 14, 2009 proposed action on the 2004 SIP, we proposed to approve
the attainment demonstration. 74 FR at 33942. The attainment
contingency measure requirement calls for a showing that there are
fully adopted contingency measures that will achieve emission
reductions in excess of the levels needed for attainment and sufficient
to provide continued ROP in the year after the attainment date, i.e., 3
percent reductions from the pre-1990 adjusted baseline in 2011 if
triggered by a failure to attain. Table 4 in our July 14, 2009 proposal
reproduces the ROP demonstrations in the 2004 SIP. 74 FR at 33941.
Based on the 2010 adjusted baseline in this ROP demonstration, an
additional 3 percent in the year after the attainment year equates to
approximately 15.3 tpd of VOC or 20.7 tpd of NOX with
NOX substitution.
    Table 5 in the July 14, 2009 proposal shows that there are no
excess reductions from adopted measures in the 2004 SIP's attainment
demonstration and that, in addition to the adopted measures that make
significant reductions toward attainment, the plan relies on
commitments to adopt measures to achieve the additional reductions
needed to demonstrate attainment. However, Table 6 in the July 14
proposal shows that there are 10 tpd NOX and 5 tpd VOC in
reductions in 2011 from adopted and creditable on-road mobile source
measures that could serve to fulfill a portion of the attainment
contingency measure requirement. These amounts collectively provide
just a 2.4 percent rate of progress in 2011, short of the suggested 3
percent.
    The SJV 1-hour ozone plan did not provide any information on post-
2010 emission reductions in any source category other than on-road
motor vehicles.
    Based on the information available to EPA at the time of the July
14, 2009 proposal, the State had not demonstrated that there were
sufficient excess reductions to satisfy the attainment contingency
measure requirement. We therefore proposed to disapprove the attainment
contingency

measures provision in the SJV 1-hour ozone plan as not meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). See 74 FR at 33944. We stated in
that proposal that the State could remedy this failure by submitting
either new contingency measures or a demonstration that existing
creditable measures provide, consistent with the guidance cited above,
sufficient emission reductions in 2011. Id.

C. Additional Information Submitted by California

    In an August 28, 2009 letter, ARB provided information on the
effect on emission levels in the SJV area of fleet turnover in the off-
road mobile source category. ARB also provided a demonstration that
these emission reductions, combined with the reductions in the on-road
mobile source sector, are more than the 3 percent of adjusted base
inventory emissions suggested by EPA guidance, and that these
reductions are not relied upon to satisfy rate of progress and
attainment demonstration requirements. See letter, James Goldstene,
ARB, to Marty Robins, EPA (Goldstene letter). We have reproduced ARB's
demonstration, contained in the attachment to the Goldstene letter, in
Table 1 below.

   TABLE 1--Emission Reductions Available To Satisfy the Clean Air Act
        Contingency Measure Requirement for ``Failure To Attain''
                   [San Joaquin Valley, Summer Season]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Line                         NOX             ROG \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 1990 Adjusted Baseline Emissions                689               509
 in 2010 (Note 1)...................
B. Emission Reductions from                         10                 5
 California's Existing On-road Motor
 Vehicle Emission Control Program
 (2010 to 2011) (Note 2)............
C. Emission Reductions from                        5.7               3.6
 California's Existing Off-road
 Equipment Emission Control Program
 (2010 to 2011).....................
D. Total Mobile Source Emission                     16                 9
 Reductions (2010-2011).............
E. Mobile Source Emission Reductions              2.3%              1.7%
 as a Percent of the 1990 Adjusted
 Baseline Emissions in 2010.........
                                     -----------------------------------
F. Total Mobile Source Emission
 Reductions as a Percent of the 1990
 Adjusted Baseline Emissions in 2010                 4.0%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1. From Table 2 ``San Joaquin Valley Rate of Progress'' in the 2008
  Clarification.
Note 2. From Table 3 ``Baseline Motor Vehicle Emissions 2000-2010'' in
  the 2008 Clarification.

