U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary August 1, 2003 PFOA ECA Fluoropolymer Technical Workgroup Meeting Summary, 7/ 9/ 03 55 participants; Attendance list, presentation materials, and EPA ECA incineration proposal in docket at OPPT 2003 0012 0145.

The meeting included four sections: I. EPA presentation summarizing Letter of Intent ( LOI) commitments with preliminary EPA data needs and identifying potential topics for ECA development II. Fluoropolymer Manufacturing Group ( FMG) presentation clarifying LOI commitments based on topics raised at the June 23, 2003 workgroup meeting III. Discussion/ Questions IV. Identification of workgroup next steps; determination of workgroup assignments I. EPA presentation Greg Fritz of EPA presented a summary of EPA's understanding of FMG commitments under the LOI and asked for clarification on any misunderstood items. With respect to physicalchemical ( p chem) properties, EPA indicated that the data provided in a handout at the June 23, 2003 workgroup meeting were beneficial, and concurred with FMG's statement that, due to the low vapor pressure and water solubility, those data would not be necessary on individual products. FMG was encouraged to clarify the distribution of molecular weights below 1,000 and to confirm the absence of oligomeric contamination. EPA noted that the long term stability of the polymers was established through submitted weathering and exposure studies, and that hydrolysis testing would not be warranted by expectations. EPA expressed a need for long term photolysis studies; long term soil sorption and biodegradation without usual p chem information; and identification of degradants.

EPA summarized the FMG product and article selection criteria as including ( 1) low and high heat processing; ( 2) dry resins and dispersions; ( 3) consumer and industrial applications covering 12 different use applications; ( 4) PTFE, fluoroelastomers and fluoroplastics; and ( 5) production volume and exposure potentials. EPA stated that the limitation with the selection criteria was that there was no indication of ranking or prioritization of criteria in the determination of articles to be tested. EPA indicated that additional information would be helpful in the areas of the sampling schemes for product coverage; understanding the tiered approach to aged products currently in use; and test method validation. EPA stated that they were aware of at least 4 chemicals being tested in the proposed products, but that additional products and chemicals may also be relevant. The tiered approach to aged products was unclear regarding the identities of the specific products to be tested. EPA questioned the applicability of the proposed FDA testing procedure.

EPA also provided the workgroup with an ECA proposal for incineration. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary August 1, 2003 2 II. FMG presentation FMG presented a sample survey form that would be completed by each FMG company detailing the percent of estimated market share volume of each application listed using FY 2002 production and import data for each CAS number, and submitted to EPA by August 15, 2003. The data submitted will be considered CBI and it will be the responsibility of the EPA to aggregate and disseminate the information to the workgroup following CBI guidelines. FMG proposed that ECA preliminary framework item # 1 would be considered complete after submission and review of this information.

FMG restated the objective of ECA framework item # 6 as the detection of the presence of PFOA in fluoropolymer articles. FMG stated that they have committed on a company by company basis to reduce APFO emissions by 50% by 2006 and are currently ahead of schedule. FMG provided an overview of the fluoropolymer industry broken down into the manufacture of dry melt resins, dry non melt resins/ gums and aqueous dispersions and the subsequent processing and conversion to final articles. FMG noted that the majority of the products are made using dry melt resins and dry non melt resins/ gums rather than aqueous dispersions. The overview included the possible pathways from manufacture to processing to conversion to final products including manufacturing conditions; processing conditions; and examples of the final articles produced. A comprehensive list of these articles was provided to the workgroup for review ( OPPT 2003 0012 0145).

FMG presented their selection criteria for the 12 articles of commerce including considerations of the type of manufacture; consumer and industrial application potential; high and low heat processing; production volume; and exposure potential. FMG demonstrated example decision pathways for dry melt resins, dry non melt resins/ gums and aqueous dispersion showing how the test articles were selected. The decision " trees" included consideration of high or low processing temperature; consumer or industrial application; and production volume or exposure potential used to determine the representative products. FMG provided an article of testing matrix which categorized the articles by consideration of low heat consumer, low heat industrial, high heat consumer, and high heat industrial.

FMG discussed the methodologies proposed for articles of commerce testing. The proposed testing would be in accordance with FDA Guidance for Industry   Chemicals, April 2002. The extraction conditions would include water for all articles and other appropriate solvents based on the particular article ( i. e. corn oil, alcohol, etc). The analytical methods would be LC/ MS/ MS and Exygen Research Analytical Laboratory Method ( 01M 008 046 revision 1).

FMG defined the objective of ECA framework item # 7 as the determination whether PFOA is emitted from fluoropolymer containing articles as they age during use. FMG stated that they believe that aged testing is an appropriate candidate for ECA negotiations and suggested necessary steps including proposed test protocol FDA Guidance for Industry   Chemicals, April U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary August 1, 2003 3 2002; review of articles of commerce testing results; proposed selection criteria for articles of commerce aged articles; review with interested parties; and review overall program and articles.

