[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21449-21452]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08323]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69297; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Customer and Industry Codes of Arbitration Procedure To Revise the
Public Arbitrator Definition

April 4, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On January 4, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
a proposed rule change to amend FINRA's Customer and Industry Codes of
Arbitration Procedure (collectively, the ``Codes'') to revise the
definition of ``public arbitrator'' in the Codes. Specifically, the
proposed rule change would (a) exclude persons associated with a mutual
fund or hedge fund from serving as public arbitrators and (b) require
individuals to wait for two years after ending certain affiliations
before they may be permitted to serve as public arbitrators. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on January 17, 2013.\3\ The Commission received 45 comment letters on
the proposed rule change,\4\ and a response to comments from FINRA.\5\
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 68632 (Jan. 11, 2013), 78 FR
3925 (Jan. 17, 2013) (``Notice''). The comment period closed on
February 7, 2013.
    \4\ See Letter from Steven B. Caruso, Maddox Hargett & Caruso,
dated Jan. 16, 2013 (``Caruso Letter''); letter from David Neuman,
Stoltmann Law Offices, dated Jan. 16, 2013 (``Neuman Letter'');
letter from Richard M. Layne, Law Office of Richard M. Layne, dated
Jan. 28, 2013 (``Layne Letter''); letter from Seth E. Lipner,
Professor of Law, Zickloin School of Business, Baruch College, and
Member, Deutsch & Lipner, dated Jan. 29, 2013 (``Lipner Letter'');
letter from Carl J. Carlson, Tousley Brain Stephens, dated Jan. 29,
2013 (``Carlson Letter''); letter from David Harrison, Law Offices
of David Harrison, dated Jan. 29, 2013 (``Harrison Letter''); letter
from Philip M. Aidikoff, dated Jan. 29, 2013 (``Aidikoff Letter'');
letter from Scott L. Silver, Silver Law Group, dated Jan. 30, 2013
(``Silver Letter''); letter from Robert A. Uhl, Adjunct Professor of
Law, Securities Arbitration and Director, Pepperdine Investor
Advocacy Clinic, and Partner, Aidikoff, Uhl & Bakhtiari, dated Jan.
30, 2013 (``Uhl Letter''); letter from Andrew A. Lipkowitz, Student
Intern, and Christine Lazaro, Acting Director, St. John's University
School of Law Securities Arbitration Clinic, dated Feb. 4, 2013
(``St. John's Letter''); letter from Robert C. Port, Cohen Goldstein
Port & Gottlieb, dated Feb. 5, 2013 (``Port Letter''); letter from
Lisa A. Catalano, dated Feb. 5, 2013 (``Catalano Letter''); letter
from Scott R. Shewan, Pape & Shewan, dated Feb. 6, 2013 (``Shewan
Letter''); letter from Jon C. Furgison, Law Offices of Jon C.
Furgison, dated Feb. 6, 2013 (``Furgison Letter''); letter from
Steven J. Gard, Reznicsek Fraser White & Shaffer, dated Feb. 6, 2013
(``Gard Letter''); letter from Jonathan W. Evans and Michael S.
Edmiston, Jonathan W. Evans & Associates, dated Feb. 6, 2013
(``Evans and Edmiston Letter''); letter from Robert Savage, Visiting
Assistant Clinical Professor, Florida International University
College of Law, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Savage Letter I''); letter
from Robert Savage dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Savage Letter II''); letter
from James A. Dunlap, Jr., James A. Dunlap Jr. & Associates, dated
Feb. 7, 2013 (``Dunlap Letter''); letter from Diane Nygaard, Kenner,
Schmitt & Nygaard, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Nygaard Letter''); letter
from W. Scott Greco, Greco & Greco, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Greco
Letter''); letter from A. Heath Abshure, NASAA President and
Arkansas Securities Commissioner, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``NASAA
Letter''); letter from Robert S. Banks, Jr., Banks Law Office, dated
Feb. 7, 2013 (``Banks Letter''); letter from Dale Ledbetter, Esq.,
Ledbetter and Associates, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Ledbetter Letter'');
letter from Scott C. Ilgenfritz, President, Public Investors
Arbitration Bar Association, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``PIABA Letter'');
letter from Elizabeth Zeck, Willoughby & Hoefer, dated Feb. 7, 2013
(``Zeck Letter''); letter from James A. Sigler, dated Feb. 7, 2013
(``Sigler Letter''); letter from Robert W. Goehring, dated Feb. 7,
2013 (``Goehring Letter''); letter from William S. Shepherd,
Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Shepherd
Letter''); letter from Leonard Steiner, Beverly Hills, California,
dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Steiner Letter''); letter from Joseph Fogel,
Fogel & Associates, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Fogel Letter''); letter
from Richard A. Lewins, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Lewins Letter'');
letter from Jenice L. Malecki, Malecki Law, dated Feb. 7, 2013
(``Malecki Letter''); letter from Mark E. Sanders, Halling & Cayo,
dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Sanders Letter''); letter from Jeffrey Sonn,
Sonn & Erez, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Sonn Letter''); letter from