    The reductions in the off-road engine category were taken from
baseline emission inventories developed as inputs to the air quality
modeling supporting the attainment demonstration in the 2004 SIP. These
baseline emission inventories include reductions only from measures
adopted prior to September 2002; therefore, the estimate of emission
reductions from the off-road engines category reflect only these
measures. See e-mail, Jeff Lindberg, ARB, to Frances Wicher, EPA,
``2011 Off-Road Emission Estimates for the San Joaquin Valley's 1-hour
Ozone Plan,'' September 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ARB uses the term ``reactive organic gases'' (ROG) in its
documents. For the purposes of this proposed rule, VOC and ROG are
interchangeable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By 2002, California already had in place a comprehensive off-road
mobile source control program that included both VOC and NOX
emissions standards for lawn and garden equipment, recreational boats,
off-road recreational vehicles, and many other off-road engine
categories. A list of ARB's adopted off-road measures can be found in
Table 15 of the technical support document (TSD) for our July 14, 2009
proposal.\4\ California has been granted a waiver or has applied for a
waiver under CAA section 209 for these measures \5\ and/or the
California emission limits are identical or very similar to EPA
regulations. EPA had also adopted by September 2002 measures that
reduce emissions from new construction and farm equipment and
locomotives that apply in California.6 7 As described in our
July 14, 2009 proposal, emission reductions from both section 209
waiver measures and Federal measures are fully creditable for
contingency measures. See 74 FR at 33936, 33938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Because this proposed action supplements our July 14, 2009
proposal, the docket number, EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693, for both
proposed actions is the same.
    \5\ Under CAA sections 209(a) and (e)(1), States are pre-empted
from adopting or enforcing emission standards for both on-road or
non-(off-) road new vehicles and new vehicle engines. Under CAA
section 209(b) and (e)(2), California must be granted a waiver of
this pre-emption upon certain findings by EPA although we may not
waive pre-emption for locomotives and for certain new construction
or agricultural engines. See CAA section 209(e)(1).
    \6\ Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 56968
(October, 23, 1998).
    \7\ Locomotive standards, 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1 above, creditable State and Federal on-road and
off-road measures provide a combined 4 percent rate of progress in 2011
which is more than the 3 percent ROP suggested in EPA guidance on
contingency measures. Therefore, we propose to approve the attainment
contingency measures provision in the SJV 1-hour ozone plan as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and the anti-backsliding
requirements of EPA's Phase 1 implementation rule and to withdraw our
July 14, 2009 proposed disapproval of this provision.

III. Summary of Proposed Action

    Based on our review of the additional information provided by ARB,
we are proposing to approve the contingency measure provisions in the
SJV 1-hour ozone plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(9) for contingency measures that must be implemented if an area
fails to attain by its attainment date. We are also proposing to
withdraw our July 14, 2009 proposed disapproval of these contingency
measures.
    These proposals to approve and withdraw address only the
contingency measures provision for failure to attain in the SJV 1-hour
ozone plan. The public comment period for the July 14, 2009 proposal
closed on August 31, 2009. 74 FR 40123 (August 11, 2009). EPA is not
reopening the comment period on any other aspects of its July 14, 2009
proposed action on the SJV 1-hour ozone plan. Therefore, comments in
response to the proposals herein must be limited to issues related to
the proposed approval of the attainment contingency measures in the SJV
1-hour ozone plan and the proposed withdrawal of the July 14, 2009
proposed disapproval of these measures.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to either review by the Office of Management
and Budget or to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    This action merely proposes to approve a portion of a State-adopted
attainment plan for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and withdraw a
previous proposal and does not impose any additional requirements.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this proposed action does not impose any additional enforceable
duties, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed action does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
plan is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State.
It will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Tribal law.
    This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications
because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This proposed action merely proposes to approve a
portion of a State-adopted plan and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
    Executive Order 12898 establishes a Federal policy for
incorporating environmental justice into Federal agency actions by
directing agencies to identify and address, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. Today's action involves a proposed approval of
a State-adopted plan. It will not have disproportionately high and
adverse effects on any communities in the area, including minority and
low-income communities.
    This proposed action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. This proposed action does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 23, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-23796 Filed 10-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 17851]
[DOCID:fr17ap09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP09-428-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Technical Conference

April 9, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission Staff will convene a technical
conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Tuesday, May 19, 2009,
at 9 a.m. (EST), in Room 3M-2B at the offices of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The technical conference will afford the Commission staff and the
parties to the proceeding an opportunity to discuss the issues raised
by ANR Pipeline Company's (ANR) annual fuel and electric power cost re-
determination filing, including but not limited to the proposed
increase in the gas fuel charge and electric power cost charge for the
Cold Springs 1 Storage Field.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact David Faerberg at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8802 Filed 4-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38747-38751]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16024]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Parts 234 and 235

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0211]
RIN 2105-AE07

Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air
Transport

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Department is proposing to amend its existing rule
regarding the reporting of incidents involving animals during air
transport, 14 CFR 234.13, to expand the reporting requirement to U.S.
carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with
a design capacity of more than 60 seats, to expand the definition of
``animal'' to include all cats and dogs transported by the carrier,
regardless of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its
owner or as part of a commercial shipment (e.g., shipped by a breeder),
and to require all covered carriers to provide in their December
reports the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died
during air transport. We also seek comment on requiring carriers to
report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year in
the December reports.