FMG stated the objective of ECA framework item # 8 as the determination of incineration byproducts of fluoropolymer containing articles. FMG previously provided incinerator information showing 2 chambers to the agency for review. FMG stated that they believe that incineration is an appropriate candidate for ECA negotiations and suggested necessary steps including use of the 3M incineration protocol and model from which the industry group will develop a protocol, review the protocol with interested parties, and finalize the protocol in a technical meeting to be scheduled. FMG restated the objective of ECA framework item # 9 as the determination of physical chemical fate and transport properties of incineration products. FMG suggested that this cannot be discussed further until completion of incineration testing.

FMG stated the objective of ECA framework item # 2 as submission of the p chem properties to inform fluoropolymer fate testing. FMG submitted documents for PTFE, FEP and PFA polymer p chem properties on June 20, 2003 and proposed that similar p chem property documents will be prepared for the remaining fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers. These data, along with 3M documents on APFO, will be submitted by August 1, 2003. FMG believes that, based on submission of the data for PTFE, FEP and PFA, ECA framework item # 2 is complete for those materials and with the submittal of the data for APFO and the other polymers, item # 2 will be evaluated for completion.

FMG reviewed the objective of ECA framework item # 3 as the elucidation of degradation pathways and identification of degradation products. FMG proposed that the data submitted to date indicate that fluoropolymers are unlikely to degrade, and that elucidating pathways and identifying degradants would not be necessary. FMG proposed that interested parties review all the data that have been submitted concerning p chem and fate, and that an ECA could be considered if technical questions could not be adequately answered on the basis of those data. FMG concluded that, if its suggestions are valid, item # 2 would be considered complete for PTFE, FEP and PFA, and the same review process would follow for the remaining fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers when those data are submitted. Similarly, FMG restated the objective of ECA framework item # 4 as the determination of p chem fate and transport properties of major degradation products, and indicated that item # 4 would not be relevant, based on the data already submitted, because the polymers are stable and do not degrade via normal degradation pathways.

III. Discussion/ Questions Interested parties raised questions regarding the issue of no oligomer contamination of products. EPA asked that FMG provide the percent molecular weight below 1000 and the level of oligomer contamination. FMG committed to providing molecular weight distribution data. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary August 1, 2003 4 Concerning EPA's definition of a high chain length in the incineration proposal, parties asked if a minimum C8 chain length could be assumed. EPA stated that the focus was not solely on C8, but at looking at the long C chain carboxylic acid formation as an indicator for investigation. It was suggested that this topic be further discussed at the incineration technical subgroup meeting.

Interested parties raised questions regarding the possible uses of PTFE in items such as light bulbs and barrier creams. FMG responded that PTFE could be used as a coating for light bulbs in some applications and in barrier creams for military and commercial application. CPSC requested to know what type of products contain PFOA to estimate exposures from these products. FMG stated that the articles testing would clarify the products issue ( although no barrier creams were proposed as applications for testing under the LOI).

Interested parties questioned where in the fluoropolymer manufacture process APFO is lost; where oligomers are lost; and where and how air emissions are accounted for. FMG stated that loss could occur at isolation and drying and at extrusion and mold processing, but that most APFO is destroyed during isolation and drying. FMG further stated that oligomers are removed during isolation and drying for long molecular weight chains. FMG addressed air releases by explaining that industry has worked for 20 years to develop and share emissions reduction technology. The industry commitment is a 50% reduction in emissions by 2006. Measurement of air emissions for 2002 as submitted to EPA were arrived at by using material balances aided by sampling.

The question was asked regarding the choice of solvent proposed for testing. One suggestion was to use methanol since it seemed to be the solvent most likely to maximize recovery. FMG stated that they will look at different solvents including corn oil, water, and alcohol for individual articles.

There were numerous questions regarding the selection criteria proposed by FMG for analysis of PFOA and PFOA containing articles. EPA stated that if additional products would need to be added to the testing protocol, the individual companies would be contacted for discussion. FMG requested that the addition of articles of commerce be allowed by modification of the existing LOI rather than formation of an ECA so as to not slow down progress. FMG stated that products will come from 2 or more manufacturing facilities among FMG and sent to the Society of the Plastics Industry ( SPI) where they will then be sent to the contract laboratory for analysis. This process was adopted to ensure the products come from FMG member companies and to maintain the chain of custody.

Interested parties expressed questions regarding the processing conditions for articles; whether samples could be tested from both the high and low end temperature ranges; and whether the low temperature articles would behave differently than the high temperature ones. FMG stated that the processing ranges encompass all fluoropolymer families and are processed U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Meeting Summary August 1, 2003 5 at different temperatures. The specific processing temperatures for a particular article could be considered CBI by the individual companies.

