ReadMe “TSS, TN, and TP Summary Stats_Final Rule.sas”

Author: Abt Associates, Inc.

Date November 19, 2009

This document describes the input files, output files, and steps taken
in the SAS program “SS, TN, and TP Summary Stats_Final Rule.sas”
(DCN 6-7703)

PLEASE REMOVE THE DCN X-XXX PART FROM THE FILE NAMES PRIOR TO RUNNING
ANY PROGRAMS

Input Files:

The following files are outputted from the SAS program “Krinsky and
Robb Sensitivity Analysis WTP by Reach Including WQ Calcs_Final
Rule.sas” (DCN 6-7907)

TSS_TN_TP_base.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7913)

TSS_TN_TP_option_1.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7914)

TSS_TN_TP_option_2.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7915)

TSS_TN_TP_option_3.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7916)

TSS_TN_TP_option_4.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7917)

TSS_TN_TP_option_5.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7918)

Est_base.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7919)

Est_option_1.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7920)

Est_option_2.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7921)

Est_option_3.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7922)

Est_option_4.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7923)

Est_option_5.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7924)

The following file is extracted from the Access Database “WQI
Data.mdb”

 “NLCD.xls” (DCN6-7701)

The following file is extracted from the SPARROW input file “Sept 28
loads for SPARROW.xls” (DCN X-XXX)

“Reaches with loadings 092909.xls” (DCN6-7702)

Output File:

TSS Sum Stats 19NOV09.xls (DCN6-7704)

File Information:

TSS, TP, and TN concentrations are imported for all RF1 reaches in the
analysis from the following files, where Option 5 is the hypothetical no
discharge scenario:

TSS_TN_TP_base.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7913)

TSS_TN_TP_option_1.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7914)

TSS_TN_TP_option_2.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7915)

TSS_TN_TP_option_3.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7916)

TSS_TN_TP_option_4.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7917)

TSS_TN_TP_option_5.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7918)

A dataset containing TSS, TN, or TP concentrations under all options is
created.  These datasets are then merged with the data from “Reaches
with loadings 092909.xls (DCN 6-7702)” to identify the reaches with
direct construction sediment discharges.  Data from “NLCD.xls” is
then brought in to identify the top 1 percent, 10 percent, and 25
percent of reaches developed land during the period of 1992-2001.  The
program then calculates regional and national summary statistics for
TSS, TN, and TP concentrations under the baseline, all options, and the
hypothetical no discharge scenario.  The total number of miles with
reductions in TSS concentrations is calculated for all RF1 reaches in
the analysis, reaches with direct construction loading, and the top 1
percent, 10 percent, and 25 percent of reaches at both the national and
regional level.

The following input files contain data for all estuarine reaches in the
analysis

Est_base.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7919)

Est_option_1.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7920)

Est_option_2.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7921)

Est_option_3.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7922)

Est_option_4.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7923)

Est_option_5.sas7bdat  (DCN 6-7924)

Summary statics are calculated for TSS concentrations under the
baseline, all options, and the hypothetical no discharge scenario for
estuaries only.  The total number of estuarine miles with TSS reductions
is also calculated at a national level under each option,

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: May 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 23848]
[DOCID:fr21my09-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13337-000]

 FFP Project 34, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

May 14, 2009.
    On November 24, 2008, FFP Project 34, LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 7 Water Power
Project (Lock & Dam 7 Project), to be located at River Mile 702.5 on
the Mississippi River in Winona County, Minnesota, and La Crosse,
Wisconsin, and near the town of La Crescent, MN. Also, the reservoir
runs through a portion of the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife
and Fish Refuge.
    The proposed Lock & Dam 7 Project would be integral with: (1) The
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock & Dam No. 7 comprised of a
940-foot-long gated dam section with 5 roller gates and 11 tainter
gates, a 600 foot-long lock, and a 8,100-foot-long earth dike; and (2)
an existing 21-square-mile reservoir at a normal pool elevation of
639.0 feet mean sea level and 79,000 acre-feet of storage.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 25 Very Low Head (VHL)
generating units and 75 hydrokinetic generating units totaling 14.5
megawatts (MW) installed capacity; (2) a new 69-kilovolt transmission
line connected to an existing above ground local distribution system;
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an estimated
average annual generation of 73,600 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irvin, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone (978)
252-7631.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13337) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-11802 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13653-13654]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1958-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Connecticut; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Connecticut (FEMA-1958-DR), dated March 3,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 3, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 3, 2011, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Connecticut resulting from a snowstorm during the period of
January 11-12, 2011, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major

disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Connecticut.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are
further authorized to provide emergency protective measures,
including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance program for
any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident
period. You may extend the period of assistance, as warranted. This
assistance excludes regular time costs for the sub-grantees' regular
employees. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Connecticut have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, New Haven, New London, and
Tolland Counties and the Tribal Lands of the Mashantucket Pequot and
the Mohegan Tribal Nations located entirely within New London County
for Public Assistance.
    Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, New London, and Tolland
Counties and the Tribal Lands of the Mashantucket Pequot and the
Mohegan Tribal Nations located entirely within New London County for
emergency protective measures (Category B), including snow
assistance, under the Public Assistance program for any continuous
48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period. The
assistance for New Haven County will be provided for a period of 72
hours.
    All counties within the State of Connecticut are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-5820 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29636-29637]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12112]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9003-1]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements filed 05/07/2012
through 05/11/2012.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is seeking agencies to participate in
its e-NEPA electronic EIS submission pilot. Participating agencies can
fulfill all requirements for EIS filing, eliminating the need to submit
paper copies to EPA Headquarters, by filing documents online and
providing feedback on the process. To participate in the pilot,
register at: https://cdx.epa.gov.

EIS No. 20120146, Final EIS, USFS, OR, Jackson Vegetation Management
Project, Implementation, Paulina Ranger District, Ochoco National
Forest, Crook and Wheeler Counties, OR, Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012,
Contact: Jeff Marszal<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120147, Final Supplement, USFS, OR, Cobbler II Timber Sale
and Fuels Reduction Project, Updated Information to Revise and Clarify
Aspects of the Analyses Presented in the FEIS of October 2010,
Proposing Vegetation and Fuels Management to Improve Health and Vigor
Upland Forest Stands and Reduce Hazardous and Ladder Fuels, Walla Walla
Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest, Wallowa and Union Counties,
OR, Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012, Contact: Kimpton Cooper 509-522-
6290.
EIS No. 20120148, Draft EIS, USFS, NM, La Jara Mesa Mine Project,
Development, Operation and Mine Reclamation up to 20 Years, Approval,
Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Cibola National Forest, Cibola County, NM,
Comment Period Ends: 07/16/2012, Contact: Keith Baker<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120149, Draft Supplement, FTA, CA, Capitol Expressway
Corridor Project, To Construct an Extension of the Capitol Light Rail
System from Alum Rock Station to the Eastridge Transit Center, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, City of San Jose, Santa Clara
County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 07/03/2012, Contact: Eric Eidlin 415-
744-2502.
EIS No. 20120150, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, Interchange 5/State Route 56
Interchange Project, Connection between southbound I-5 to eastbound SR-
56 and northbound SR 56 to northbound I-5, San Diego County, CA,
Comment Period Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Manuel E. Sanchez 619-699-
7336.
EIS No. 20120151, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Sparring Bulls Project, Proposes
Timber Harvest, Non-commercial Fuels Reduction, Prescribed Burning, and
Watershed Improvement Activities, Three Rivers Ranger District,
Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT, Review Period Ends: 06/
18/2012, Contact: Leslie McDougall<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120152, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, San Diego Freeway (I-405)
Improvement Project, between State Route 73 and Interstate 605, USACE
Section 404 Permit, Orange and Los Angeles Counties, CA, Comment Period
Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Tay Dam<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120153, Draft EIS, NOAA, 00, Southeastern U.S. Shrimp
Fisheries, To Reduce Incidental Bycatch and Mortality of Sea Turtles,
Tidally Influenced Waters and Substrates of the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic and its Estuaries of LA, MS, AL, and NC and extending
out to the limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, Comment Period
Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Michael Barnette<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120154, Final EIS, USFWS, MT, Charles M. Russell National
Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge prehensive
Conservation Plan, To Provide Alternatives and Identify Consequences,
Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips Counties, MT,
Review Period Ends: 06/18/2012, Contact: Laurie Shannon<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120155, Final EIS, USFS, NC, Uwharrie National Forest,
Proposed Land and Resource Management Resource Plan, Implementation,
Montgomery, Randolph and Davidson Counties, NC, Review Period Ends: 06/
18/2012, Contact: Ruth Berner<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120156, Draft Supplement EIS, USFS, AK, Bell Island
Geothermal Leases, To Update Analysis in the Programmatic EIS to
Address Roadless Concerns, Consideration for Lease Approval, Ketchikan-
Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan
Gateway Borough, AK, Comment Period Ends: 07/02/2012, Contact: Sarah
Samuelson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20120073, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Isabella Lake Dam Safety
Modification Project, To Remediate Seismic, Seepage, and Hydrologic
Deficiencies in the Main Dam, Spillway and Auxiliary Dam, Kern County,
CA, Comment Period Ends: 05/22/2012, Contact: Tyler M. Stalker 916-557-
5107.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 03/23/2012; Extending Comment
Period from 05/07/12 to 05/22/2012.