DATES: Comments should be filed by August 28, 2012. Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2010-0211 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
DOT-OST-2010-0211 or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the
rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: 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, a business, a labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vinh Q. Nguyen, Trial Attorney, Office
of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact Blane A. Workie, Deputy
Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-
366-9342 (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The current rule regarding reporting of incidents involving animals
during air transport derives from the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or ``AIR-21'' (Pub. L.
106-181), which was signed into law on April 5, 2000. It included
section 710, ``Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport,'' and was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41721. Section
41721 contains the following provisions:

    (a) In General.--An air carrier that provides scheduled
passenger air transportation shall submit monthly to the Secretary a
report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an
animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) during air
transport provided by the air carrier. The report shall be in such
form and contain such information as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
* * * * *
    (d) Publication of Data.--The Secretary shall publish data on
incidents and complaints involving the loss, injury, or death of an
animal during air transport in a manner comparable to other consumer
complaint and incident data.
    (e) Air Transport.--For purposes of this section, the air
transport of an animal includes the entire period during which an
animal is in the custody of an air carrier, from check-in of the
animal prior to departure until the animal is returned to the owner
or guardian of the animal at the final destination of the animal.

    On August 11, 2003, DOT, through its Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), issued a final rule implementing section 710 of
AIR-21. See 68 FR 47798. The rule required air carriers that provide
scheduled passenger air transportation to submit a report to the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) on any incident involving the loss,
injury, or death of an animal during air transportation provided by the
air carrier. Under the rule, the reports would then be shared with DOT,
which would publish the data, as required by AIR-21, in a format
similar to the manner in which it publishes data on consumer complaints
and other incidents. However, issues arose regarding whether APHIS had
the capability to accept such information directly from the carriers
and pass it on to DOT. In order to resolve any such issues, on February
14, 2005, DOT made a technical change in the rule to require reporting
airlines to submit the required information directly to DOT's Aviation
Consumer Protection Division (ACPD) rather than APHIS and to make the
rule part of DOT's economic regulations. See 70 FR 7392. The rule is
codified at 14 CFR 234.13.
    Section 234.13 requires air carriers that provide scheduled
passenger air transportation to submit a report to the ACPD on any
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transportation within 15 days of the end of the month during which the
incident occurred. It defines ``animal'' as any warm- or cold-blooded
animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in
a family household in the United States. The air transport of an animal
covers the