Thomas C. Costello, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Costello Letter''); letter
from Barry D. Estell, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Estell Letter''); letter
from Royal Lea, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Lea Letter''); letter from
Peter Mougey, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty &
Proctor, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Mougey Letter''); letter from William
A. Jacobson, Associate Clinical Professor, Cornell Law School, and
Director, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, and Malavika Rao, Cornell
Law School `14, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``Cornell Letter''); letter from
David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Financial Services Institute, dated Feb. 7, 2013 (``FSI Letter'');
letter from Theodore M. Davis, dated Feb. 8, 2013 (``Davis
Letter''); letter from Nicholas J. Guiliano, dated Feb. 8, 2013
(``Guiliano Letter''); letter from Mitchell Ostwald, dated Feb. 8,
2013 (``Ostwald Letter''); letter from Charles Michael Tobin, The
Tobin Law Firm, dated Feb 22, 2013 (``Tobin Letter''). Comment
letters are available at http://www.sec.gov.
    \5\ See Letter from Margo A. Hassan, Assistant Chief Counsel,
FINRA Dispute Resolution, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated Mar. 11, 2013 (``Response Letter''). The text of
the proposed rule change and a copy of FINRA's Response Letter are
available on FINRA's Web site at http://www.finra.org, at the
principal office of FINRA, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room. A copy of the Response Letter is also available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    As stated in the Notice, FINRA classifies arbitrators under the
Codes as either ``non-public'' (otherwise known as ``industry''
arbitrators) or ``public.'' Arbitrators are generally considered non-
public if they are affiliated with the securities industry either
because they (1) are currently or were formerly employed in a
securities business; or (2) provide professional services to securities
businesses. Arbitrators are generally considered public if they (1) do
not have any significant affiliation with the securities industry; and
(2) are not related to anyone with a significant affiliation with the
securities industry.
    To improve investor confidence in the neutrality of FINRA's public
arbitrator roster, FINRA has amended its arbitrator definitions a
number of times over the years.
    In 2004, FINRA amended the definitions of ``public arbitrator'' and
``non-public arbitrator'' to:
     Increase from three years to five years the amount of time
necessary after leaving the securities industry to transition from a
non-public to public arbitrator;
     Clarify that ``retired'' from the industry includes anyone
who spent a substantial part of his or her career in the industry;
     Prohibit anyone who has been associated with the industry
for at least twenty years from ever becoming a public arbitrator,
regardless of how long ago the association ended;
     Exclude from the definition of ``public arbitrator''
attorneys, accountants, or other professionals whose firms have derived
ten percent or more of their annual revenue in the previous two years
from clients involved in securities-related activities (``Ten-Percent
Rule''); and
     Provide that investment advisers may not serve as public
arbitrators, and may only serve as non-public arbitrators if they
otherwise qualify as non-public.\6\ In 2007, FINRA again revised the
definition of ``public arbitrator'' to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Act Rel. No. 49573 (April 16, 2004), 69 FR
21871 (Apr. 22, 2004) (File No. SR-NASD-2003-95) (Order Granting
Approval to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Arbitrator
Classification and Disclosure in NASD Arbitrations). The changes
were announced in Notice to Members 04-49 (June 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exclude individuals who were employed by, or who served as
an officer or director of, a company in a control relationship with a
broker-dealer.
     Exclude individuals with a spouse or immediate family
member who was employed by, or who served as an officer or director of,
a company in a control relationship with a broker-dealer; and
     Clarify that people registered through a broker-dealer
could not be public arbitrators even if they are employed by a non-
broker-dealer (such as a bank).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Act Rel. No. 54607 (Oct. 16, 2006), 71 FR 62026 (Oct.
20, 2006) (File No. SR-NASD-2005-094) (Order Approving Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Amendments to the
Classification of Arbitrators Pursuant to Rule 10308 of the NASD
Code of Arbitration Procedure). The changes were announced in Notice
to Members 06-64 (Nov. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in 2008, FINRA revised the public arbitrator definition to
add a dollar limit to the Ten-Percent Rule. The amended definition was
designed to preclude an attorney, accountant, or other professional
from serving as a public arbitrator if the individual's firm derived
$50,000 or more in annual revenue in the past two years from
professional services rendered to certain industry entities relating to
customer