EIS No. 20120130, Final EIS, USFS, CA, Algoma Vegetation Management
Project, Proposing to Protect and Promote Conditions of Late-
Successional Forest Ecosystem on 4,666 Acres, Shasta-Trinity National
Forest, Siskiyou County, CA, Review Period Ends: 06/11/2012, Contact:
Emelia Barnum<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 05/04/2012; Correction to Title.

EIS No. 20120142, Draft EIS, USN, 00, Atlantic Fleet Training and
Testing Activities, To Support and Conduct

Current, Emerging, and Future Training and Testing Activities along the
Eastern Coast of the U.S. and Gulf of Mexico, Comment Period Ends: 07/
10/2012, Contact: Jene Nissen<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 05/11/2012; Extending Comment
Period from 06/25/12 to 07/10/2012.

EIS No. 20120143, Draft EIS, USN, 00, Hawaii-Southern California
Training and Testing Activities, To Support and Conduct Current,
Emerging and Future Training and Testing Activities off Southern
California and around the Hawaiian Islands, CA, HI, Comment Period
Ends: 07/10/2012, Contact: Alex Stone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 05/11/2012; Extending Comment
Period from 06/25/12 to 07/10/2012.

    Dated: May 15, 2012.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012-12112 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 30, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKET OST 2002-13453

 _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  LINEAS AEREAS ALLEGRO, S.A. de C.V.
            Date Filed: September 25, 2002

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to conduct scheduled, combination services between:  1) Leon
(El Bajio), Mexico, and Oakland, California; 2) Puerto Vallarta, Mexico,
and Oakland, California; and 3) Zihuatanejo, Mexico, and Oakland,
California.

If renewal, date and citation of last action(s):  New authority.

Applicant representative(s):  Moffett B. Roller,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
         Action date:  September 30, 2002

Effective dates of authority granted:  September 30, 2002, through
September 30, 2003.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not
a瑬牥猠捵晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩
景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩
敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡
慩楴湯愮灳


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs Administration

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS–117; Amdt. 195–53;]

RIN 2137 - AB86

Transportation of Hazardous Liquids at 20 Percent or Less of Specified
Minimum Yield Strength

AGENCY:	Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA),  DOT.

ACTION:	Final rule.

SUMMARY:  RSPA’s hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations do not
apply to steel pipelines that operate at 20 percent or less of specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS).  This final rule extends the regulations
to three groups of these pipelines: pipelines that transport highly
volatile liquids, pipelines or pipeline segments in populated areas, and
pipelines or pipeline segments in navigable waterways.  Accidents have
shown that regulating these pipelines or pipeline segments would be in
the interest of public safety.  Moreover, the Pipeline Safety Act of
1992 provides that DOT may not exclude hazardous liquid pipelines from
regulation based solely on operation at low internal stress.  The final
rule responds to this statutory prohibition and will reduce the risk
that hazardous liquid pipelines present to public safety and the
environment.

EFFECTIVE DATES:

August 11, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

L. M. Furrow,<PHONE_NUMBER>, regarding the subject matter of this final
rule.  Contact the Dockets Unit,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for copies of the final
rule or other docket material.  Contact the Transportation Safety
Institute, Pipeline Safety Division, 6500 South MacArthur Boulevard,
Oklahoma City, OK 73125,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for a copy of 49 CFR part 195.

SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION:

1.	Background

	RSPA’s hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations do not apply to
pipelines operating at a stress level of 20 percent or less of SMYS
(hereafter “low-stress pipelines”) (see CFR 195.1(b)(3)).  DOT
excluded these pipelines from Part 195 when it first issued the
regulations (34 FR 15473, October 4, 1969).  However, serious accidents
have occurred on low-stress pipelines, suggesting that this blanket
exclusion is no longer in the interest of public safety.  Moreover,
Section 206 of the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 (PSA) (Pub. L. 102-508,
October 24, 1992), amended §203(b) of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Safety Act of 1979 (HLPSA) (49 App. U.S.C. 2002(b)) to provide that
“[i]n exercising any discretion under this Act, the Secretary shall
not provide an exception to regulation under this Act for any pipeline
facility solely on the basis of the fact that such pipeline facility
operates at low internal stress.”

	On October 31, 1990, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking on low-stress pipelines (55 FR 45822).  The notice described
accidents and rulemaking recommendations.

	We analyzed data received in response to that notice to learn the
benefits and costs of regulating low-stress pipelines.  The analysis
showed that many operators could face costs disproportionate to benefits
if RSPA regulated all low-stress pipelines subject to the HLPSA.  So we
focused on those low-stress pipelines that pose a higher risk to people
and the environment.  We identified the commodity in transportation and
the location of the pipeline as significant risk factors.

	RSPA then published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (58 FR
12213, March 3, 1993) that addressed these risk factors.  the NPRM
proposed to apply the safety standards in Part 195 and the drug testing
rules in 49 CFR Part 199 to low-stress pipelines that transport highly
volatile liquids (HVL), traverse populated areas, or traverse navigable
waterways.  These pipelines were targeted because failures of HVL
pipelines usually result in more deaths and injuries than other pipeline
failures, and failures in populated areas and navigable waterways
generally result in more damages to people and the environment.
Furthermore, the risk of outside force damage, a major cause of pipeline
accidents, is greater in populated areas and navigable waterways, making
failures there somewhat more likely.

	The proposed rules would address the statutory restriction (quoted
above) on administrative discretion in regulating hazardous liquid
pipelines.  The proposed rules also would respond to the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-380), which requires DOT to regulate oil
pipelines to prevent pollution of navigable waters.