Several questions were raised with regard to the testing methods to be conducted for the articles of commerce. Interested parties questioned whether the approach provided by FMG would accurately depict all of the possible conditions where PFOA could be generated or released from the products. CPSC asked about analysis of products such as cookware under normal " misuse" conditions. FMG stated that consumer education information is provided with their products and that testing data are available for routine use conditions as well as at elevated temperatures. The suggestion was made for FMG to report back to the workgroup on their current consumer education information.

Parties noted that 4 companies are participating in the FMG, while 2 other companies have been identified as possible importers into the US. FMG stated that they conducted a worldwide material balance of the manufacture of APFO and do not know whether anyone other than the companies surveyed who make products with APFO.

V. Identification of workgroup next steps; determination of workgroup assignments The workgroup elected Greg Fritz of EPA to present the workgroup summary to the Plenary session.

° Recommendation for formation of expert technical subgroups in the areas of aged articles and incineration for ECA development to meet 1 or 2 times by mid September. The meetings were proposed to be by conference call. FMG will provide a time line within two weeks and a listing of who will participate from industry. ° Additional p chem information on fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers to be submitted August 1, 2003. ° FMG committed to providing molecular weight specification data for review ° FMG committed to providing information on specific chemical use and production volume information by August 15, 2003. ° Additional degradation pathway questions are to be addressed by industry. If the testing information sufficiently answers the questions, then no further action is needed; however, if the information is not sufficient, then the topic will be forwarded to a technical subgroup for possible ECA development. ° All submitted information is to be reviewed and any questions addressed. ° FMG will submit additional material balance information. ° FMG to evaluate the current Consumer Education information for their products and report to the group next time. ° The entire fluoropolymers workgroup will convene during the week of Sept 15, 2003.


From:  Stephen M Zervas<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 2:20:36 PM To:  Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: David W Fanning; Brenna M Harden Subject:  Current Permit

Hi Dr. Jones,

Attached please find a copy of the most recent permit for EES Coke as requested in the ICR Enclosure 1.

Steve Zervas Supervisor, Environmental Affairs DTE Energy Services

Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< 51-08C.pdf >>


[Federal Register: December 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 79002-79005]
[DOCID:fr24de08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2005-21305]
RIN 2137-AE26

Pipeline Safety: Polyamide-11 (PA-11) Plastic Pipe Design
Pressures

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the design factor and design pressure
limits for natural gas pipelines made from new Polyamide-11 (PA-11)
thermoplastic pipe. Together, these two changes in the regulations
allow pipeline operators to operate certain pipelines constructed of
new PA-11 pipe at higher operating pressures than is currently allowed
for other plastic pipe materials.

DATES: This final rule takes effect January 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Sanders at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (73 FR 1307;
January 8, 2008) proposing to increase the design factor and
corresponding operating pressure limitations for natural gas pipelines
made from new Polyamide-11 (PA-11) thermoplastic pipe. PHMSA initiated
this rulemaking in response to several petitions submitted by Arkema,
Inc. (Arkema), a manufacturer of PA-11 pipe. In October 2004, Arkema
submitted two petitions to PHMSA requesting we revise 49 CFR 192.121
and 192.123. The first petition requested an increase in the design
factor from 0.32 to 0.40 in the plastic pipe design formula in Sec.
192.121 for new PA-11 plastic pipe. The second petition requested an
increase in the design pressure limitation in Sec.  192.123 from 100
psig (689 kPa) to 200 psig (1379 kPa) for new 2-inch IPS \1\ PA-11
plastic pipe. The design factor and design pressure limitations for all
other plastic pipe would remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ IPS means Iron Pipe Size, while CTS means copper tube size.
These are recognized pipe size standards that refer to a nominal
pipe diameter, not to the actual inside diameter (ID) or outside
diameter (OD) of a pipe. IPS is generally used for pipe sizes 2
inches or greater; CTS is generally used for pipe sizes 2 inches or
less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2005, PHMSA published a notice in the Federal Register
(70 FR 36093) seeking comments on the Arkema petitions. Following
public comments and recommendations from PHMSA staff, on April 6, 2006,
Arkema submitted amended petitions proposing various additional
requirements and safety controls on the use of PA-11 pipe. Arkema again
proposed an increase in the design factor in Sec.  192.121 from 0.32 to
0.40 for new PA-11 pipe, but proposed two new conditions: (1) The
minimum wall thickness for pipe of a given diameter must be SDR \2\-11
or thicker; and (2) the rapid crack propagation (RCP) characteristics
of each new pipe design involving a new diameter or thicker wall must
be measured using accepted industry standard test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SDR (standard dimension ratio) means the ratio of a pipe's
average specified outside diameter to the minimum specified wall
thickness of the pipe. For any given pipe diameter, the higher the
SDR, the thinner the pipe wall. Typical SDRs are specified in
industry standards developed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, Arkema proposed that we amend Sec.  192.123 to allow the
use of PA-11 pipe at a maximum design pressure of up to 200 psig (1379
kPa) for SDR-11 pipe, but broadened its request to include pipe at
diameters of up to 4-inch IPS. This request was based on the
availability of complete PA-11 piping systems; results from a three-
year research program by the Gas Technology Institute; and the
successful testing of exhumed samples of PA-11 pipe that had been
installed and operated under Federal and State waivers. Finally, Arkema
supported a commenter's recommendation to reduce the risk of
excavation-related damage by requiring that PA-11 pipe be buried with
warning tapes or other devices designed to alert excavators to the
presence of a high pressure gas line.
    PHMSA is adopting the amendments as proposed in the NPRM with four
exceptions:
    (1) We are adding the term ``copper tubing size (CTS)'' to clarify
that pipeline operators may use copper tube size pipe as well as iron
pipe size pipe.
    (2) We are adding the term ``thicker pipe wall'' to clarify that
``SDR-11 or greater'' means pipe with thicker pipe wall.
    (3) We are clarifying that the use of arithmetic interpolation to
determine a design pressure rating at a specified temperature (i.e.,
``S'' in the plastic pipe design formula in Sec.  192.121) will not be
allowed for PA-11 pipe. Arkema did not request that we permit such an

