United States Office of Research and EPA/ 600/ P 93/ 004bF Environmental Protection Development July 1996 Agency Washington, DC 20460 EPA Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants Volume II of III EPA/ 600/ P 93/ 004bF July 1996 Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants Volume II of III National Center for Environmental Assessment Office of Research and Development U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19277-19278]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14616-000]

Notice of Draft License Application (DLA) and Draft Preliminary
Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and Request for Preliminary Terms
and Conditions: Oregon State University

    Take notice that the following Draft License Application (DLA) and
Draft Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) have been filed
with the Commission and are available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Major Unconstructed Project.
    b. Project No.: 14616-000.
    c. Date Filed: April 20, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Oregon State University.
    e. Name of Project: Pacific Marine Energy Center--South Energy Test
Site.
    f. Location: On the Pacific Ocean, 6 nautical miles off the central
Oregon coast near the city of Newport, and in Lincoln County, Oregon.
The project occupies 1,695 acres of submerged lands on the Outer
Continental Shelf administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Dr. Burke Hales, College of Earth, Ocean and
Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 CEOAS Administration
Building, Corvallis, OR 97331-5503;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected].
    j. Status of Project: With this notice the Commission is soliciting
(1) preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations on the draft
PDEA, and (2) comments on the DLA.
    k. Deadline for filing: July 20, 2018.
    All comments on the draft PDEA and DLA should be sent to the
addresses noted above in Item (h), and filed with FERC.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14616-000.
    All comments must bear the heading Preliminary Comments,
Preliminary Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, or
Preliminary Prescriptions.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Oregon State University has mailed a copy of the draft PDEA and DLA
to interested entities and parties. Copies of these documents are
available for review at Oregon State University, 370 Strand
Agricultural Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-5503.
    m. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the OREGON
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO), as required by section 106,
National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

    Dated: April 25, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09253 Filed 5-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32182-32184]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG11-87-000.
    Applicants: Sherbino II Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Sherbino II Wind Farm LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5128.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1790-001; ER11-2029-002; ER10-1821-002; ER10-
2598-001.
    Applicants: BP Energy Company, Rolling Thunder I Power Partners,
LLC, Goshen Phase II LLC, Cedar Creek II, LLC.
    Description: Supplemental Information Regarding Updated Market
Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3028-002.
    Applicants: BBPC, LLC.
    Description: BBPC, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.17(b): BBPC LLC
Second Substitute MBR Tariff to be effective 5/16/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110525-5037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 15, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3376-001.
    Applicants: North Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Description: North Hurlburt Wind, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): NH Amendment to MBR to Include Docket Number to be effective
6/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3377-001.
    Applicants: Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC.
    Description: Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): HB Amendment to MBR to Include Docket Number to be effective
6/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3378-001.
    Applicants: South Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Description: South Hurlburt Wind, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): SH Amendment to MBR to Include Docket Number to be effective
6/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3639-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revisions to the PJM Tariff Schedule 9--MMU Funding to
be effective 8/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110525-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 15, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3640-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System, International
Transmission Company.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 05-25-11 ITC Attachment GG
revisions to be effective 7/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110525-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 15, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3642-000.
    Applicants: Tanner Street Generation, LLC.
    Description: Tanner Street Generation, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 5/26/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110525-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 15, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3643-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(1): OATT
Formula Rate to be effective 7/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3644-000.
    Applicants: Project Orange Associates, LLC.
    Description: Project Orange Associates, LLC Notice of Cancellation
of FERC Electric Tariff to be effective May 31, 2011.
    Filed Date: 05/25/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110525-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 15, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3645-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W2-090; Original Service Agreement No. 2922
to be effective 5/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.
    Docket Numbers: ER11-3646-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W1-124; Original Service Agreement No. 2926
to be effective 5/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3647-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W2-084; Original Service Agreement No. 2927
to be effective 5/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3648-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue No. W2-085; Original Service Agreement No. 2928
to be effective 5/10/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3649-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Service Agreement T1087--E and P Agreement to be effective 5/27/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES11-35-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization to Assume Obligations
with Respect to Securities Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
of Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene

again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have
previously intervened in the same docket. 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.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a
new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the
comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the
Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 26, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13769 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 61722-61726]
[DOCID:fr25no09-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61032; File No. PCAOB-2009-01]

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Amendment to Board Rules Relating to Inspections

November 19, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the
``Act''), notice is hereby given that on July 2, 2009, the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (the ``Board'' or ``PCAOB'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in Items I, II, and
III below, which items have been prepared by the Board. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons.