disputes concerning an investment account or transaction.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Rel. No. 57492 (Mar. 13, 2008), 73 FR 15025
(Mar. 20, 2008) (File No. SR-NASD-2007-021) (Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Definition of Public Arbitrator).
The changes were announced in Regulatory Notice 08-22 (May 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is designed to improve investor confidence
in the neutrality of FINRA's public arbitrator roster. In particular,
the proposed rule change would (a) exclude persons associated with a
mutual fund or hedge fund from serving as public arbitrators and (b)
require individuals to wait for two years after ending certain
affiliations before they may be permitted to serve as public
arbitrators.
    FINRA has indicated that it would announce the effective date of
the proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no
later than 60 days following Commission approval, and that the
effective date would be no later than 30 days following publication of
the Regulatory Notice announcing Commission approval.

III. Discussion of Comment Letters

    As stated above, the Commission received 45 comment letters on the
proposed rule change in response to the Notice. Thirty-eight of those
commenters (represented by 39 comment letters) generally supported
FINRA's proposal to revise the definition of ``public arbitrator'' to
exclude persons associated with a mutual fund or hedge fund from
serving as public arbitrators.\9\ Of those commenters, however, many
stated that while they agreed with the proposed rule change, they
thought FINRA should exclude additional categories of persons from the
definition of ``public arbitrator.'' Moreover, some otherwise
supportive commenters thought that FINRA should lengthen the proposed
cooling off period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Caruso Letter; Neuman Letter; Layne Letter; Lipner
Letter; Carlson Letter; Aidikoff Letter; Silver Letter; Uhl Letter;
St. John's Letter; Port Letter; Catalano Letter; Shewan Letter;
Furgison Letter; Evans and Edmiston Letter; Savage Letter I; Savage
Letter II; Dunlap Letter; Nygaard Letter; Greco Letter; NASAA
Letter; Banks Letter; Ledbetter Letter; PIABA Letter; Zeck Letter;
Sigler Letter; Goehring Letter; Shepherd Letter; Fogel Letter;
Lewins Letter; Malecki Letter; Sanders Letter; Sonn Letter; Costello
Letter; Estell Letter; Cornell Letter; Davis Letter; Guiliano
Letter; Ostwald Letter; Tobin Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exclusions