	The NPRM proposed regulating four kinds of pipelines operating at 20
percent or less of SMYS: gathering lines, trunk lines, inter-facility
lines, and delivery lines.  Unaffected were pipelines that Part 195 does
not cover for a reason besides low operating stress.  For example, the
NPRM did not propose regulating low-stress rural gathering lines.  Part
195 does not apply to petroleum gathering lines in rural areas,
regardless of the pipeline’s operating stress level (see
§195.1(b)(4)).  Also, with regard to low-stress pipelines that do not
transport HVL, the proposed rules did not affect pipelines or pipeline
segments that lie outside populated areas or navigable waterways.
However, controls or equipment on excepted segments that are necessary
for the safe operation of pipeline segments inside populated areas or
navigable waterways (e.g., pressure controls) would have to meet Part
195 requirements.

II.	Response to Comments

A.	Introduction

	This section of the preamble summarizes and discusses the major written
comments RSPA received on the proposed rules.  Comments related to the
draft economic evaluation of costs and benefits are discussed in the
final regulatory evaluation, which is in the docket.

B.	Extent and Nature of Comments

	The NPRM requested comments by May 3, 1993.  RSPA received 13 written
comments.  The comments came from seven pipeline operators, one pipeline
trade association (the American Petroleum Institute (API)), three state
pipeline safety agencies, one federal agency (the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)), and one public interest
organization (the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)).

	NTSB, two state agencies, and one operator voiced general support for
the NPRM.  The rest of the commenters directed their remarks to specific
issues.  Those issues are discussed below.

C.	Rural Pipelines

	NRDC and a state agency suggested that RSPA should not continue to
except non-HVL low-stress pipelines in rural areas from Part 195.  These
commenters argued that people and the environment in rural areas deserve
the same protection as people and the environment in populated areas.
They also said that serious accidents have occurred in rural areas, and
that low stress is not necessarily an indicator of low risk.

	Although RSPA appreciates these commenters’ concerns, we have decided
not to expand the present rulemaking to include the regulation of
additional low-stress pipelines in rural areas.  However, the need to
regulate rural low-stress pipelines not covered by the present
rulemaking will be considered in upcoming proceedings.

	Apart from production lines (which are not subject to the HLPSA), most
low-stress pipelines in rural areas probably are gathering lines.  Until
passage of the PSA, rural gathering lines were not subject to regulation
under the HLPSA.  However, the PSA enlarged RSPA’s regulatory
authority under the HLPSA to include, with certain exceptions, those
rural gathering lines that warrant regulation based on location and
other risk factors.  As required by Section 208 of the PSA, RSPA will
consider regulation of those lines in a future notice of proposed
rulemaking.

	In addition, we will consider the need to regulate rural low-stress
pipelines that are not gathering lines principally on the basis of the
risk the low-stress lines pose to the environment.  Through response
planning in cooperation with other federal and state agencies under the
Oil Pollution Act, we are developing a better concept of what
constitutes an environmentally-sensitive area for purposes of pipeline
environmental regulation.  This planning should provide the groundwork
both for the future notice of proposed rulemaking on rural gathering
lines and for a rulemaking on other rural low-stress pipelines.

D.	Adequacy of NPRM

	API commented on the impact of the proposed rules on inter-facility
lines and delivery lines.  It said the proposed rules would
significantly affect non-pipeline companies, such as refineries,
petrochemical plants, and terminals.  But, according to API, these
companies may not have been aware of the NPRM.  API advised RSPA to
publish a separate NPRM directed at inter-facility and delivery lines,
with at least a 6-month comment period.

	RSPA does not agree that another rulemaking notice is needed.

	The published NPRM clearly discussed the proposed applicability of Part
195 to inter-facility lines and delivery lines.  The NPRM gave all
interested persons, including non-pipeline companies, an adequate
opportunity to comment on the proposed extension on Part 195 to cover
these low-stress pipelines.  In addition, some non-pipeline companies
were aware of the NPRM, because representatives of refineries submitted
comments.  Other non-pipeline companies should have been aware that RSPA
was considering the need to regulate low-stress pipelines.  As stated
above, RSPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on
low-stress pipelines.  Also, we specifically invited representatives of
the chemical, refining, and terminal industries to attend a meeting on
low-stress pipelines (56 FR 23538, May 22, 1991).  At that meeting, RSPA
staff described all low-stress pipelines excluded from Part 195.

E.	Economically Marginal Gathering Lines

	The NPRM requested comment on whether economically marginal gathering
lines (i.e., lines which have little profit) in populated areas should
receive separate treatment under the final rules.  One operator wanted
to exclude from regulation petroleum gathering lines that operate at
less than 5 percent of SMYS and transport mostly sediment and water.
The operator said these lines present little or no risk, but the cost of
regulation would be high because of the large number of lines.

	API and an operator said many low-stress pipelines in populated areas
are associated with mature wells of diminishing production.  These
commenters argued regulation would accelerate the marginal economic
status of the lines.  They also suggested that more truck transportation
would follow, with greater risk to the public.  The operator
particularly asked RSPA not to regulate low-stress pipelines
transporting crude oil that has a high flash point.  These lines, the
commenter said, do not present a high enough risk to public safety to
make regulation cost effective.

	API commented that RSPA should apply just a few regulations to
pipelines made economically marginal by depleted oil fields and low oil
prices.  It suggested that regulations applicable to leak detection
would be enough.  The remaining regulations could be waived, API said,
based on evidence of negative economic impact and low risk to the area.
An operator also suggested RSPA consider granting waivers for marginal
systems based on evidence of a satisfactory safety program.

	NTSB said regulation of a class of pipelines should be based solely on
the threat to public safety and the environment.

	An operator of economically marginal lines said that if safety is the
goal of regulation, then profitable and marginal lines should be treated
alike.

	To resolve the issue of economically marginal gathering lines, we
looked at the number of lines involved, the burden of the final rule,
and alternative transportation.  The record shows that gathering lines
in populated areas comprise less than 10 percent of low-stress pipelines
subject to the final rule.  Based on the comments, we believe only a
small fraction of this number is economically marginal, transporting
small volumes of oil from older, declining wells.  These pipelines would
be subject to the Part 195 regulations, which, on the whole, parallel
the industry standards in the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers’ B31.4 code, Liquid Transportation Systems for Hydrocarbons,
Liquid Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols.  The compliance
burden, therefore, would be similar to the burden of meeting the minimum
standards the pipeline industry has set for itself.  Alternative rail or
truck transportation, although perhaps more expensive, is generally
available to replace any gathering line transportation that might be
shut down.  Thus, we do not believe regulation of economically marginal
low-stress gathering lines will cause a significant hardship to much of
the industry.  Also, the potential safety and environmental risks of
economically marginal gathering lines is probably higher than that of
more profitable lines because of the increased incentive to save costs.
Consequently, we decided not to include special provisions in Part 195
for economically marginal low-stress gathering lines.

	Nevertheless, consistent with API’s comment and RSPA’s statutory
authority, we will consider requests for waiver of particular
requirements.  Any request should be based on evidence of significantly
adverse economic impact, low risk, and adequate operation and
maintenance practices.

F.	Compliance Time

1.	Amount of Time

	Proposed §195.1(d) would have allowed operators of existing low-stress
pipelines 1 year after publication of the final rule to comply with
Parts 195 and 199.  However, the NPRM requested comment on whether 1
year would be enough time to prepare existing pipelines for compliance.