I. Board's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule

    On June 25, 2009, the Board adopted an amendment to its rule
relating to the

frequency of inspections. The proposed amendment adds a new paragraph
(g) to existing Rule 4003. The text of the proposed amendment is set
out below. Language added by the amendment is in italics.
Rule 4003. Frequency of Inspections
    * * * * *
    (g) With respect to any foreign registered public accounting firm
concerning which the preceding provisions of this Rule, other than
paragraphs (a) and (f), would set a 2009 deadline for the first Board
inspection and that is headquartered in a country in which no foreign
registered public accounting firm that the Board inspected before 2009
is headquartered, such deadline is extended to 2012, provided, however,
that from among the group of all such firms, the Board shall conduct
some first inspections in each of the years from 2009 to 2012,
scheduled according to such criteria as the Board shall publicly
announce.

II. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule

    In its filing with the Commission, the Board included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule. The text
of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The Board has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule

(a) Purpose
    The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 directs the Board to conduct a
continuing program of inspections to assess registered public
accounting firms' compliance with certain requirements.\1\ The Act
prescribes inspection frequency requirements but also authorizes the
Board to adjust the frequency requirements by rule if the Board finds
that an adjustment is consistent with the purposes of the Act, the
public interest, and the protection of investors.\2\ Inspection
frequency requirements adopted by the Board are set out in PCAOB Rule
4003, ``Frequency of Inspections.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section 104(a) of the Act.
    \2\ See Section 104(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board began a regular cycle of inspections of U.S. firms in
2004 and has conducted 982 such inspections, including repeat
inspections of several firms. Inspections of non-U.S. firms began in
2005, and the Board has inspected 140 non-U.S. firms. Those firms are
located in 26 jurisdictions.\3\ There are, however, currently 68 non-
U.S. firms that, by virtue of when they first issued audit reports
after registering with the PCAOB, the Board is required to inspect for
the first time by the end of 2009.\4\ For the reasons described below,
the Board has adopted Rule 4003(g), which would affect the timing of a
subset of those 68 inspections. Specifically, Rule 4003(g) will give
the Board the ability to postpone, for up to three years, first
inspections that the Board is currently required to conduct before the
end of 2009 in jurisdictions where the Board conducted no inspections
before 2009. The amendment does not affect inspection frequency
requirements concerning any other first inspections, or concerning any
second or later inspections, of firms that issue audit reports for
issuers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Board has inspected non-U.S. firms located in Argentina,
Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Greece, Hong
Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico,
New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, the Russian Federation,
Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Chinese-Taipei, and the United
Kingdom.
    \4\ This discussion does not include, or apply to, 21 non-U.S.
firms whose first inspection deadline has been moved from 2008 to
2009 under Rule 4003(f).
    \5\ Existing Rule 4003 effectively sets deadlines for the
Board's inspections not only of firms that issue audit reports, but
also of firms that play a substantial role in the preparation or
furnishing of an audit report (as defined in PCAOB Rule
1001(p)(ii)). The Board has previously submitted for Commission
approval amendments to Rules 4003(b) and 4003(d) that would
eliminate from the Rule any frequency requirement or deadline for
the Board to inspect a firm that plays a substantial role but does
not issue an audit report. Unless and until the Commission approves
such a rule change, however, the extension in proposed rule 4003(g)
would (if approved by the Commission) apply to required 2009 PCAOB
inspections of non-U.S. firms (in jurisdictions encompassed by the
rule's terms) that have played a substantial role as well as to
required 2009 inspections of non-U.S. firms that have issued audit
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCAOB has recognized since the outset of its inspection program
that inspections of non-U.S. firms pose special issues.\6\ In its
oversight of non-U.S. firms, the Board seeks, to the extent reasonably
possible, to coordinate and cooperate with local authorities. Since
2003, when the PCAOB began operations, a number of jurisdictions have
also developed their own auditor oversight authorities with inspection
responsibilities or enhanced existing oversight systems.\7\ The Board
believes that it is in the interests of the public and investors for
the Board to develop efficient and effective cooperative arrangements
with its non-U.S. counterparts.\8\ In jurisdictions that have their own
inspection programs, this may include conducting joint inspections of
firms that are subject to both regulators' authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Briefing Paper, Oversight of Non-U.S. Public Accounting
Firms (October 28, 2003) (hereinafter ``Oversight of Non-U.S.
Firms''); Final Rules Relating to the Oversight of Non-U.S. Public
Accounting Firms, PCAOB Release No. 2004-005 (June 9, 2004).
    \7\ In 2006, for instance, the European Union enacted a
directive requiring the creation of an effective system of public
oversight for statutory auditors and audit firms within each Member
State. See The Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council (May 17, 2006) (the ``Eighth Directive''). In addition,
among others, Canada created the Canadian Public Accountability
Board, and in Australia, the responsibilities of the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission were expanded to include
auditor oversight. In Asia, Japan established the Certified Public
Accountants and Auditing Oversight Board, South Korea delegated
responsibility for auditor oversight to its Financial Supervisory
Service, and Singapore established the Accounting and Corporate
Regulatory Authority.
    \8\ See Oversight of Non-U.S. Firms at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, the Board has a specific framework for working
cooperatively with its non-U.S. counterparts to conduct joint
inspections and, to the extent deemed appropriate by the Board in any
particular case, relying on inspection work performed by that
counterpart.\9\ PCAOB Rule 4011 permits non-U.S. firms that are subject
to Board inspection to formally request that the Board, in conducting
its inspection, rely on a non-U.S. inspection to the extent deemed
appropriate by the Board. If a Rule 4011 request is made, Rule 4012
provides that the Board will, at an appropriate time before each
inspection of the firm, determine the degree, if any, to which the
Board may rely on the non-U.S. inspection. Rule 4012 describes aspects
of the non-U.S. system that the Board will evaluate in making that
determination. Even where the Board does not work with a local
regulator to conduct joint inspections, the Board communicates with its
counterpart or other local authorities (such as securities regulators
or other government agencies and ministries) regarding its inspections
to be conducted in the jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See PCAOB Rules 4011 and 4012; see also Oversight of Non-
U.S. Firms at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In some jurisdictions, the PCAOB's ability to conduct inspections,
either by itself or jointly with a local regulator, is complicated by
the concerns of local authorities about potential legal obstacles and
sovereignty issues. The Board seeks to work with the home-country
authorities to try to resolve these and any other concerns.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Oversight of Non-U.S. Firms at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effort involved in attempting to resolve potential conflicts of
law, or to evaluate a non-U.S. system in response to a Rule 4011
request, can be