    Three commenters suggested that the definition of ``public
arbitrator'' should be further narrowed to expressly exclude from ever
acting as a public arbitrator persons associated with issuers or
sponsors of private placements, publicly offered non-traded REITs,
variable insurance products, and other investment products.\10\ These
commenters also suggested that the definition of ``public arbitrator''
should exclude persons who have ever worked for more than a de minimis
time as a stockbroker or investment advisor, as well as persons with
more than a de minimis time of affiliation with a FINRA member firm, an
investment advisory firm, a hedge fund, a mutual fund, or an issuer,
sponsor, marketer, or seller of securities or investment products with
embedded securities.\11\ Similarly, two commenters suggested that
anyone who has been licensed to do business in the securities industry
or depended on the industry for more than a de minimis amount of his or
her livelihood for any appreciable length of time should be excluded
from the definition of ``public arbitrator.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See PIABA Letter; Sanders Letter; Cornell Letter.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ See Lewins Letter; Cornell Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that the definition of ``public
arbitrator'' should exclude any attorney whose firm has derived $50,000
or ten percent or more of its annual revenue in the prior two years
from professional services rendered to claimants in customer disputes
concerning an investment account or transaction.\13\ Another commenter
suggested that individuals who have been employed by securities
industry trade organizations such as FINRA should be barred from being
classified as public arbitrators.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FSI Letter.
    \14\ See Davis Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter generally approved of the proposed rule change but
maintained that, in the context of customer disputes, FINRA's current
definition of ``non-public arbitrator'' must be broadened to include
the entire securities industry, particularly if FINRA plans to open up
its forum to non-members.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See NASAA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, another commenter believed the proposed rule change should
exclude additional categories of individuals from the definition of
``public arbitrator'' but ultimately disapproved of the proposed rule
change on the grounds that it would continue to permit individuals who
previously worked in and have financial interests connected to the
securities industry to be classified as public arbitrators.\16\ This
commenter also expressed the view that the amended rule would continue
to give FINRA staff too much discretion in classifying arbitrators.
Another commenter expressed the same concern.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Gard Letter.
    \17\ See Gard Letter; Estell Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Cooling-Off Period

    Fourteen commenters suggested that FINRA's proposal to require
individuals to wait for two years after ending certain affiliations
before they may be permitted to serve as public arbitrators should be
amended to increase the proposed ``cooling off'' period from two years
to at least five years.\18\ Five commenters suggested that the proposed
cooling off period should generally be longer than two years.\19\ Three
commenters generally disapproved of the length of the proposed two-year
cooling off period on the grounds that it would not serve the interests
of investors.\20\ Two commenters suggested expanding the proposed
cooling off period from two years to ten.\21\ One commenter suggested
that no individual who has spent ten years or more in the securities
industry should ever be classified as a public arbitrator.\22\ Another
commenter suggested that anyone associated with the industry for twenty
or more years should be prohibited from ever becoming a public
arbitrator.\23\ Eleven commenters suggested that no cooling off period
is sufficient and that only individuals who have never had an
affiliation with the financial services industry should be eligible to
serve as public arbitrators.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Caruso Letter; Neuman Letter; Layne Letter; Harrison
Letter; Silver Letter; St. John's Letter; Catalano Letter; Zeck
Letter; Shepherd Letter; Malecki Letter; Costello Letter; Estell
Letter; Cornell Letter; Guiliano Letter.
    \19\ See Greco Letter; PIABA Letter; Fogel Letter; Lewins
Letter; Sanders Letter.
    \20\ See Dunlap Letter; Nygaard Letter; Goehring Letter.
    \21\ See Carlson Letter; Evans and Edmiston Letter.
    \22\ See Uhl Letter.
    \23\ See Harrison Letter.
    \24\ See Lipner Letter; Aidikoff Letter; Silver Letter; Port
Letter; Shewan Letter; Furgison Letter; Evans and Edmiston Letter;
NASAA Letter; Sonn Letter; Davis Letter; Ostwald Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its Response Letter, FINRA stated that the purpose of the
proposed rule change is to respond to investor representatives'
concerns that certain arbitrators on the public roster were not
perceived as public because of their background and experience.
Specifically, FINRA stated that the proposed rule change would affect
certain persons whose job precludes them from being classified as a
public arbitrator but does not qualify them as a non-public arbitrator.
In addition, FINRA stated that the proposed rule would require persons
precluded by their job from being classified as a public arbitrator to
wait two years

before being eligible to join the public roster after moving to a job
that would not otherwise disqualify them for service. FINRA maintained
that the proposed two-year cooling off period responds to the concerns
raised by investor representatives and would be a positive step toward
enhancing investors' perception of fairness in FINRA's arbitration
forum. FINRA also stated that it intends to further review, under the
auspices of the National Arbitration and Mediation Committee, both the
public and non-public arbitrator definitions with a view towards
clarifying the definitions and reviewing additional issues such as
those raised in comment letters on the proposed rule change. Therefore,
FINRA declined to amend the proposed rule change.