	An operator said 1 year would not be enough unless RSPA excludes
certain economically marginal gathering lines and accepts previous
hydrostatic testing.  Otherwise, the operator said 2 years would be
needed to establish an adequate compliance program.  One operator said 1
year would be all right for HVL and trunk lines, but 3 years would be
needed for other lines.  Another operator recommended 3 to 5 years for
low-stress pipelines that present a low risk because they carry crude
oil with a high flash point.  Still another operator said that because
many distinct pipelines would be brought under the regulations (possibly
3,000), the minimum compliance period should be 5 years.  API and an
operator argued that 3, 4, or 5 years would be needed to carry out all
the requirements.

	NTSB argued that 1 year would be sufficient because many operators of
low-stress pipelines have other pipelines that are subject to Parts 195
and 199.  Also, NTSB said compliance would mostly involve procedural
changes.  It further said written procedures and documentation are
readily available for operators not already involved with Parts 195 and
199.  A state agency also said 1 year would be sufficient for operators
to prepare for compliance.

	In view of the diversity of conditions and importance of plans,
procedures, and testing, RSPA agrees that many operators will need more
than 1 year to complete the steps necessary for existing pipelines to
meet Parts 195 and 199.  Of particular concern is the time needed to
craft plans and procedures that address the individual conditions of the
many distinct pipelines to which the final rule applies.  However,
operators should not need more than 90 days to learn about the new
requirements and begin reporting accidents that might occur on
low-stress pipelines.  Also, within 90 days operators should be able to
meet Part 195 design, construction, and hydrostatic testing requirements
on portions of existing pipelines that they replace, relocate, or
otherwise change after the effective date of the final rule.  Therefore,
final §195.1(c) allows existing low-stress pipelines 2 years from today
to comply with Parts 195 and 199.  However, accident reporting under
Subpart B of Part 195 begins 90 days from today.  Also, replacements,
relocations, and other changes made to existing pipelines on or after 90
days from today must meet the design, construction, and hydrostatic
testing requirements of Part 195 before operation.

	Note that the allowable compliance time for existing low-stress
pipelines is stated in final §195.1(c), instead of §195.1(d) as
proposed.  We made this change because under existing §195.1(c), the
deadline has passed for carbon dioxide pipelines to comply with Part 195
(July 12, 1992).  Accordingly, the compliance time for carbon dioxide
pipelines is being removed from §195.1(c).  This change makes
§195.1(c) available to state the compliance time for low-stress
pipelines.

G.	Populated Area

	RSPA proposed to define “populated area” as “any onshore area
other than a rural area.”  Section 195.2 defines “rural area” as
“outside the limits of any incorporated or unincorporated city, town,
village, or any other designated residential or commercial area such as
a subdivision, a business or shopping center, or community
development.”  So a populated area would be an onshore area inside
such political, residential, or commercial area.

	One operator suggested we exclude industrial areas from the definition
of populated area.  Because of the lack of residential housing and
associated small businesses and shopping centers in these areas, the
operator said regulation would not increase safety.  RSPA strongly
disagrees, however, because the rules in Parts 195 and 199 protect
people at large, not just people in residential communities.  Plant
personnel and the environment in industrial areas are at risk from
low-stress pipelines.

	An operator asked if Part 195 would apply to an entire line section
between block valves if only part of the line section crosses a
populated area.  As previously explained, the pipeline segment inside
the populated area and any equipment and controls located elsewhere that
are necessary for operation of the segment would have to meet Part 195.

	Part 195 currently uses the term “populated area” in
§§195.234(e)(5), 195.260(c), and 195.306(b)1) and (c)(1).  We did not
intend that the definition of “populated area” proposed in the NPRM
affect these rules.  We proposed the definition merely to clarify the
proposed applicability of Part 195 to low-stress pipelines.  Therefore,
the final rule does not contain a definition of populated area.
Instead, final §195.1(b)(3), which defines the applicability of Part
195 to low-stress pipelines, incorporates the substance of the proposed
definition.

	For similar reasons, we revised §195.1(b)(3) to include the substance
of the proposed definition of “navigable waterway.”  Section
195.412(b) uses this term, but we intended the proposed definition to
clarify only the proposed applicability of Part 195 to low-stress
pipelines.

H.	Definition of Highly Volatile Liquid

	Section 195.2 defines a “highly volatile liquid” as a hazardous
liquid that will form a vapor cloud when released to the atmosphere and
that has a vapor pressure exceeding 276 kPa (40 psia) at 37.8( C (100(
F).  A “hazardous liquid” is defined as petroleum, petroleum
products, or anhydrous ammonia.

	One commenter thought RSPA should amend the current definition of
“highly volatile liquid” to exclude gas saturated petroleum/water
mixtures if the liquid remaining after release of the gas has a vapor
pressure of 40 psia or less at 100( F.  However, the definition does not
cover such mixtures.  The deciding factors in the definition are (1) the
vapor pressure of the hazardous liquid in transportation; and (2)
whether that liquid will evaporate into a vapor cloud upon release to
the atmosphere.  In the commenter’s example, the gas in the mixture is
not relevant in determining the vapor pressure of the hazardous liquid
in transportation. Since the mixture without the gas has a vapor
pressure of 40 psia or less, it is not a highly volatile liquid.

I.	Hydrostatic Testing

	The NPRM proposed to require that operators hydrostatically test new
low-stress pipelines and existing low-stress pipelines that are
replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed.  In addition, the NPRM
proposed that within 1 year after publication of the final rule,
existing low-stress pipelines transporting HVL must have been
hydrostatically tested under Subpart E of Part 195 or not operate above
80 percent of a previous qualified test or operating pressure  (proposed
§195.302(c)).

	API suggested that RSPA allow 2 years instead of 1 year to complete the
testing of existing HVL low-stress pipelines.  Considering the total
effort companies will need to meet Parts 195 and 199, RSPA agrees that 2
years is more reasonable than 1 year to prepare for compliance.  As
stated above, final §195.1(c) provides a 2-year compliance time for
existing low-stress pipelines.  This compliance time applies to testing
existing HVL low-stress pipelines under Subpart E of Part 195.
Therefore, a compliance time is not separately stated in final
§195.302(c).

	Except for low-stress pipelines that are replaced, relocated, or
otherwise changed, the NPRM did not propose to require operators to
hydrostatically test existing non-HVL low-stress pipelines were not
subject to the hydrostatic testing proposal in Docket PS-121 (56 FR
23538), which affected many older existing, hazardous liquid pipelines.

	However, under proposed §195.406(a)(6), any non-HVL low-stress
pipeline not tested to Subpart E standards could not be operated at more
than “80 percent of the test pressure or 100 percent of the highest
operating pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for four or more
continuous hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts or logs
made at the time the test or operations were conducted.”  One operator
suggested that proposed §195.406(a)(6) would have the effect of
requiring hydrostatic testing of existing non-HVL low-stress pipelines.
Testing could be necessary if the requisite documentation were not
available, or planned operations were not consistent with prior
documented test or operating pressures.  RSPA did not intend this
result.  In fact, we proposed §195.406(a)(6) to assure that non-HVL
low-stress pipelines could continue to operate without hydrostatic
testing under Subpart E.  Upon further consideration, RSPA believes
proposed §195.406(a)(6) is unnecessary for that purpose, since
§195.302 clearly states which pipelines are subject to testing.  So we
have not adopted proposed §195.406(a)(6) in the final rule.

	Also, §195.406(a)(5) covers the substance of proposed §195.406(a)(7),
concerning the operating pressure of HVL low-stress pipelines not tested
to Subpart E.  Therefore, we have not adopted proposed §195.406(a)(7)
in the final rule.