interpolation for PA-11, and nothing in the record would support it.
    (4) Finally, for reasons set forth in the following sections, we
are not requiring that pipe with design pressures above 100 psig (689
kPa) be buried with a warning tape or other device designed to warn an
excavator of the presence of a high pressure gas line.
    This final rule amends our existing plastic pipe design formula in
Sec.  192.121 to cover pipelines made from new 4-inch IPS (or CTS) or
less, SDR-11 or greater (i.e., thicker pipe wall) PA-11 pipe with a
design factor of up to 0.40 and increases the design pressure
limitation in Sec.  192.123 to 200 psig (1379 kPa) for these same
pipelines. The design factor for all other plastic pipes remains as
prescribed in the existing regulations. These rule changes are
effective January 23, 2009.

Disposition of Public Comments

    On June 22, 2005, PHMSA published a notice in the Federal Register
(70 FR 36093) seeking comments on the Arkema petitions. We received
comments from two operators of PA-11 trial systems, one local gas
distribution company, the Gas Piping Technology Committee, the American
Gas Association (AGA), the Illinois Commerce Commission, two plastic
pipe fitting manufacturers and a plastics pipe consultant. These
comments are discussed in full in the NPRM for this rule published in
the Federal Register on January 8, 2008.
    PHMSA received 13 sets of comments on the NPRM from 10 commenters,
including industry trade groups, natural gas distribution utility
companies, plastic pipe consultants, and the original petitioner. Of
the 10 commenters, all but one expressed support for the proposed
increases in design pressure limit and design factor. Of the nine
commenters in support of the proposed amendments, four supported
increases in the design factor and design pressure limit but opposed
the proposed amendment to Sec.  192.123(f)(4) regarding the mandatory
burial of a warning tape. The single commenter opposed to all of the
proposed amendments sent two separate comments, one of which does not
pertain to the rulemaking in question.
    The supporting comments cited laboratory tests results from the Gas
Research Institute (formerly the Gas Technology Institute) and
performance during field tests under waivers as evidence that PA-11
pipe can be operated at the proposed limits without compromising public
safety. Two of the supporting commenters noted they were currently
operating PA-11 pipelines under waivers. Supporting commenters also
cited cost advantages, including efficiencies in installation and
maintenance, in using PA-11 material rather than metal for gas
distribution pipelines.
    Four commenters that otherwise supported the proposed changes in
design factor and design pressure limits objected to the proposal to
require buried warning tapes or other devices. In general, opposing
comments characterized the requirements as unnecessary, impractical, or
overly burdensome. Commenters cited the technical difficulty of burying
the warning tape and expressed concern that confusion over the rule's
application could undermine the effectiveness of any new warning. These
commenters contended that the amendment would cause confusion because
the regulation would apply to PA-11 pipe operating above 100 psig (689
kPa) but not to other plastic and metallic pipe operating above 100
psig (689 kPa)s. Others urged the strengthening of existing
requirements for damage prevention programs and excavator awareness
training as a better alternative for reducing excavation-related risk.
One commenter also suggested the proposed warning tape requirement
would be better included in Sec.  192.321(e) ``Installation of Plastic
Pipe,'' and that it should not apply to a pipeline installed within a
casing or a sleeve. Because we are not adopting the proposed
requirement in any form, we need not consider whether the operative
text would better fit in a different section of the regulations. One
commenter, Sempra Energy Utilities (Sempra), representing Southern
California Gas Company and San Diego Gas and Electric, opposed all of
the proposed amendments. Sempura cited four reasons for its opposition,
as follows:
    1. Discrepancies between Resin Formulations, Hydrostatic Design
Basis (HDB) and Field Performance Data.
    During the field trials Arkema discovered its new formula for the
PA-11 pipe, which was designed to reduce heavy metals in its products
and waste streams, caused an unexpected oxidation problem. Once Arkema
identified the cause of the problem, it eliminated the problematic
element, moving the formula closer to an earlier one with a proven
track record. Arkema also performed analyses and studies, including
tests of the Nicor Gas pipeline operated under a waiver, to determine