substantial. The effort typically involves negotiating the principles
of an arrangement for cooperation consistent with the inspection
obligations that the Act imposes on the Board. It also involves the
Board gaining a detailed understanding of the other jurisdiction's
auditor oversight system in order for the Board to determine the degree
of reliance it is willing to place on inspection work performed under
that system in a particular inspection year.
    Additional effort is involved in coordinating the scheduling of
specific inspections. Where possible, the Board seeks to conduct
inspections jointly with local authorities both to take advantage of
potential efficiencies and to avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory
burdens on firms. Like the PCAOB, several of these other authorities
proceed according to inspection frequency requirements. While some of
the Board's counterparts are established and have inspection programs,
many have only recently begun inspections or are still building up
their inspections resources. As a result, synchronizing the inspections
schedules of these authorities and the PCAOB's requirements is
sometimes difficult.
    Notwithstanding these challenges, the Board has so far conducted
140 non-U.S. inspections. Moreover, 61 of those inspections, in six
jurisdictions, have been conducted jointly with other auditor oversight
authorities, while inspections in 20 jurisdictions have been conducted
solely by the PCAOB.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Joint inspections have been conducted in Australia, Canada,
South Korea, Norway, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, under existing Rule 4003, there are 68 non-U.S.
firms that, by virtue of when they first issued audit reports after
registering with the PCAOB, the Board is required to inspect for the
first time by the end of 2009. Those firms are located in 36
jurisdictions, including several jurisdictions in which the Board has
already conducted first inspections of other firms. Of those firms, 49
are located in 24 jurisdictions where the Board has not conducted any
inspections to date. Most of those 24 jurisdictions have or soon will
have a local auditor oversight authority with which the Board would
seek to work toward cooperative arrangements before conducting
inspections. Because of the steps involved in concluding such
arrangements and to evaluate the local system, the Board has concerns
about proceeding as if that work can be completed for all of the
jurisdictions in which the PCAOB has not previously conducted
inspections in time to conduct the required inspections by the end of
2009.
    Accordingly, the Board is adopting a new paragraph (g) to Rule 4003
to allow the Board to postpone, for up to three years, the first
inspection of any non-U.S. firm that the Board is currently required to
conduct by the end of 2009 and that is in a jurisdiction where the
Board has not conducted an inspection before 2009.
    In determining the schedule for completion of the inspections
subject to new paragraph (g), the Board will implement its proposal to
sequence these 49 inspections such that certain minimum thresholds will
be satisfied in each of the years from 2009 to 2012. The minimum
thresholds relate to U.S. market capitalization of firms' issuer audit
clients. The Board will begin by ranking the 49 firms according to the
total U.S. market capitalization of a firm's foreign private issuer
audit clients.\12\ Working from the top of the list (highest U.S.
market capitalization total) down, the 49 firms will be distributed
over 2009 to 2012 such that, at a minimum, the following criteria are
satisfied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of the ranking described here, the Board will
use the average monthly market capitalization on which each issuer's
share of the Board's 2008 accounting support fee was based. Thus,
the market capitalization figure used for the ranking does not
include the value of any referred work performed by the firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     By the end of 2009, the Board will inspect firms whose
combined issuer audit clients' U.S. market capitalization constitutes
at least 35 percent of the aggregate U.S. market capitalization of the
audit clients of all 49 firms;
     By the end of 2010, the Board will inspect firms whose
combined issuer audit clients' U.S. market capitalization constitutes
at least 90 percent of that aggregate;
     By the end of 2011, the Board will inspect firms whose
combined issuer audit clients' U.S. market capitalization constitutes
at least 99.9 percent of that aggregate; and
     The Board will inspect the remaining firms in 2012.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under existing provisions of Rule 4003 that are not
affected by this amendment, 2012 would also be the deadline for the
Board to conduct the second inspection of those of the 49 firms
whose first inspection occurs in 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to meeting those market capitalization thresholds, the
Board also will satisfy certain criteria concerning the number of those
49 firms that will be inspected in each year. Specifically, the Board
will conduct at least four of the 49 inspections in 2009, at least 11
more in 2010, and at least 14 more in 2011.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The issuer audit client U.S. market capitalization
currently associated with a significant number of the 49 firms is
relatively low, and even zero in a number of cases where firms
appear to have stopped issuing audit reports for issuers. As a
result, approximately 92% of the relevant issuer market
capitalization is associated with 15 of the 49 firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the distribution described above will
not operate to prevent an inspection from occurring earlier than called
for by the schedule. Any inspection may be moved to an earlier year for
a variety of reasons, such as the presence of risk factors (including
risk factors relating to referred work \15\ that the firm performs on
audits for which it is not the principal auditor), synchronization of
schedules with a local regulator for purposes of a joint inspection, or
simply the opportunity and the availability of resources to do an
inspection earlier (including availability of inspectors with
specialized industry knowledge and relevant language skills). In
addition, the Board will at least annually review updated market
capitalization data and consider whether there have been any changes
that warrant moving a particular inspection forward to an earlier year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Because the PCAOB is still in the process of gathering
information about each firm's referred work, the 2009 inspections
will not use referred work as a risk factor for purposes of
scheduling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, the Board does not intend to make changes that would
move an inspection of one of these 49 firms to a later year than in the
initial distribution except as the result of a development relating to
the market capitalization of the firm's issuer clients. Specifically,
if a firm's issuer audit client market capitalization drops
significantly and the firm performs no significant amount of referred
work on audits, its inspection might be delayed to a later year. In any
event, the Board will not, for any reason, move one of these 49
inspections to a later year than in the initial distribution without
publicly describing the change and the reason for it.
    In the Board's view, this adjustment to the inspection frequency
requirement is consistent with the purposes of the Act, the public
interest, and the protection of investors. The Board believes that its
approach to implementing Rules 4011 and 4012, developing cooperative
arrangements, and conducting joint inspections with foreign regulators
is enhancing the Board's efforts to carry out its inspection
responsibilities. There is long-term value in accepting a limited delay
in inspections to continue working toward