entire period during which an animal is in the custody of an air
carrier, from check-in or delivery of the animal to the carrier prior
to departure until the animal is returned to the owner or guardian of
the animal at the final destination of the animal. Section 234.13 also
lists the information that is to be included in each report (e.g.,
carrier and flight number, date and time of the incident). However,
because section 234.13 is contained in Part 234 of Title 14 and that
part applies only to the domestic scheduled passenger flights of
carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled
passenger revenue (``reporting carriers''), there has been confusion
regarding which entities are required to submit a report to the ACPD on
incidents involving loss, injury, or death on an animal during air
transportation as well as which flights are covered (i.e., only
domestic scheduled passenger flights, or all scheduled passenger
flights, including international flights).
    On August 10, 2010, Senators Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, and
Joseph Lieberman wrote to the Secretary of Transportation urging the
Department to amend the rule so that airlines would be required to
report all incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of cats and
dogs that occur while they are traveling in an airline's care, custody,
or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is being transported
as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment. In addition
to the letter, the Department received a petition for rulemaking on
this matter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), an advocacy
group which works to protect the lives and advance the interest of
animals through the legal system. In its petition, ALDF requests that
the Department's regulation requiring the reporting of loss, injury, or
death of animals in air transport be revised to require airlines to
report any such incident involving animals they carry. It contends that
the data that are currently collected by the Department capture only
incidents affecting pets, even though pets make up only part of the
total number of animals transported by airlines. The ALDF's proposal
would apply to all species of animals, not just cats and dogs.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    This NPRM proposes to expand the applicability of the rule to
require all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least
one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 passenger seats to
submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents involving the loss,
injury, or death of an animal during air transportation within 15 days
after the end of the month during which the incident occurred. Under
the current rule, most of the reports on incidents involving animals
during air transport have been submitted by ``reporting carriers,'' as
defined in 14 CFR 234.2. At the present time, there are 15 ``reporting
carriers.'' These airlines account for the vast majority of domestic
traffic. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to expand the
requirement to all carriers that operate scheduled service with at
least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats to
provide consumers and other interested parties a more complete picture
of the treatment of animals on scheduled passenger flights. By
expanding the applicability from the reporting carriers (i.e., U.S.
carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled
passenger revenue) to U.S. carriers that operate domestic or
international scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft
with more than 60 seats, we would be requiring reports of loss, injury
or death of an animal from 36 carriers instead of only 15 carriers.
These 36 carriers carry about 99.6 percent of domestic passengers and
98 percent of international passengers that travel on U.S. airlines.
    Consistent with section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), we are not proposing to
expand this rule to carriers that operate scheduled service with only
aircraft that have a design capacity of 60 seats or less as these
carriers are considered small businesses.\1\ We invite comment on
whether there is any benefit to expanding the applicability of the rule
any further to encompass more U.S. carriers. We are not considering
expanding the requirement to report on the loss, injury or death of
animals to foreign air carriers that operate flights to and from the
U.S. or to charter flights, as Congress mandated the reporting of such
information only by U.S.-flag airlines that operate scheduled passenger
service. However, we are aware of an indirect cargo air carrier
operating under the provisions of Part 296 of the Department's
regulations that specializes in providing air transportation only to
pets. We seek comment on whether the reporting requirements should
apply to such entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOT defines small carriers based on the standard published
in 14 CFR 399.73: ``For the purposes of the Department's
implementation of chapter 6 of title 5, United State Code
(Regulatory Flexibility Act), a direct air carrier or foreign air
carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only
with small aircraft as defined in Sec.  298.3 of this chapter (up to
60 seats/18,000 pound payload capacity).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing rule defines an animal as a pet in a family household.
The NPRM proposes to expand this definition to include cats and dogs
that are part of a commercial shipment. More specifically, the NPRM
proposes to retain that portion of the definition of ``animal'' that
refers to any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of
transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the
United States and add to this definition ``and any dog or cat which, at
the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment
on a scheduled passenger flight.''
    We are proposing this expansion in the definition of an animal
because dogs and cats that are being shipped on scheduled passenger
flights other than as pets by their owners are likely being transported
for the purpose of being sold as a pet in a family household in the
United States. Moreover, based on the data we collected of loss, injury
or death of household pets transported in commercial aviation from May
2005 to November 2011, we found that virtually all of the reports of
deaths (95%), injuries (100%), and loss (98%) involved cats and dogs.
Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether the definition of an animal
should be expanded further to include not only dogs and cats in
commercial shipments but all species of animals in commercial air
transportation. We are seeking comment, rather than proposing specific
language, on expanding the definition of an animal to apply to all
species of animals, as suggested by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. We
are not proposing language at this time for two reasons. First, the
overwhelming majority of losses, injuries, and deaths of household pets
reported to DOT by airlines have involved cats and dogs. Second, the
legislative history of AIR-21 does not appear to show an intent to
require reporting of incidents involving commercial shipment of animals
such as fish and birds that are being shipped from breeders/wholesalers
to retailers. The rule would continue not to cover animals that
accompany a passenger at his or her seat in the cabin as the air
carrier does not take custody of such animals. In any event, the
likelihood of the loss, injury, or death of such animals is very
minimal.
    We further propose in this NPRM to require each covered carrier to
provide in its December report a summary of the total number of animal
losses, injuries, and deaths and the total number of