if the same ``accelerated degradation mechanism'' was at work in the
newest formula and determined it was not.
    Sempra argued this new information should require additional
testing to establish the HDB of the material. Arkema responded that it
received the PPI TR4 HDB [Plastics Pipe Institute, Technical Report,
TR-4, Recommended Hydrostatic Strengths and Design Stresses for
Thermoplastic Pipe and Fittings Compounds] listing after due
consideration of the data by the Hydrostatic Stress Board and that this
data included HDB equivalency testing at an independent International
Organization for Standardization certified laboratory. Two respected
plastic pipe consultants also responded that HDB testing is not
intended to find issues such as the oxidation problem and that changes
to the pigment formulation have no effect on the HDB as determined by
ASTM D2837 [ASTM International Standard D2837, Test Method for
Obtaining Hydrostatic Design Basis for Thermoplastic Pipe Materials or
Pressure Design Basis for Thermoplastic Pipe Products.] PHMSA is
satisfied that Arkema has resolved the oxidation problem and that the
HDB of the PA-11 material has been properly established.
    2. Advanced Approach for Determining Design Factor for Plastic
Materials.
    Sempra stated that there is research underway to develop a
technically sound approach to increase the design factor from 0.32 to
0.40 for PE [polyethylene] pipes without adversely compromising system
integrity and overall safety. Sempra stated that a material must
demonstrate an ample balance between its long-term strength and long-
term in-service stresses acting on the piping system Sempra added that
testing must be performed to simulate additional stresses acting on the
pipe (such as point loads, excessive bending strain, compaction, earth
loading, etc.) to validate safe operations at increased pressures and
that no test or field trial data has been provided to demonstrate that
this is true for PA-11. Arkema responded that combined loading tests
are not relevant to PA-11 because extensive laboratory testing intended
to identify slow crack growth (SCG) has shown that PA-11 is highly
resistant to SCG. Arkema added that SCG has never been observed in PA-
11. A respected plastic pipe consultant also responded that the testing
suggested by Sempra is appropriate for PE material but not for PA-11
materials because PA-11 does not fail by SCG. Based on the extensive
laboratory research, field research and the field trial experience, and
the opinions of plastic pipe experts, PHMSA accepts that PA-11 is not
likely to fail due to SCG and that additional

combined loading testing is not warranted.
    3. Clarification of Regulatory Requirements at Increased Operating
Pressures.
    Sempra suggested that PHMSA provide additional clarification
regarding the integrity management (IM) requirements that would apply
to a PA-11 pipeline at the proposed higher operating pressures and
stresses. PHMSA does not agree that such a clarification is necessary.
The IM regulations in 49 CFR part 192, subpart O are not based on the
type of plastic material. While PHMSA acknowledges that operators of
PA-11 pipelines must address specific IM requirements, the same can be
said of PE and other plastic pipelines. We expect pipeline operators to
consider all relevant risk factors, including pipe materials and
operating pressures, in developing and implementing their IM plans.
Among other resources, PHMSA's IM Web site and frequently asked
questions (FAQ) are available to assist operators in addressing PA-11-
specific IM issues that may arise. We also offer written
interpretations of the code to help clarify specific issues. In any
case, Sempra or any other interested person could petition PHMSA for a
change of the IM regulations in accordance with 49 CFR 190.331, if it
believes the IM regulations are insufficient to address PA-11
pipelines. On the current record, no such showing has been offered.
    4. Possible Misapplication of Stresses to HDB Ratio.
    Sempra pointed out an incorrect mathematical correlation in the
NPRM and believed that it undermined the rational for the rulemaking.
We acknowledge the error but do not agree that it undermines the
rationale for this rulemaking. The simplified correlation was not
offered or relied upon by Arkema. PHMSA did not intend this correlation
to establish the maximum pressure limitation for plastic pipe as Sempra
asserts, and our analysis in this rulemaking does not depend on the
comparison. The final rule is amply supported by the data and analysis
offered by the petitioner and other commenters and by PHMSA's technical
review, and is reinforced by the overwhelming support for this rule in
the plastic pipe industry.