cooperative arrangements where it appears reasonably possible to reach
them. The Board also believes that the additional time to conduct
certain inspections will have the added benefit of giving the Board
more time to continue to enhance its inspection program, particularly
in the areas of risk assessment and pre-inspection planning, and the
Board intends to do so.
    The Board recognizes that some non-U.S. firms may be reluctant to
comply with PCAOB inspection demands because of a concern that doing so
might violate local law or the sovereignty of their home country. The
Board believes that the purposes of the Act, the public interest, and
the protection of investors are better served, up to a point, by
delaying some of the first inspections to work toward a cooperative
resolution than by precipitating legal disputes involving conflicts
between U.S. and non-U.S. law that could arise if the Board sought to
enforce compliance with its preferred schedule without regard for the
concerns of non-U.S. authorities.
    The Board does not intend, however, to make any further adjustments
to the inspection frequency requirements applicable to firms whose
first inspection was due no later than 2009. While the Board will
continue to work toward cooperation and coordination with authorities
in the relevant jurisdictions, the Board will make inspection demands
on the firms early enough in the year in which they are scheduled for
inspection according to the above described sequencing to allow the
Board to conduct the inspections during that year.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Apart from the proposed rule amendment, the Board has
implemented certain practices to provide additional transparency
with regard to the Board's international inspections program. These
practices include (1) making a public announcement, near the
beginning of each year until 2012, identifying all non-U.S.
jurisdictions in which there are firms that the Board will inspect
that year, (2) maintaining a public list of all registered firms
that have not yet had their first Board inspection even though more
than four years have passed since the end of the calendar year in
which they first issued an audit report while registered with the
Board, and (3) making biannual public announcements of the Board's
progress toward meeting the thresholds described above with respect
to the number of firms to be inspected and the aggregate market
capitalization of firm clients. The Board also maintains on its Web
site a list of all jurisdictions in which there are registered firms
that the Board has inspected. Additional details concerning these
practices are provided in PCAOB Release No. 2009-003, available on
the Board's Web site at http://www.pcaobus.org/Rules/Docket_027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule is Title I of the Act.