animals transported for the calendar year. Thus, each covered carrier
would be required to file a report for the month of December even if
the carrier did not experience any incidents involving animals and/or
carried no animals during that month or even that year. We seek comment
on requiring carriers to report the total number of animals transported
during that year. We believe the additional requirement of reporting
the number of animals transported may be important for providing a
complete picture of a covered carrier's animal transport record, as the
number of animals transported by each airline may vary widely. If we
were to gather this data from the airlines, we would use it to
calculate rates of animal loss, injury and death per unit of animals
transported for each airline (e.g., 1.04 deaths per 10,000 animals
transported) and include this information in our published animal
incident reports. Without this information, consumers and others will
not be able to compare the rate of animal incidents from one carrier to
another or one year to another.
    We ask commenters to provide the following information to assist
our consideration of the question of requiring carriers to report the
total number of animals transported. How many cats, dogs and other
household pets are currently transported per year on scheduled flights
of U.S. air carriers? Has this number been increasing or decreasing in
recent years? Are current procedures for tracking animal incidents
adequate for tracking the total number of animals transported? If yes,
then what additional annual costs would be involved for tracking the
total number of animals transported? If not, what new procedures would
need to be put in place? What exactly would be involved? In terms of
costs: What are the set-up costs for such a system? What are annual
costs of running it? Are the annual costs fixed or do they depend on
the number of animals transported? Please describe capital costs, labor
hours, and other costs separately.
    In order to limit the burden on the covered carriers, we seek
comment on whether we should require covered carriers to report only
once per year in the December reports on the total number of animals
transported during the previous year, or whether the total number of
animals transported should be reported each month. We also solicit
comment on whether carriers should be required to file negative reports
even if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss,
injury, or death of an animal during a particular month or year --i.e.,
reporting ``0'' for any reporting category where there were no such
incidents. Negative reports would require carriers to affirmatively
certify that there were no reportable animal incidents during that
period; they are an additional incentive to ensure that the reports are
complete and accurate. We also invite interested persons to comment on
whether the Department should continue not requiring carriers to file
negative monthly reports of animal incidents (i.e., not requiring
reports stating there were no incidents of death, loss, or injury of an
animal).
    The Department is seeking comment on these issues. Our final action
will be based on the comments and supporting evidence filed in this
docket and on our own analysis.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 13563 and 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
    This action has been determined not to be significant under
Executive Order 12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures and
was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
costs associated with this rule would be minimal.
1. Cost of Monthly Reports Other Than December Report
    The cost of filing monthly reports would be minimal. Aside from the
December report, a carrier would be required to report only during the
months where the carrier experiences a reportable animal incident.
Currently, 15 of the 36 carriers that would be affected are already
required to collect information on incidents involving the loss,
injury, or death of an animal. For these 15 carriers, who account for
approximately 90 percent of the domestic market, there would be no
additional costs. For the 21 other carriers who do not currently have
to report, the cost would vary depending on whether or not there is a
reportable incident during any given month. For example, if a carrier
experiences no reportable incidents all year, then the recurrent cost
of filing monthly reports for January to November is $0. However, if
the carrier experiences a reportable incident every month of the year,
the cost would be $401.52. This is based on our estimate that it would
take a Paralegal working in scheduled air transportation making $33.46
(the average wage rate plus benefits) one hour to prepare and submit
one monthly report. So, if all 21 carriers, who do not currently have
to report, each experience a reportable incident every month of the
year, the total cost would be $8,431.92. Therefore, the cost of monthly
reports would be between $0 and $8,431.92 per year depending on the
number of reportable incidents. Even the high estimate would still be a
minimal cost.
2. Cost of the December Report
    All covered carriers would be required to submit a December report.
However, the burden on covered carriers to submit a December report
that includes the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or
died during air transport would be minimal. This report would merely be
an arithmetic total of the values in any report that a covered carrier
filed throughout the year.
3. Cost of Expanded Definition of an Animal
    The cost of the proposed expanded definition of an animal would
impact airlines, but the cost would still be minimal. Since 2006, the
average number of reported incidents per year is 46. If we were to
assume that it takes a Paralegal one hour to prepare and submit a
report per incident, then we have estimated that the cost to the
industry is $1540 per year. This is based on our estimate of a
Paralegal's salary discussed above. Various trade sources indicate that
dogs and cats transported as part of a commercial shipment may account
for as much as half of all dogs, cats, and other household pets that
are transported by covered carriers. If we were to assume that
expanding the definition to include dogs and cats transported as part
of a commercial shipment would result in an additional 46 reported
incidents per year (i.e., a total of 92 incidents), the additional cost
of $1540 is still minimal.
    The benefits of the rule, while difficult to quantify, exceed the
costs. Good data are not immediately available as to the total number
of animals that air carriers currently transport. Neither trade
associations for animal transportation providers nor airlines collect
data on the number of animals transported annually by air. Trade
association (e.g., pet transportation

firms) and industry (airlines) sources estimate the actual number of
pets that carriers transport annually at up to 800,000. This proposal
would provide consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of
airlines in the transportation of animals. If the benefit of expanding
reporting requirements to dogs and cats transported as a commercial
shipment were as little as a cent per animal shipped, the benefits of
the rule would exceed the costs.
    A copy of the preliminary regulatory evaluation has been placed in
the docket. We invite comment on the quantification of costs and
benefits for this proposed requirement, as well as the methodology used
to develop our cost and benefit estimates. We also seek comment on how
unquantified costs and benefits could be measured.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5
U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), I certify that this rulemaking would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The NPRM would impose no new duties or obligations on small
entities. As discussed above, consistent with the RFA, as amended by
the SBREFA, we are not proposing to expand this rule to carriers that
operate scheduled service with only aircraft that have a design
capacity of 60 seats or less as these carriers are considered small
businesses.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and therefore will not have federalism
implications.