Technical Advisory Committee

    The proposal adopted in this final rule was presented and approved
by PHMSA's Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) at its
June 10, 2008 public meeting in Washington, DC. At this meeting, PHMSA
briefed the TPSSC on the proposed PA-11 rule and explained the
extensive laboratory and field testing that the manufacturer had
undertaken. Moreover, PHMSA discussed the NPRM comments, including the
opposition to the proposed requirement to bury a warning tape. Several
of the TPSSC members expressed support for the proposed rule without
the requirement for the warning tape. The committee members expressed
the same concerns with warning tape as the public commenters,
particularly with respect to the possible confusion such a requirement
could cause excavators because the regulation would only apply to PA-11
pipe operating above 100 psig (689 kPa). After careful consideration,
the TPSSC voted unanimously to find the NPRM and supporting regulatory
evaluation, with the elimination of the proposed warning tape
requirement, technically feasible, reasonable, practicable, and cost-
effective. A transcript of the meeting is available in Docket ID PHMSA-
2005-21305.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) and, therefore, was
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule is
also not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of
the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
    Installing PA-11 is not mandated; it is optional. PHMSA believes
operators may choose to install PA-11 pipe, rather than some other type
of pipe, only if it is the most cost-effective alternative available.
Consequently, PHMSA anticipates that the benefits of this final rule
will equal or exceed its costs. Any gas transmission operators with (or
installing) pipelines in class 3 or 4 locations could potentially be
affected by this final rule. Furthermore, all gas distribution
operators could potentially be affected by this final rule. In total,
PHMSA estimates that the rule could potentially affect 1,450 gas
transmission and gas gathering operators and 1,450 gas distribution
system operators.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), PHMSA
must consider whether this rulemaking action would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. PHMSA
estimates that this final rule could potentially affect as many as 479
transmission system and gas gathering operators and 1,131 gas
distribution system operators that qualify as small businesses under
the criteria established for these industries by the Small Business
Administration.
    The final rule mandates no action by gas pipeline operators.
Rather, it provides operators with an option to use PA-11 pipe in
certain pipeline systems. We expect operators to select among
authorized pipe materials based on economic, operational, or other
considerations. Consequently, the economic burden of the final rule on
these potentially affected gas pipeline operators is expected to be
minimal. Therefore, based on this information showing that any economic
impact of this rule on small entities will be minimal, I certify under
section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this regulation will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Executive Order 13175

    PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to the principles and
criteria in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments.'' Because this final rule will not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal
governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding
and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not impose any new information collection
requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of
$100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year to either
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the proposed rulemaking.

National Environmental Policy Act

    PHMSA has analyzed this final rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined
the final rule may produce minor beneficial impacts on the quality of
the human environment due primarily to a potential reduction in
corrosion-related leaks if PA-11 pipe is used instead of steel pipe. We
have determined there will be no significant environmental impacts
associated with this final rule.

Executive Order 13132

    PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to Executive Order
13132 (``Federalism''). The final rule does not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. This final
rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and
local governments. This final rule would not preempt state law for
intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

Executive Order 13211

    Transporting gas impacts the nation's available energy supply.
However, this final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211. It is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
not identified this rulemaking as a significant energy action.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 192

    Gas, Natural gas, Pipelines, Pipeline safety.

0
For the reasons provided in the preamble, PHMSA amends 49 CFR Part 192
as follows:

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, 60116, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.

0
2. Revise Sec.  192.121 to read as follows:

Sec.  192.121  Design of plastic pipe.

    Subject to the limitations of Sec.  192.123, the design pressure
for plastic pipe is determined by either of the following formulas:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE08.014

Where:

P = Design pressure, gauge, psig (kPa).
S = For thermoplastic pipe, the HDB is determined in accordance with
the listed specification at a temperature equal to 73F[deg]
(23C[deg]), 100 [deg]F (38 [deg]C), 120 [deg]F (49 [deg]C), or 140
[deg]F (60 [deg]C). In the absence of an HDB established at the
specified temperature, the HDB of a higher temperature may be used
in determining a design pressure rating at the specified temperature
by arithmetic interpolation using the procedure in Part D.2 of PPI
TR-3/2004, HDB/PDB/SDB/MRS Policies (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  192.7). For reinforced thermosetting plastic pipe, 11,000 psig
(75,842 kPa). [Note: Arithmetic interpolation is not allowed for PA-
11 pipe.]
t = Specified wall thickness, inches (mm).
D = Specified outside diameter, inches (mm).
SDR = Standard dimension ratio, the ratio of the average specified
outside diameter to the minimum specified wall thickness,
corresponding to a value from a common numbering system that was
derived from the American National Standards Institute preferred
number series 10.
D F = 0.32 or
    = 0.40 for nominal pipe size (IPS or CTS) 4-inch or less, SDR-11
or greater (i.e. thicker pipe wall), PA-11 pipe produced after
January 23, 2009.