	One operator thought the proposed rules did not clearly state the
proposed exclusion of existing non-HVL low-stress pipelines from
hydrostatic testing requirements.  RSPA agrees that Subpart E should
clearly state the applicability of testing requirements to low-stress
pipelines.  Thus, we revised existing §195.302 General requirements, to
clarify the exception of non-HVL low-stress pipelines from testing under
Subpart E.

J.	Pneumatic Testing

	The NPRM requested comment on whether pneumatic testing should be
allowed as an alternative to hydrostatic testing.  API and a state
agency favored pneumatic testing as an alternative.

	Three operators and a state agency encouraged RSPA to allow pneumatic
testing as an alternative to hydrostatic testing.  They pointed out that
pneumatic testing is permissible for low-stress pipelines in petroleum
service under the ASME B31.4 Code (Section 437.4.3, 1989 edition).  Two
of these operators also favored pneumatic testing because it would
eliminate the need to collect and treat test water.

	One operator saw little advantage in pneumatically testing new
low-stress pipelines, because the cost of waste water disposal is not
high for new lines.  Two operators thought pneumatic testing would be
hazardous for existing low-stress pipelines because of the potential to
mix hydrocarbons and air inside the pipeline.

	Part 195 now permits pneumatic testing as an alternative to hydrostatic
testing (§195.306(c)) for carbon dioxide pipelines.  Also, RSPA’s gas
pipeline safety standards allow pneumatic testing as an alternative to
hydrostatic testing (49 CFR 192.503).  In view of these standards, the
environmental advantages of pneumatic testing, and the acceptability of
pneumatic testing under the ASME B31.4 code, we believe Subpart E of
Part 195 should allow operators the option of pneumatically testing
low-stress pipelines.   Therefore,  the final rule amends §195.306 to
allow pneumatic testing as an alternative to hydrostatic testing on
low-stress pipelines.

	RSPA recognizes that a mixture of air and residual hydrocarbons could
create a potential hazard if operators pneumatically test an existing
low-stress pipeline with air instead of inert gas.  However, this risk
has not been a significant safety problem for gas pipelines under 49 CFR
Part 192.  it is common practice for operators to use proper precautions
if air is the test medium.

K.	Environmentally Sensitive Areas

	As stated in the NPRM, we have deferred proposing to regulate non-HVL
low-stress pipelines in rural “environmentally sensitive areas”
because we have not yet developed a suitable definition of
“environmentally sensitive area.”  We also need time to learn the
extent to which pipeline spills affect such areas.  Although the
definition of “environmentally sensitive area” in the oil spill
response plan regulations (49 CFR Part 194) has been used for planning
purposes, we believe that definition is too broad to use under Part 195.
 A definition of “environmentally sensitive area” under Part 195
must be specific enough to distinguish pipelines and segments of
pipeline that are subject to the regulations.

	As required by §202 of the PSA, RSPA has scheduled publication of a
notice of proposed rulemaking to define environmentally sensitive areas,
high density population areas, and navigable waterways.  (See the
“Semiannual Regulatory Agenda” at 59 FR 20662, April 25, 1994.)  We
also intend to propose, as required by the PSA, to require all operators
of hazardous liquid pipelines (including low-stress pipelines) to
identify and inventory their pipelines located in those areas and
waterways.

	NRDC commented that there is ample evidence of pipeline damage in rural
environmentally sensitive areas outside navigable waterways, so RSPA
should not postpone regulation of low-stress pipelines in those areas.
NRDC suggested that RSPA use a broad definition of environmentally
sensitive area for purposes of regulating low-stress pipelines, pending
adoption of a definition required by the PSA.  RSPA has not expanded the
final rule to cover low-stress pipelines in environmentally sensitive
areas outside the proposed areas of regulation, because the NPRM did not
propose regulation of those pipelines at this time.  However, we agree
with NRDC’s concerns about environmental risks, and we will consider
those concerns in future rulemaking proceedings on rural low-stress
pipelines.  As mentioned above, our increased understanding of
environmentally sensitive area in the pipeline context should provide a
basis for future notices of proposed rulemaking on rural gathering lines
and other rural low-stress pipelines.

	One operator thought RSPA should postpone the regulation of low-stress
pipelines entirely until it proposes regulations for non-HVL low-stress
pipelines in rural environmentally sensitive areas.  This operator said
additional work and effort could be avoided if it could identify
pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas before establishing a
compliance program for Part 195.  The commenter, however, did not
address the potential loss of benefits that would result if regulation
of low-stress pipelines were deferred pending decisions on
environmentally sensitive areas.  Nevertheless, RSPA believes that once
compliance programs are in place, extending the programs to cover
additional pipeline segments, if required, should not be too difficult.
Furthermore, there is noting to prevent an operator from bringing all
segments of a pipeline into compliance with Part 195 and immediately
achieving the benefits.

L.	Single Public Thoroughfare

	In the NPRM (at 12215), RSPA mentioned that “intra-facility piping
connecting adjacent facilities separated by navigable waterways or
separated by third party property other than single public thoroughfares
in populated areas would be subject to the regulations.”  A state
agency and an operator asked us to clarify this
single-public-thoroughfare exception.

	The intra-facility piping mentioned in the NPRM is functionally
equivalent to in-plant piping, which is excluded from regulation under
§195.1(b)(6).  Essentially, intra-facility piping is transfer piping
used for plant processes.  However, plants may be divided by a single
public thoroughfare, and transfer piping crosses the thoroughfare.  A
public thoroughfare includes any road from a country lane to an
interstate highway, but not a railroad or navigable waterway.  Because
the operating conditions of transfer piping that crosses such
thoroughfares are comparable in most respects to those of other in-plant
piping, RSPA considers thoroughfare crossings to be in-plant piping.
This interpretation of §195.1(b)(6) is in effect now.  We will apply it
to low-stress pipelines under this final rule.  The thoroughfare
exception does not apply to inter-facility lines or delivery lines,
because these lines are different from in-plant piping.

	One commenter, representing a refining department, suggested that plant
transfer piping that crosses property other than a thoroughfare
right-of-way, such as industrial property, should also qualify as
in-plant piping under §195.1(b)(6).  This commenter also suggested that
RSPA exclude inter-facility lines in industrial areas from regulation.
Neither comment was adopted.  We addressed the need to regulate
low-stress pipelines in industrial areas under the subheading “G.
Populated Areas” supra.

M.	Offshore Pipelines

	One operator commented that the NPRM lacked justification for the
proposed regulation of offshore low-stress pipelines.  RSPA disagrees
because the accident consequences discussed in the NPRM and the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking could occur offshore.  Also, the NPRM
discussed the need to prevent pollution of navigable waterways, which
includes offshore areas.  In the final rule, §195.1(b)(3) clarifies the
coverage of offshore low-stress pipelines.

N.	Drug Testing

	One refinery operator suggested that RSPA except non-pipeline companies
from part 199, if they have a comparable drug program and few low-stress
pipelines.  This commenter’s primary concern was the cost of
administering two separate anti-drug programs, the company’s own
program and another to satisfy Part 199.  RSPA believes this commenter
may have overestimated the burden of compliance with Part 199.
Operators with comparable programs need not begin a separate Part 199
program.  They could modify their present programs as necessary to meet
Part 199 standards.  Separate plans would not be required, although the
parts of a single plan intended to meet Part 199 would have to be clear
and distinct from separate company requirements.  Separate tests and
analyses would be required only if the company’s program required
testing for drugs not covered by Part 199.  Considering the savings in
compliance costs for operators with comparable programs and the
continuing concern that illegal drug use may adversely affect the safe
operation of pipelines, we did not adopt the refinery operator’s
comment.