D. Executive Order 13084

    This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because the provision
on which we are seeking comment would not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose
substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L.
104-13, 49 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Department is seeking to renew
with change the information collection titled ``Reports by Carriers on
Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport'' (OMB No. 2105-055).
This information collection expired on June 6, 2011. This NPRM proposes
to modify the information collection requirement. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, before an agency submits a proposed collection of
information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the
Federal Register providing notice of the proposed collection of
information and a 60-day comment period, and must otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected agencies concerning the
proposed collection.
    The collection of information proposed in the NPRM is a requirement
that U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service with at
least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more than 60
passenger seats report to the Department's ACPD any incidents involving
the loss, injury, or death during air transport of cats and dogs that
were part of a commercial shipment. (Cats and dogs that were being kept
as a household pet at the time of such a loss, injury, or death are
already required to be reported by these airlines.) As discussed above,
this requirement would expand the reporting requirement from 15
carriers to 36 carriers, an increase of 21 carriers. We also propose to
require covered carriers to state in their report for the month of
December the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died
during air transport. We solicit comment on whether we should also
require carriers to provide information about the total number of
animals transported in the calendar year.
    Title: Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During
Air Transport.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0552.
    Type of Request: Modification of expired Information Collection
Request.
    Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service
with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more
than 60 seats (36).
    Frequency: For each respondent, one information set for the month
of December, plus one information set during some months (1 to 12).
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 36 to 432 hours
(Respondents [36] x Frequency [1 to 12 per year]).
    Comments are invited on: (1) The necessity and utility of the
information collection, (2) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden,
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected, and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
collection without reducing the quality of the collected information.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or
included, or both, in the request for OMB approval of these information
collections.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this
rulemaking.

    Issued this 22nd day of June 2012, in Washington, DC.
Robert S. Rivkin,
General Counsel.

List of Subjects in Parts 234 and 235

    Air carrier, Animal incidents, Consumer protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation proposes to amend 14 CFR chapter II as follows:

PART 234--AIRLINE SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS

    1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 329 and Sections 41708 and 41709.

    2. Section 234.13 is removed.

Sec.  234.13  [Removed]

    3. A new part 235 is added to read as follows:

PART 235--REPORTS BY AIR CARRIERS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING ANIMALS
DURING AIR TRANSPORT

Sec.
235.1 Definitions.
235.2 Applicability.
235.3 Reports by air carriers on incidents involving animals during
air transport.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 41721.

Sec.  235.1  Definitions.

    For the purposes of this part:
    Air transport includes the entire period during which an animal is
in the custody of an air carrier, from the time that the animal is
tendered to the air carrier prior to departure until the air carrier
tenders the animal to the owner, guardian or representative of the
shipper of the animal at the animal's final destination. It does not
include animals that accompany a passenger at his or her seat in the
cabin and of which the air carrier does not take custody.
    Animal means any warm or cold blooded animal which, at the time of

transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the
United States and any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation,
is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger
flight, including shipments by trainers and breeders.

Sec.  235.2  Applicability.

    This part applies to the scheduled domestic and international
passenger service of any U.S. air carrier that operates such service
with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more
than 60 passenger seats.

Sec.  235.3  Reports by air carriers on incidents involving animals
during air transport.

    (a) Each covered carrier shall, within 15 days after the end of the
month to which the information applies, submit to the United States
Department of Transportation's Aviation Consumer Protection Division a
report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an
animal during air transport provided by the air carrier, including
incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with aircraft
having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall be made in the form and
manner set forth in reporting directives issued by the Deputy General
Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation and shall contain the
following information:
    (1) Carrier and flight number;
    (2) Date and time of the incident;
    (3) Description of the animal, including name, if applicable;
    (4) Name and contact information of the owner(s), guardian and/or
shipper of the animal;
    (5) Narrative description of the incident;
    (6) Narrative description of the cause of the incident;
    (7) Narrative description of any corrective action taken in
response to the incident; and
    (8) Name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual
filing the report on behalf of the air carrier.
    (b) Within 15 days after the end of December of each year, each
covered carrier shall submit the following information (this
information may be included in any report that the carrier may file for
the loss, injury, or death of animals during the month of December):
    (1) The total number of incidents involving an animal during air
transport provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar year,
including incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with
aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall include subtotals
for loss, injury, and death of animals. Report ``0'' for any category
for which there were no such incidents. If the carrier had no
reportable incidents for that calendar year, it shall report ``0'' in
each category.
    (2) The December report must contain the following certification
signed by your authorized representative: ``I, the undersigned, do
certify that this report has been prepared under my direction in
accordance with the regulations in 14 CFR Part 235. I affirm that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, this is a true, correct and
complete report.''