0
Amend Sec.  192.123 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  192.123  Design limitations for plastic pipe.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) and paragraph (f) of this
section, the design pressure may not exceed a gauge pressure of 100
psig (689 kPa) for plastic pipe used in:
* * * * *
    (f) The design pressure for polyamide-11 (PA-11) pipe produced
after January 23, 2009 may exceed a gauge pressure of 100 psig (689
kPa) provided that:
    (1) The design pressure does not exceed 200 psig (1379 kPa);
    (2) The pipe size is nominal pipe size (IPS or CTS) 4-inch or less;
and
    (3) The pipe has a standard dimension ratio of SDR-11 or greater
(i.e., thicker pipe wall).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2008.
Carl T. Johnson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-30637 Filed 12-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2697-2700]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF14-23-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Leach Xpress Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public
Scoping Meetings

    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 Leach XPress Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas) in Marshall and Wayne Counties, West
Virginia and Fairfield, Vinton, Lawrence, Noble, Jackson and Hocking
Counties, Ohio. 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. Please note
that the scoping period will close on February 12, 2015. However, this
is not your only public input opportunity; please refer to the Review
Process flow chart 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the
public scoping meetings scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                       Meeting Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, January 27, 2015, 6:30 p.m.     Grand Vue Park (Banquet Hall),
 EST.                                     250 Trail Drive, Moundsville,
                                          WV 26041.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 6:30 p.m.   Noble County Community Center,
 EST.                                     Noble County Fairgrounds,
                                          (Fairground Road), Caldwell,
                                          OH 43724.
Thursday, January 29, 2015, 6:30 p.m.    Oak Hill Elementary School, 401
 EST.                                     East Evans Street, Oak Hill,
                                          OH 45656.
Tuesday, February 3, 2015, 6:30 p.m.     Lee's Banquet Haus, 580 Radio
 EST.                                     Lane, Logan, OH 43138.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015, 6:30 p.m.   Huntington High School, 1
 EST.                                     Highlander Way, Huntington, WV
                                          25701.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    The purpose of these scoping meetings is to provide the public an
opportunity to learn more about the Commission's environmental review
process, and to verbally comment on the Project. Each scoping meeting
will start at 6:30 p.m. and representatives from Columbia Gas will be
present one hour prior to the start of each scoping meeting to answer
questions about the Project. Affected landowners and other interested
parties are encouraged to attend the scoping meetings and to give their
comments on the issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A
transcript of each meeting will be added to the Commission's
administrative record to ensure that your comments are accurately
recorded.
    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.
    The ``For Citizens'' section of the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov)
provides

more information about the FERC and the environmental review process.
This section also includes information about getting involved in FERC
jurisdictional projects, and a citizens' guide entitled ``An Interstate
Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' This guide
addresses a number of frequently asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Columbia Gas plans to construct approximately 161 miles of new
natural gas pipeline in West Virginia and Ohio; two new compressor
stations in Ohio and one new compressor station in West Virginia; and
four new regulator stations in Ohio; and modify two existing compressor
stations in West Virginia and Ohio as well as one existing regulator
station in Ohio. The Leach XPress Project would provide about 1.5
million dekatherms of natural gas per day of firm transportation
service to natural gas consumers served by the Columbia Gas and
Columbia Gulf pipeline systems. According to Columbia Gas, its project
would provide shippers outlets from constrained supply basins and
access to higher value markets.
    The Leach XPress Project would consist of the following facilities:
     LEX Pipeline--130 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline
in Marshall County, West Virginia and Fairfield, Hocking, Monroe,
Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, and Perry Counties, Ohio;
     R-801 Loop--27 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
in Fairfield, Hocking, and Vinton Counties, Ohio; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipe constructed parallel to
an existing pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     BM-111 Loop--2.9 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline
loop from Lawrence County, Ohio to Wayne County, West Virginia;
     LEX1 Pipeline--0.6 miles of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline
in Fairfield County, Ohio;
     three new compressor stations, designated as the Lone Oak,
Summerfield, and Oak Hill Compressor Stations to be located in Marshall
County, West Virginia, and Noble and Jackson Counties, Ohio,
respectively;
     four new regulator stations in Hocking and Vinton
Counties, Ohio, respectively;
     modifications to the existing Ceredo and Crawford
Compressor Stations in Wayne County, West Virginia and Fairfield
County, Ohio, respectively;
     modifications to the existing RS-1286 regular station in
Vinton County, Ohio; and
     abandonment in-place of 28 miles of the 20-inch-diameter
R-501 Pipeline in Fairfield, Hocking, and Vinton Counties, Ohio.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
2.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 2,534
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipelines.
Following construction, Columbia Gas would maintain about 1,008 acres
for permanent operation of the project's aboveground facilities and
permanent pipeline easements; the remaining acreage would be restored
and revert to former uses. About 48 percent of the planned pipeline
routes parallels existing pipeline, 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
\3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``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
     soils;
     water resources, including surface water and groundwater
     wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     fisheries and aquatic resources;
     threatened, endangered, and other special status species;
     land use, recreation, special interest areas, and visual
resources;
     socioeconomics;
     cultural resources;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety and reliability; and
     cumulative environmental impacts.
    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
participated in public Open Houses meetings sponsored by Columbia Gas
in the project area in November 2014 to explain the environmental
review process to interested stakeholder. We have also 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 7.
    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.\4\ 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 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has
expressed its intention to participate as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EIS to satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to
this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), 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.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 of 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 Columbia Gas. This
preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our
analysis. Issues identified include:
     Geology--effects as a result of blasting to remove
existing surface and subsurface bedrock during Project construction;
     soils--effects on soil stability during and after project
construction;
     land use--effects on residential areas and agricultural
lands during construction and operation of Project facilities including
public safety;
     water resources--effects on wetlands and waterbodies;
     Mississippi River crossing in two locations, as well as
Muskingum River;
     biological resources--effect on threatened and endangered
species occurring within or adjacent to the Project right-of-way;
     cultural--effects on archeological sites and historic
resources;
     socioeconomic and transportation--effects of increased
workforce and impacts to local population; and
     air quality and noise--effect on local air quality and
noise environment from construction and operation and maintenance of
Project facilities.