O.	Marine Terminal Piping

	One operator pointed out that the U.S. Coast Guard already regulates
certain low-stress pipelines at marine terminals.  This commenter
recommended that RSPA continue to except these pipelines from Part 195.
Alternatively, the operator suggested RSPA establish a jurisdictional
boundary with the Coast Guard to avoid duplication of agency efforts.  A
boundary, said the operator, also would eliminate the confusion over
which DOT regulations apply to low-stress pipelines at marine terminals.

	In port areas, RSPA and the U.S. Coast Guard have independent
regulatory missions, as assigned by federal statutes.  So, hazardous
liquid pipelines in port areas come under a combination of RSPA and
Coast Guard regulations.  At present, we know of no conflicts or undue
burdens created by these separate regulatory programs.  If such
difficulties surface with respect to low-stress pipelines, we will work
with the Coast Guard to minimize their impact

P.	Miscellaneous Clarifications

1.	Pipeline Subject to Regulations

	Commenting on low-stress pipelines that cross navigable waterways in
rural areas, API and an operator suggested that the final rule clarify
how much of the entire pipeline the regulations cover.  The operator
thought only that part of the pipeline that actually crosses the
waterway should be covered.

	As stated above, for non-HVL low-stress pipelines, we intended to apply
the regulations only to that part of the pipeline in the populated area
or navigable waterway.  Final §195.1 (b)(3) clarifies this intended
application by including “or pipeline segments” immediately after
“pipelines.”

	One operator thought the wording of the proposed compliance period
(proposed §195.1(d)) was inconsistent with the proposed revision of
§195.1(b)(3).  The operator  thought  proposed §1195.1(d) implied that
operators of non-HVL low-stress pipelines located outside populated
areas and navigable waterways would have to comply with the regulations
within 1 year.  To avoid this misconception,   we  changed  proposed
§195.1(d) (now §195.1(c)) to show that the compliance period applies
only to existing low-stress pipelines covered by Part 195.  We also
clarified the wording of proposed §195.1 (b) (3) to better identify
low-stress pipelines that Part 195 does not cover.

2.	Definition of Low-Stress Pipeline

	Another operator suggested the final rule define the various kinds of
low-stress pipelines covered.  As stated above, the proposed rules
affected several kinds of distinct pipelines that operate over their
full length at 20 percent or less of SMYS, such as trunk lines and
inter-facility lines.  Nevertheless, since the final rules do not refer
to low-stress pipelines by kind, there is no need to define each kind of
low-stress pipeline the rules cover.

	We have, however, added a definition  of the term “low-stress
pipeline” to §195.2, based on the present wording of §195.1(b)(3).
The definition enabled us to clarify that a pipeline (in the sense of a
continuing run of pipe and components used for transportation) must
operate from beginning to end at 20 percent or less of SMYS to qualify
as a low-stress pipeline.  In drafting the final rules, the definition
also allowed us to simplify the wording of several proposed rules.

3.	Applicability of Design and Construction Standards.

	One proposed rule simplified by using the term “low-stress
pipeline” was §195.401(c)(5).  The purpose of this proposed rule was
to state that the design and construction requirements of Part 195 would
not apply to low-stress pipelines on which construction begins before
the effective date of the final rule.  Several commenters thought
proposed §195.401(c)(5) lacked clarity.  So we revised it in the style
of similar provisions of  §195.401(c).

	In addition, one commenter pointed out that proposed §195.401 (c)(5)
would not except existing low-stress pipelines from design and
construction rules applicable to certain interstate and intrastate
pipelines under §§ 195.402 (c)(1) - (3).  The final rule resolves this
drafting problem by excluding low-stress pipelines from the interstate
and intrastate designations under §§195.401(c)(1)– (3).

4.	Cathodic Protection

	Section 195.414, Cathodic protection, is amended in paragraphs (b) and
(c).  We separated requirements applicable to low-stress pipelines from
existing requirements applicable to interstate and intrastate pipelines.

III.  Advisory Committee

	The Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee is a
federal advisory committee established under Section 204 of the HLPSA
(49 App. U.S.C. 2003).  The committee advises DOT on the feasibility,
reasonableness, and practicability of standards proposed under the
HLPSA.

	On August 4, 1993, the Committee met in Washington, DC and discussed
the NPRM.  After due deliberation, the committee voted unanimously in
favor of the proposed rules.  The Committee’s report and a transcript
of the meeting are available for inspection in the docket.

IV.	Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A.	Paperwork Reduction Act

	This final rule will increase current information collection burdens
under Parts 195 and 199.  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved this increased burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, as amended (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35).  The OMB approval numbers are
2137-0047, 2137-0578, 2137-0579, and 2137-0587.

 B.	Executive Order 12866 and DOT Policies and Procedures

	OMB considers this final rule a significant regulatory action under
Section 3 (f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Therefore, OMB has reviewed this final rule.  DOT considers this final
rule significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

	The comments RSPA received on the draft regulatory evaluation of costs
and benefits are summarized and discussed in the final regulatory
evaluation.  The final evaluation, which shows that this final rule will
result in net benefits to society, is available for review in the
docket.

C.	Regulatory Flexibility Act

	Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this
rulemaking action, I certify, pursuant to Section 605 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that the action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Few small entities operate low-stress pipelines subject to this final
rule.

D.	Executive Order 12612

	RSPA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685).  RSPA has
determined that the action does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

	Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

	In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 195 is amended as
follows:

	1.	The authority citation for Part 195 continues to read as follows:

	Authority: 49 App. U.S.C. 2001 et seq., and 49 CFR 1.53.

	2.	In §195.1, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is republished,
paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) are revised to read as follows:

§195.1	Applicability.

*	*	*	*	*

	(b)	This part does not apply to -

*	*	*	*	*

	(3)	Transportation of non-HVL through low-stress pipelines, except for
any pipeline or pipeline segment that is located—

	(i)	In an onshore area other than a rural area;

	(ii)	Offshore; or

	(iii)	In a waterway that is navigable in fact and currently used for
commercial navigation:

*	*	*	*	*

	(c)	A low-stress pipeline to which this Part applies that exists on
July 12, 1994 need not comply with this Part or Part 199 of this chapter
until July 12, 1996, except as follows:

	(1)	Subpart B of this Part applies beginning on October 10, 1994; and

	(2)	Any replacement, relocation, or other change made to existing
pipelines after October 9, 1994 must comply with Subparts A and C
through E of this Part.

	3.	In §195.2, the following definition is added:

§195.2	Definitions.

*	*	*	*	*

	Low-stress pipeline means a hazardous liquid pipeline that is operated
in its entirety at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe.

*	*	*	*	*

	4.	In §195.302, paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph
(c) are revised to read as follows:

§195.302	General requirements.

*	*	*	*	*

	(b)	Except for pipelines converted under § 195.5, the following
pipelines may be operated without pressure testing under this Subpart:

	(1)	Any hazardous liquid pipeline whose maximum operating pressure is
established under §195.406 (a) (5) that is—

	(i)	An interstate pipeline constructed before January 8, 1971;

	(ii)	An interstate offshore gathering line constructed before August 1,
1977;

	(iii)	An intrastate pipeline constructed before October 21, 1985; or

	(iv)	A low-stress pipeline constructed before August 11, 1994 that
transports HVL.

	(2)	Any carbon dioxide pipeline constructed before July 12, 1991,
that—

	(i)	Has its maximum operating pressure established under §195.406
(a)(5); or

	(ii)	Is located in a rural area as part of a production field
distribution system.