[FR Doc. 2012-16024 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 10616]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-444-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Supplement to January 11, 2013 Request for Waiver of
Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 1/30/13.
    Accession Number: 20130130-5295.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-545-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: pro forma--EP2DART Conversion to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 2/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130206-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-546-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 02/06/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures Corp
(HUB)--6025-89 to be effective 2/6/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/6/13.
    Accession Number: 20130206-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: February 7, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03448 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19828-19829]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0197; FRL-8300-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to
the Nevada State Implementation Plan; Definition, Emergency Episode,
and Monitoring Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing full approval of revisions to the Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources portion of the Nevada
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern a definition,
an emergency episode regulation, and various monitoring regulations. We
are proposing to approve these provisions in order to regulate their
corresponding emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0197, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail http://www.regulations.gov is an

``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the provisions in
the following table:

                          Submitted Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           NAC No.                NAC title       Adopted     Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
445B.134.....................  ``Person''          09/06/06     12/08/06
                                defined.
445B.230.....................  Plan for            09/06/06     12/08/06
                                reduction of
                                emissions.
445B.258.....................  Monitoring          09/06/06     12/08/06
                                systems:
                                Verification
                                of operational
                                status.
445B.259.....................  Monitoring          09/06/06     12/08/06
                                systems:
                                Performance
                                evaluations.
445B.260.....................  Monitoring          09/06/06     12/08/06
                                systems:
                                Components
                                contracted for
                                before
                                September 11,
                                1974.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we
are approving these provisions in a direct final action without prior
proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial.
If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we
receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: April 4, 2007.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
 [FR Doc. E7-7548 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9591-9592]
[DOCID:fr03mr10-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-43-000]

Florida Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

February 24, 2010.
    Take notice that on February 17, 2010, Florida Power & Light
Company (FPL) filed a petition for declaratory order pursuant to Rule
207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207
(2009), requesting that the Commission clarify the scope of its
jurisdiction over

interconnection agreements between a public utility and a qualifying
facility.
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 19, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4354 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4621]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of a Public Meeting on the Draft Solicitation for a Center
of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation will hold a
public meeting to discuss the FAA Centers of Excellence Program and the
technical requirements for the proposed Center of Excellence for
Commercial Space Transportation (COE CST). A Draft Solicitation for the
COE CST is available for public review. For a copy of the Draft
Solicitation, contact Dr. Patricia Watts (the Contact Person listed
below).

DATES: The meeting will take place on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 from 9
a.m. until 2:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Crystal Gateway
Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, Telephone:
(703) 920-3230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Patricia Watts, National Program
Director, FAA Centers of Excellence Program Office, FAA William J.
Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The
agenda will include an overview of the FAA Centers of Excellence
Program, discussions on the proposed COE CST and the Draft
Solicitation, and open discussion and Q & A period on the Draft
Solicitation.

    Issued in Washington, DC, January 22, 2010.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2010-1771 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


John Mack/DC/USEPA/US

09/07/2006 02:06 PM

To

Sherry Russell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Fw: Revised NAAQS for Particulate Matter<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Please process accordingly.

----- Forwarded by John Mack/DC/USEPA/US on 09/07/2006 01:57 PM -----

	Wanda McLendon

09/07/2006 11:15 AM

Please respond to minorfamilyauto

	To:	ADMB_HQ OAR@EPA

	cc:

	Subject:	Revised NAAQS for Particulate Matter
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Dear  Stephen Johnson:

RE: EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017

I am writing to strongly oppose the EPA's proposal to revise the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
(PM). Neither current science nor sound public policy justifies changing
the standards at this time. Instead, EPA should continue its current
efforts to implement the existing standards, and give them sufficient
time to take effect.

Over the last 35 years, the Clean Air Act (CAA) has helped to improve
air quality even as the economy has grown at a brisk pace. Between 1970
and 2004, the U.S. population grew by 40 percent, energy consumption
increased 47 percent, vehicle miles traveled multiplied 171 percent, and
the U.S. gross domestic product swelled by 187 percent. During that same
period, however, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants
regulated under the CAA dropped 54 percent while toxic air emissions
declined a further 30 percent between 1990 and 1999.

EPA's effort to reduce PM over the last nine years has been
extraordinary. A large part of that success has to do with the efforts
of individual states to develop the specialized tools needed to respond
to local conditions. States have adopted long term development plans and
emission reduction tools to achieve the greatest benefits from EPA's new
programs, and to ensure improvements in and attainment of, air quality
standards. Now, EPA is rendering those efforts moot.

EPA's proposal will cause significant harm to the economy just as
America is struggling to complete its long economic recovery. The
immediate result of EPA's proposal will be to aggravate the ongoing
energy crisis by ensuring further increases in the cost of electricity
and gasoline. In addition, the proposed revisions will raise the cost of
doing business by placing onerous restrictions on the expansion of
existing facilities and likely send even more jobs overseas. Finally,
EPA's proposal will place at risk the ability of local communities to
develop their economy and fully utilize the federal highway funding that
Congress provides for vital infrastructure improvements.

The ultimate cost of EPA's efforts though, will be borne by the American
workers and local communities who will shoulder the burden of increased
unemployment and significant increases to the basic cost of living.