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
February 12, 2015.
    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 (PF14-23-000) 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 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Columbia Gas 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., PF14-
23). 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/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. 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.
    Finally, Columbia Gas has established a toll-free phone number (1-
888-499-3450) and an email support address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>so
that parties can contact it directly with questions about the Project.
Columbia Gas has also established a Project Web site (https://www.columbiapipelinegroup.com/current-projects/leach-xpress-project)
where additional information on the Project is available.

    Dated: January 13, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00733 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41496-41497]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0156]

Pipeline Safety: Meetings of the Gas and Liquid Pipeline Advisory
Committees

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

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Gas Pipeline
Advisory Committee (GPAC) also known as the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee, and the Liquid Pipeline Advisory Committee (LPAC)
also known as the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards
Committee. The committees will meet in joint session to discuss a
variety of topics to keep committee members up-to-date on DOT's
pipeline safety program.

DATES: The meetings will be held on August 8-9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at The Westin Arlington Gateway,
801 Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203, Fitzgerald Ballroom, Phone (703)
717-6200, Web site http://www.starwoodhotels.com/westin/property/overview/index.html?propertyID=1513.
    Any additional information will be published on the PHMSA Web site
at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/public, under ``News and Updates'' on the
homepage.
    The meetings will not be web cast; however, presentations will be
available on the meeting Web site and posted in the E-Gov Web site at
http://www.regulations.gov in docket number PHMSA-2013-0156 within 30
days following the meeting.
    Comments: Comments on the meeting may be submitted to the docket in
the following ways:
    E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site allows the
public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number PHMSA-2013-0156 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You should know that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Therefore, you may want to review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477) or view the Privacy Notice at http://www.regulations.gov before submitting any such comments.
    Docket: For access to the docket or to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-
140 on the ground level of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    If you wish to receive confirmation of receipt of your written
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the
following statement: ``Comments on PHMSA-2013-0156.'' The Docket Clerk
will date-stamp the postcard prior to returning it to you via the U.S.
mail. Please note that due to delays in the delivery of U.S. mail to
Federal offices in Washington, DC, we recommend that persons consider
an alternative method (internet, fax, or professional delivery service)
of submitting comments to the docket and ensuring their timely receipt
at DOT.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received in
response to any of our dockets by the name of the individual who
submitted the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to seek special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Cheryl Whetsel at<PHONE_NUMBER> by July 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the meeting,
contact Cheryl Whetsel by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public may attend and make a
statement during the advisory committee meeting. If you intend to make
a statement, please notify PHMSA in advance by forwarding an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by July 22, 2013.

Committee Background

    The GPAC and LPAC are statutorily mandated advisory committees that
advise PHMSA on proposed safety standards, risks assessments, and
safety policies for natural gas pipelines and for hazardous liquid
pipelines. Both committees were established under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 1) and the pipeline safety
law (49 U.S.C. Chap. 601). Each committee consists of 15 members--with
membership evenly divided among the Federal and state government, the
regulated industry, and the public. The committees advise PHMSA on the
technical feasibility, practicability, and cost-effectiveness of each
proposed pipeline safety standard.

Agenda

    On Thursday, August 8, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and on
August 9, 2013, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. the GPAC and LPAC will
hold joint meetings. A detailed Agenda will be published on the PHMSA
(DOT) Web site.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 60102, 60115; 60118.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 3, 2013.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-16513 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P