	(3)	Any low-stress pipeline constructed before August 11, 1994, that
does not transport HVL.

	(c)	Except for pipelines that transport HVL onshore and low-stress
pipelines, the following compliance deadlines apply to pipelines under
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) of this section that have not been
pressure tested under this Subpart:

*	*	*	*	*

	5.	In §195.306, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (d) is added,
to read as follows:

§195.306	Test medium.

	(a)	Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section,
water must be used as the test medium.

*	*	*	*	*

	(d)	Air or inert gas may be used as the test medium in low-stress
pipelines.

	6.	Section 195.401(c) is revised to read as follows:

§195.401	General requirements.

*	*	*	*	*

	(c)	Except as provided in §195.5, no operator may operate any part of
any of the following pipelines unless it was designed and constructed as
required by this Part:

	(1)	An interstate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, on which
construction was begun after march 31, 1970, that transports hazardous
liquid.

	(2)	An interstate offshore gathering line, other than a low-stress
pipeline, on which construction was begun after July 31, 1977, that
transports hazardous liquid.

	(3)	An intrastate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, on which
construction was begun after October 20, 1985, that transports hazardous
liquid.

	(4)	A pipeline on which construction was begun after July 11, 1991,
that transports carbon dioxide.

	(5)	A low-stress pipeline on which construction was begun after August
10, 1994.

	8.	Sections 195.414(b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:

§195.414	Cathodic protection.

*	*	*	*	*

	(b)	Each operator shall electrically inspect each bare hazardous liquid
interstate pipeline, other than a low-stress pipeline, before April 1,
1975; each bare hazardous liquid intrastate pipeline, other than a
low-stress pipeline, before October 20, 1990; each bare carbon dioxide
pipeline before July 12, 1994; and each bare low-stress pipeline before
July 12, 1996 to determine any areas in which active corrosion is taking
place.  The operator may not increase its established operating pressure
on a section of bare pipeline until the section has been so electrically
inspected.  In any areas where active corrosion is found, the operator
shall provide cathodic protection.  Section 195.416(f) and (g) apply to
all corroded pipe that is found.

	(c)	Each operator shall electrically inspect all breakout tank areas
and buried pumping station piping on hazardous liquid interstate
pipelines, other than low-stress pipelines, before April 1, 1973; on
hazardous liquid intrastate pipelines, other than low-stress pipelines,
before October 20, 1988; on carbon dioxide pipelines before July 12,
1994; and on low-stress pipelines before July 12, 1996 as to the need
for cathodic protection, and cathodic protection shall be provided where
necessary.

	Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 1994.

Ana Sol Gutierrez,

Acting Administrator, RSPA.

[FR Doc. 94-16720 Filed 7-11-94; 8:45 am]

Amendment 195 - 53

 PAGE

Federal Register/ Vol. 59, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 2, 1994

Pages 35465 - 35471

	  PAGE  9 /  NUMPAGES  \* MERGEFORMAT  9

195-53.DOC - 10/6/95


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16216-16217]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-0336]

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for
Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related
Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). The general function
of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on
regulatory issues. This meeting will be held to discuss considerations
for use of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and the process for COVID-19
vaccine strain selection to address current and emerging variants. The
meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for
public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on April 6, 2022, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Submit either electronic or written
comments on this public meeting by April 5, 2022. Comments received on
or before March 31, 2022, will be provided to the committee. Comments
received after March 31, 2022, and by April 5, 2022, will be taken into
consideration by FDA.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. The online
web conference meeting will be available at the following link on the
day of the meeting: https://youtu.be/x8rq247E80I.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2022-N-0336. The docket will close on April 5,
2022. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by April 5, 2022. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time at the end of April 5, 2022. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are received on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before March 31, 2022, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received March 31, 2022, and by April 5, 2022,
will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting
is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications
or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as
appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2022-N-0336 for ``Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee (VRBPAC); Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public
Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be

placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern Time
Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Prabhakara Atreya or Christina Vert,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]; or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Consistent with FDA's regulations, this
notice is being published with less than 15 days prior to the date of
the meeting based on a determination that convening a meeting of the
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee as soon as
possible is warranted. This notice could not be published 15 days prior
to the date of the meeting due to the need for prompt discussion
regarding considerations for use of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and
the process for COVID-19 vaccine strain selection to address current
and emerging variants given the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. On April 6,
2022, the committee will meet in open session to discuss considerations
for use of additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses and the process
for COVID-19 vaccine strain selection to address current and emerging
variants.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the time of the
advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted
on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll
down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting
will include slide presentations with audio components to allow the
presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an
in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: On April 6, 2022, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data,
information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before
the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the
Docket (see ADDRESSES) on or before March 31, 2022, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received after March 31, 2022, and by April 5,
2022, will be taken into consideration by FDA. Oral presentations from
the public will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m. and 2:30
p.m. Eastern Time. Those individuals interested in making formal oral
presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and email addresses of proposed participants, and
an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before March 29, 2022. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by March 30, 2022.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Prabhakara Atreya or Christina Vert (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 15, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-06053 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60100-60101]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24869]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29817; 812-13944]

The Singapore Fund, Inc.; Notice of Application

September 22, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

Applicant: The Singapore Fund, Inc. (the ``Fund'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order under section 17(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
section 17(a) of the Act.

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

SUMMARY: Summary of Application: Applicant seeks an order that would
permit in-kind repurchases of shares of the Fund held by certain
affiliated shareholders of the Fund.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on August 22, 2011, and
amended on September 21, 2011.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on October 17, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicant, c/o Daiwa Securities Trust
Company, One Evertrust Plaza, 9th Floor, Jersey City, NJ 07302-3051.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876, or Dalia Osman Blass, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. The Fund, a Maryland corporation, is registered under the Act as
a closed-end management investment company. Applicant's investment
objective is to seek long-term capital appreciation through investment
primarily in Singapore equity securities. Applicant states that under
normal circumstances it invests at least 80% of its net assets in
Singapore equity securities.\1\ Shares of the Fund are listed and trade
on the New York Stock Exchange. Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Limited
(the ``Adviser''), an investment adviser registered under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, serves as the investment adviser to
the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicant states that as of July 31, 2011, approximately
94.72% of applicant's net assets were invested in Singapore equity
securities. The Singapore Stock Exchange is the primary trading
market for the Singapore equity securities held by applicant. As of
July 31, 2011, approximately 0.99% of applicant's net assets were
invested in Malaysian equity securities, however applicant has
subsequently disposed of its Malaysian holdings. The balance of
applicant's net assets were in the form of time deposits and other
cash equivalents. The Fund held no preferred securities, warrants or
convertible debt securities of Singapore issuers as of that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Fund proposes to conduct a tender offer for up to 25% of its
outstanding shares at a price equal to 99% of net asset value per share
(``NAV'') as of the business day immediately after the day such tender
offer expires (the ``In-Kind Repurchase Offer''). Payment for any
shares repurchased during the In-Kind Repurchase Offer would be made
in-kind through a pro rata distribution of the Fund's portfolio
securities (with exceptions generally for odd lots, fractional shares,
and cash items). The In-Kind Repurchase Offer will be made pursuant to
section 23(c)(2) of the Act and conducted in accordance with rule 13e-4
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    3. Applicant states that the In-Kind Repurchase Offer is designed
to accommodate the needs of stockholders who wish to participate in the
In-Kind Repurchase Offer and long-term stockholders who would prefer to
remain invested in a closed-end investment vehicle. Under the In-Kind
Repurchase Offer, only participating