IV. Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change, the
comments received, and FINRA's Response Letter. Based on its review of
the record, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\25\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\26\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change to exclude persons associated with a mutual fund or hedge fund
from serving as public arbitrators and require individuals to wait for
two years after ending certain affiliations before they may be
permitted to serve as public arbitrators would benefit investors and
other participants in the forum by improving investor confidence in the
neutrality of FINRA's public arbitrator roster. While the Commission
appreciates the suggestions regarding exclusions from the definition of
``public arbitrator'' and the proposed two-year cooling off period, we
believe that FINRA has responded adequately to comments. We also agree
with the Response Letter's position that the proposed rule change
should improve investors' perception about the fairness and neutrality
of FINRA's public arbitrator roster, particularly given the Response
Letter's representation that FINRA intends to conduct a comprehensive
review of both the public and non-public arbitrator definitions with a
view towards further clarifying the definitions and reviewing
additional issues such as those raised in comment letters on the
proposed rule change.
    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\27\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-003) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08323 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18336-18337]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06895]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9793-9]

Public Water System Supervision Program Approval for the State of
Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has tentatively approved
five revisions to the State of Michigan's public water system
supervision program. Michigan has revised several of its rules to
comply with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, including
the Ground Water Rule, the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule, the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,
the Lead and Copper Rule Short Term Revisions, and the Lead and Copper
Rule Minor Revisions. These rules better protect public health by
controlling microbial contaminants and disinfection byproducts, and
streamline existing lead and copper rule requirements.
    EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than
the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to
approve these revisions, thereby giving the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality primary enforcement responsibility for these
regulations. This approval action does not extend to public water
systems in Indian Country, as the term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. By
approving these rules, EPA does not intend to affect the rights of
federally recognized Indian Tribes in Michigan, nor does it intend to
limit existing rights of the State of Michigan.

DATES: Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request
for a public hearing must be submitted to the Regional Administrator at
the EPA Region 5 address shown below by April

25, 2013. If a substantial request for a public hearing is made within
the requested timeframe, a public hearing will be held and a notice of
such hearing will be given in the Federal Register and a newspaper of
general circulation. The Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing. If EPA Region 5 does not receive
a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the Regional
Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on her own motion, this
determination shall become final and effective on April 25, 2013. Any
request for a public hearing shall include the following information:
the name, address, and telephone number of the individual,
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement
of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's
determination and a brief statement of the information that the
requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature
of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on
behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection at the following offices: Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, Office of Drinking Water and Municipal
Assistance, 525 W. Allegan Street P.O. Box 30273, Lansing, Michigan
48909-7773, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5,
    Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch (WG-15J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Crooks, EPA Region 5, Ground
Water and Drinking Water Branch, at the address given above, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42
U.S.C. 300g-2, and the federal regulations implementing Section 1413
of the Act set forth at 40 CFR 142.