As it reviews the current NAAQS for PM, EPA must be mindful of the
tremendous progress that has been made in improving air quality and all
the costs associated with further revisions to the NAAQS. I strongly
urge EPA to reconsider its proposal and maintain the status quo until an
adequate amount of time to judge its effectiveness has passed.

Sincerely,

Jessica Blankenship

404 W South St

Lebanon, IN 46052-2460


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 8779]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01928]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10292; 34-79872; File No. 265-27]

SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on
Small and Emerging Companies is providing notice that it will hold a
public meeting on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, in Multi-Purpose Room
LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the
public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to take part
because of a disability should notify the contact person listed below.
The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and
regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal
securities laws.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 15, 2017.
Written statements should be received on or before February 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. Written statements may be submitted
by any of the following methods:
    Electronic Statements:
     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-27 on the subject line; or
    Paper Statements:
     Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Federal Advisory
Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. 265-27. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all statements on the Advisory
Committee's Web site (https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml).
    Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Small Business Policy, Division
of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations
thereunder, Elizabeth M. Murphy, responsible as Designated Federal
Officer of the Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

    Dated: January 25, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-01928 Filed 1-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 81 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22715-22716]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0060]

Methylene Chloride Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Methylene Chloride
Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (OSHA-2011-0060).
OSHA will place comments and requests to speak, including personal
information, in the public docket, which may be available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal
information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collection of
information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the
desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Standard protects workers from the adverse health effects that
may result from their exposure to methylene chloride (MC). The
requirements in the Standard include worker exposure monitoring,
notifying workers of their MC exposures, administering medical
examinations to workers, providing examining physicians with specific
program and worker information, ensuring that workers receive a copy of
their medical examination results, maintaining workers' exposure
monitoring and medical examination records for specific periods, and
providing access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, the affected workers, and their
authorized representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The agency is requesting an adjustment increase in the number of
burden hours from 56,276 to 61,814.83 hours (a total increase of
5,538.83 hours). The increase is a result the agency's estimate, based
on updated data, that the number of establishments and workers affected
by the Standard has increased.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Methylene Chloride (29 CFR part 1910.1052).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0179.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 84,595.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 236,462.
    Average Time per Response: Annually; semi-annually; quarterly; on
occasion.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 61,814.83.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $20,375,527.20.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. Please
note: While OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the

Docket Office is closed to the public and not able to receive
submissions to the docket by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service. All comments, attachments, and other material must identify
the agency name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No.
OSHA-2011-0060). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading
document files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials
in reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify electronic
comments by your name, date, and the docket number so that the agency
can attach them to your comments.
    Due to security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>)
for information about materials not available from the website, and for
assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Fredrick, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 22, 2021.
James S. Frederick,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-08931 Filed 4-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63573-63574]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26431]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 229 and 249

[Release No. 34-65508; File No. S7-40-10]

Roundtable on Issues Relating to Conflict Minerals

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of roundtable discussion; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: On October 18, 2011, the Commission will hold a public
roundtable at which invited participants will discuss various issues
related to the Commission's required rulemaking under Section 1502 of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the
``Act''), which relates to reporting requirements regarding conflict
minerals originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
adjoining countries. Roundtable panelists are expected to reflect the
views of different constituencies, including investors, affected
issuers, human rights organizations, and other stakeholders.
    The roundtable will consist of a series of panels that are designed
to provide a forum for various stakeholders to exchange views and
provide input on issues related to the Commission's required
rulemaking.

DATES: The roundtable discussion will take place on October 18, 2011.
The Commission will accept comments regarding the issues to be
addressed in the roundtable and otherwise regarding the proposed rule
amendments until November 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The roundtable discussion will be held in the auditorium of
the SEC's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC on October
18, 2011 from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 5:15 p.m. The roundtable will
be open to the public with seating on a first-come, first-served basis,
and the discussion will also be available via webcast on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov. Comments may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml; or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission,

100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-40-10. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help
process and review your submissions more efficiently, please use only
one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.sec.gov. Comments will also be available for
website viewing and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be
posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fieldsend, Special Counsel in the
Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-
3430, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1502 of the Act amends the
Securities Exchange Act by adding new Section 13(p). Section 13(p)
requires the Commission to promulgate disclosure and reporting
regulations regarding the use of conflict minerals from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and adjoining countries. On December 15, 2010,
the Commission proposed rule amendments to implement Exchange Act
Section 13(p).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Conflict Minerals, Release No. 34-63547; File No. S7-40-10
(Dec. 23, 2010) [75 FR 80948].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has been asked to hold a roundtable discussion to
facilitate its understanding of the issues surrounding conflict
minerals. The Commission believes that additional public input on the
proposed rulemaking would be beneficial in light of the particular
subject matter.

    Dated: October 6, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26431 Filed 10-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P