stockholders will pay U.S. Federal taxes on the gain on appreciated
securities distributed in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer. Non-
participating stockholders would avoid the imposition of a significant
Federal tax liability, which would occur if the Fund sold the
appreciated securities to make payments in cash. Applicant further
states that the In-Kind Repurchase Offer will minimize disruption to
the investment management of applicant, while allowing the Fund to
avoid a cascade of distributions that would reduce the size of the Fund
drastically to a point where it could potentially be no longer viable.
    4. Applicant requests relief to permit any common stockholders of
the Fund who are ``affiliated persons'' of the Fund solely by reason of
owning, controlling, or holding with the power to vote, 5% or more of
the Fund's outstanding voting securities (each, an ``Affiliated
Stockholder'') to participate in the proposed In-Kind Repurchase Offer.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 17(a) of the Act prohibits an affiliated person of a
registered investment company, or any affiliated person of the person,
acting as principal, from knowingly purchasing or selling any security
or other property from or to the company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act
defines an ``affiliated person'' of another person to include any
person who directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power
to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other
person. Applicant states that to the extent that the In-Kind Repurchase
Offer could be deemed the purchase or sale of securities by an
Affiliated Stockholder, the transactions would be prohibited by section
17(a). Accordingly, applicant requests an exemption from section 17(a)
of the Act to the extent necessary to permit the participation of
Affiliated Stockholders in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer.
    2. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any
transaction from the provisions of section 17(a) if the terms of the
transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are
reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any
person concerned, and the transaction is consistent with the policy of
each registered investment company and with the general purposes of the
Act.
    3. Applicant asserts that the terms of the In-Kind Repurchase Offer
meet the requirements of sections 17(b) of the Act. Applicant asserts
that neither the Fund nor an Affiliated Stockholder has any choice as
to the portfolio securities to be received as proceeds from the In-Kind
Repurchase Offer. Instead, stockholders will receive their pro rata
portion of each of the Fund's portfolio securities, excluding (a)
Securities which, if distributed, would have to be registered under the
Securities Act of 1933 (``1933 Act''), (b) securities issued by
entities in countries which restrict or prohibit the holding of
securities by non-residents other than through qualified investment
vehicles, or whose distribution would otherwise be contrary to
applicable local laws, rules or regulations, and (c) certain portfolio
assets that involve the assumption of contractual obligations, require
special trading facilities, or may only be traded with the counterparty
to the transaction. Moreover, applicant states that the portfolio
securities to be distributed in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer will be
valued in accordance with section 2(a)(41) of the Act, which will be an
objective, verifiable standard that removes any discretion of an
Affiliated Stockholder or the Adviser to conduct the In-Kind Repurchase
Offer at a price that would be beneficial or detrimental to the
interests of any particular stockholder. Applicant further states that
the In-Kind Repurchase Offer is consistent with the investment policies
of the Fund. Applicant represents that the In-Kind Repurchase Offer is
consistent with the general purposes of the Act because the interests
of all stockholders are equally protected and no Affiliated Stockholder
would receive an advantage or special benefit not available to any
other stockholder participating in the In-Kind Repurchase Offer.

Applicant's Conditions

    Applicant agrees that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Applicant will distribute to stockholders participating in the
In-Kind Repurchase Offer an in-kind pro rata distribution of portfolio
securities of applicant. The pro rata distribution will not include:
(a) Securities that, if distributed, would be required to be registered
under the 1933 Act; (b) securities issued by entities in countries that
restrict or prohibit the holdings of securities by non-residents other
than through qualified investment vehicles, or whose distribution would
otherwise be contrary to applicable local laws, rules or regulations;
and (c) certain portfolio assets, such as derivative instruments or
repurchase agreements, that involve the assumption of contractual
obligations, require special trading facilities, or can only be traded
with the counterparty to the transaction. Cash will be paid for that
portion of applicant's assets represented by cash and cash equivalents
(such as certificates of deposit, commercial paper and repurchase
agreements) and other assets which are not readily distributable
(including receivables and prepaid expenses), net of all liabilities
(including accounts payable). In addition, Applicant will distribute
cash in lieu of fractional shares and accruals on such securities.
Applicant may round down or up the proportionate distribution of each
portfolio security to the nearest round lot amount to eliminate any odd
lot prior to the distribution and will distribute the value of the
remaining odd lot, if any, in cash. Applicant may also distribute a
higher pro rata percentage of other portfolio securities to represent
such fractional shares and odd lots.
    2. The securities distributed to stockholders pursuant to the In-
Kind Repurchase Offer will be limited to securities that are traded on
a public securities market or for which quoted bid and asked prices are
available.
    3. The securities distributed to stockholders pursuant to the In-
Kind Repurchase Offer will be valued in the same manner as they would
be valued for purposes of computing Applicant's net asset value,
consistent with the requirements of section 2(a)(41) of the 1940 Act.
    4. Applicant will maintain and preserve for a period of not less
than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which the In-Kind
Repurchase Offer occurs, the first two years in an easily accessible
place, a written record of the In-Kind Repurchase Offer, that includes
the identity of each stockholder of record that participated in the In-
Kind Repurchase Offer, whether that stockholder was an Affiliated
Stockholder, a description of each security distributed, the terms of
the distribution, and the information or materials upon which the
valuation was made.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24869 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 42798-42799]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-43]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0522; FRL-8373-3]

North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group on
Pesticides; Proposed Five-Year Strategy, 2008-2013; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is releasing for public comment the proposed Five-Year
Strategy, 2008-2013, of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Technical Working Group on Pesticides. In this document, the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Technical Working Group (TWG) on
Pesticides states its goal to create an aligned North American
registration system for pesticides and products treated with pesticides
and make work-sharing a way of doing business. The strategic objectives
are to: provide U.S., Canadian and Mexican growers with equal access
to--and at the same time introduction of--pest management tools,
including safer alternatives; work cooperatively to re-evaluate and
reregister older pesticides using each country's re-evaluation programs
to the fullest extent possible to increase efficiency; and integrate
smart business approaches and practices into NAFTA TWG work.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0522, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0522. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorry Frigerio, Field and External
Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a U.S.,
Canadian or Mexican grower, registrant, researcher, manufacturer,
operator, distributor or government regulator of pesticide products in
one of the NAFTA countries, as well as an public group or member of the
public interested in their use.
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    The Agency is releasing for public comment the proposed Five-Year
Strategy, 2008-2013, of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Technical Working Group on Pesticides. It can be found in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0522. EPA and its North American counterparts,
Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Canada and
Secretar[iacute]a de Agricultura, Ganader[iacute]a, Desarrollo Rural,
Pesca y Alimentat[iacute]on (SAGARPA) of Mexico, provide overall
guidance and policy direction in developing easier and less expensive
pesticide regulation and trade among the three countries and in meeting
the environmental, ecological and human health objectives of NAFTA.
    The Five-Year Strategy will guide the TWG's future work and
direction. It reflects the collective goal of creating an aligned North
American registration system for pesticides and for products treated
with pesticides as well as a commitment to partners. It also presents
the NAFTA TWG governance structure. The environment within which the
TWG operates is constantly changing. A number of drivers, both external
and internal, are critical in influencing TWG's strategic directions.
They define the work that the TWG must deliver to meet stakeholder
needs and improve overall outcomes. The TWG aims to ensure it is well
positioned to take advantage of opportunities, monitor trends and
assess implications.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, harmonization of data requirements, human
safety and science issues, effective communication and planning,
maintaining high international standards, performance measurement and
evaluation.

    Dated: July 11, 2008.
 Debra Edwards,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-16381 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S