B. Board's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Board does not believe that the proposed rule will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule imposes no
burden beyond the burdens clearly imposed and contemplated by the Act.

C. Board's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Received From
Members, Participants or Others

    The Board released the proposed rule amendment for public comment
in Release No. 2008-007 (December 4, 2008). A copy of Release No. 2008-
007 and the comment letters received in response to the PCAOB's request
for comment are available on the PCAOB's Web site at http://
www.pcaobus.org/Rules/Docket_027. The Board received twenty-four
written comment letters. The Board has carefully considered the comment
letters, as discussed below.
    Several commenters suggested that the Board exercise its authority
under Section 106 of the Act to exempt firms that cannot cooperate with
PCAOB inspections due to legal conflicts or sovereignty-based
opposition from their local governments. The Board believes that it is
not in the interests of investors or the public to exempt non-U.S.
firms from the Act's inspection requirement given that the Board has
previously determined not to exempt non-U.S. firms from the Act's
registration requirements and given that an inspection is the Board's
primary tool of oversight.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ When it first became operational, the Board considered
whether to exempt non-U.S. firms from registration with the Board.
The Board determined that exempting non-U.S. firms would not protect
the interests of investors or further the public interest given that
registration is the predicate to all of the Board's other oversight
programs. See Registration System for Public Accounting Firms, PCAOB
Release No. 2003-007 (May 6, 2003) at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board also received several comment letters addressing the
length of the proposed extension for certain firms with 2009 deadlines.
Some comment letters expressed concern about the inspection delay of up
to three years but ultimately expressed qualified support for the
Board's decision. These comments urged the Board to permit no further
delays and to proceed as described above by sequencing the inspection
of firms subject to the extension based on certain thresholds relating
to the U.S. market capitalization of firms' issuer audit clients. Some
comments also suggested that the Board should utilize the additional
time provided by the proposed extension to enhance its international
inspections program, particularly in the areas of risk assessment and
pre-inspection planning.
    Other comment letters supported the Board's decision to extend the
inspection deadlines, but some qualified their support by noting that
three years may not be enough time to overcome the legal conflicts and
sovereignty concerns in all relevant jurisdictions. Several comments
expressed support for the Board's plan to sequence the deferred
inspections in time based on the U.S. market capitalization of the
firms' clients, but some also noted that this plan did not adequately
take into account the varying degree of legal conflicts present in the
different jurisdictions and might have the effect of requiring early on
during the three year period the inspection of firms in jurisdictions
with legal obstacles that cannot be overcome quickly.
    As explained above, the Board believes that an extension of up to
three years for the relevant firms is the appropriate course.
Distributing the affected firms across three years strikes the proper
balance between avoiding unnecessary delays in the inspection of
registered firms and allowing reasonable time for the Board to continue
its efforts to reach cooperative arrangements with the relevant home-
country regulators. The Board believes that any longer or further
extension would not be in the interests of investors or the public.

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

    Within 60 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period as (i) 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 Board 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
changes are consistent with the requirements of Title I of 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/pcaob.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number PCAOB-2009-01 on the subject line.

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 PCAOB-2009-01. 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/pcaob/
shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule changes 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549 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 the PCAOB. 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. All
submissions should refer to File Number PCAOB-2009-01 and should be
submitted on or before December 16, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28239 Filed 11-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47052-47058]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF12-11-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Sasabe Lateral Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Sasabe Lateral Project
(Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by El Paso
Natural Gas Company (El Paso) in Pima County, Arizona. The Commission
will use this EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether
the Project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EIS.
    You may submit comments in written form or verbally. Further
details on how to submit written comments are in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In addition, the Commission
intends to host public scoping meetings in the Project area. The times
and locations of scoping meetings will be announced in a future Notice
of Scoping Meetings. Scoping will close 7 days after the last scoping
meeting.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Sasabe Lateral Project, and the forthcoming Notice
of Scoping Meetings will also be sent out to this list. State and local
government representatives should notify their constituents of this
planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    The Project would consist of the following facilities in Pima
County, Arizona:
     Installation of about 60 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural
gas pipeline;
     Construction of a new meter station near the U.S.-Mexico
border; and
     Construction of other appurtenant facilities.
    The Project would link El Paso's existing South Mainline System
near Tucson to the U.S.-Mexico border near the town of Sasabe, Arizona.
El Paso is currently considering two routes for the pipeline: the West
Route and the East Route. The West Route would be located on private
and state lands. The East Route would be located on private, state, and
federal lands. The East Route would primarily follow an existing
highway right-of-way and traverse the Buenos Aires National Wildlife
Refuge. The general location of the Project facilities is shown in
Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to El Paso, the planned Project would provide additional
natural gas export capability of between 160 and 210 million cubic feet
of natural gas per day to an interconnect with the Puerto Libertad
Pipeline at the international border. The Mexico Comisi[oacute]n
Federal de Electricidad has specified this point as their desired
receipt point in order to supply gas for power generation.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 815
acres of land for the pipeline and aboveground facilities. Following
construction, El Paso would maintain about 362 acres for permanent
operation of the Project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be
restored and revert to former uses. About 70 percent of the East Route
parallels existing utility or road rights-

of-way, while about 30 percent of the West Route parallels existing
utility or road rights-of-way.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the
important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We
will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned Project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Vegetation, wildlife, and endangered and threatened
species;
     Land use and cumulative impacts;
     Socioeconomics;
     Cultural resources;
     Air quality and noise; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project
or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section beginning
on page 5.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this Project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona
Ecological Services Office and the Buenos Aires National Wildlife
Refuge, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department have expressed their
intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the EIS to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities related to this Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the Project-specific Area of
Potential Effects in consultation with the SHPO as the Project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the Area of Potential
Effects at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground
disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/
pipe storage yards, meter stations, and access roads). Our EIS for this
Project will document our findings on the impacts on historic
properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by El Paso. This preliminary
list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:
     Impacts on riparian areas at approximately 220 dry wash
crossings;
     Land use impacts, such as disruption of on-going
conservation efforts to restore native grassland;
     Visual impacts in consideration of Native American sacred
sites;
     The creation of a new corridor that could exacerbate the
current illegal immigration and drug trafficking activities;
     Socioeconomic issues, such as job creation and future
development;
     Unauthorized all terrain vehicle use of the right-of-way
after construction;
     Impacts on threatened and endangered species (including
the masked bobwhite quail, Pima pineapple cactus, and Chiricahua
leopard frog) and other sensitive species (including the cactus
ferruginous pygmy owl); and
     Alternatives, including routing that may impact the Buenos
Aires National Wildlife Refuge.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before the
end of the scoping period, which will close 7 days after the last
scoping meeting, to be announced in a future Notice of Scoping
Meetings. This is not your only public input opportunity; please refer
to the Environmental Review Process flow chart in Appendix 2.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number (PF12-11-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned Project.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (Appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once El Paso files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the Project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF12-
11). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: August 1, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU12.004

[FR Doc. 2012-19265 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74807]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0122]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated November 19, 2014, the City of Ironton (City), Ohio, has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 222, Use of Locomotive Horns at
Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2014-0122.
    The City is seeking a waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR
222.21(a) in order to eliminate the routine sounding of locomotive
horns by trains approaching the McPherson Street highway-rail grade
crossing. The crossing is closed at all times except when flood gates
must be installed and the crossing becomes the only access route for
the citizens in the area. The City places a policeman at the crossing
on a 24-hour basis when the crossing is open to highway traffic. The
City would expect that locomotive horns would be sounded as trains
approach the crossing during the time that the crossing is open to
highway traffic.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 30, 2015 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. 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 viewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 10, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2014-29398 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P