    Dated: March 13, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-06895 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34075]
[FR Doc No: E9-16594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-
2007-27515]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 21 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on June 18, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 21 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Roosevelt Bell, Jr., Joseph M. Blankenship, David
K. Boswell, Melvin M. Carter, Bernabe V. Cerda, Michael S. Crawford,
Rex A. Dyer, Patrick J. Goebel, Thomas A. Gotto, Louis W. Henderson,
Jr., William P. Holloman, Wilbur J. Johnson, Joseph W. Mayes, Larry L.
Morseman, Kenneth C. Reeves, Charles J. Rowsey, Dustin N. Sullivan,
Thomas E. Summers, Sr., Jon C. Thompson, Daniel E. Watkins, and Tommy
N. Whitworth.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: July 7, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E9-16594 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 19593]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09401]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0041]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this provides the public notice that on April 18, 2018, the Port
Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR part 214. FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2018-0041.
    PATH is requesting relief from the definition of ``fouling a
track'' found in 49 CFR 214.7 at certain locations within PATH's tunnel
system if certain conditions are met. PATH seeks the waiver to allow
tunnel bench walls to be considered a ``place of safety'' under Sec.
214.329, Train Approach Warning, for the safety and efficiency of
roadway maintenance procedures at that those locations. If approved,
when train approach warning or foul time is used as the method of
protection, roadway workers may move to a previously arranged place of
safety designated as a ``Clearance Area.'' Due to track and physical
structure configurations, the designated ``Clearance Area'' can be less
than the required four feet from the near running rail, yet still
provides a place of safety, protecting roadway workers from the risk of
being struck by moving trains or on-track equipment. PATH states safety
will be improved by reducing the distance roadway workers must walk to
reach a compliant place of safety upon receiving warning of an
approaching train. PATH also contends roadway maintenance procedures
will be more efficient by increasing the number of clearing locations,
thereby reducing time spent moving to and from places of safety.
    PATH is a rapid transit system, with 13.8 route miles, of which 7.4
miles are composed of an underground tunnel system that operates
between the states of New York and New Jersey. The current tunnel
system was built between 1873 and 1901. As such, the physical structure
and track configurations within the tunnel system provide many
locations where it is physically impossible to clear outside four feet
of the near rail. PATH explains that the historical use and safety
record of bench walls as a place of clearance for close to half a
century without incident show that, under certain conditions, they can
be used as a place of safety within the four-foot fouling envelope.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 18, 2018 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-09401 Filed 5-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54373-54375]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-507-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed VR-22 to Shore
Abandonment Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the VR-22 to Shore Abandonment
Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in Vermilion
Parish, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
scoping. The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis
in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the
Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address
in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives
them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September
25, 2020. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on
how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section
of this notice.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff

will consider all written comments during the preparation of the EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on August 6, 2020, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP20-507-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Transco provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' which addresses a number of typically asked questions,
including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the
Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner
topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website
(www.ferc.gov) under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics
link.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a Comment on a
Filing; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP20-
507-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Transco proposes to abandon approximately 12.6 miles of 24-inch-
diameter natural gas transmission pipeline in Vermilion Parish,
Louisiana, Louisiana State waters and Federal offshore waters. Of the
12.6 miles, approximately 9.9 miles would be abandoned in place, and
the about 2.7 miles of pipeline would be abandoned by removal.
Additionally, Transco would remove equipment associated with meter
station 2278 and meter station 4640, located on the Vermilion Block 39
Platform and the VR-22 B Platform offshore, respectively. According to
Transco, the facilities proposed to be abandoned have not been utilized
since 2019 and it does not anticipate that any additional gas flow
through these facilities will occur in the future.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called eLibrary or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Abandoning the proposed facilities would disturb about 46 acres of
land and offshore waters. All temporarily disturbed lands would be
restored and would be permitted to revert to their former uses.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA
may be issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff
will consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to
the Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status

should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The EA for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number in
the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP20-
507). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: August 26, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-19251 Filed 8-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38387-38388]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16487]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9427-8; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0204]

Draft Toxicological Review of Acrylonitrile: In Support of
Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period and listening session.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing a 60-day public comment period and a public
listening session for the external review draft human health assessment
titled, ``Toxicological Review of Acrylonitrile: In Support of Summary
Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)'' (EPA/
635/R-08/013A). The draft assessment was prepared by the National
Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within the EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD). EPA is releasing this draft assessment
for the purposes of peer review and public comment. This draft
assessment is not final as described in EPA's information quality
guidelines, and it does not represent and should not be construed to
represent Agency policy or views.
    After public review and comment, an EPA contractor will convene an
expert panel for independent external peer review of this draft
assessment. The public comment period and external peer review meeting
are separate processes that provide opportunities for all interested
parties to comment on the assessment. The external peer review meeting
will be scheduled at a later date and announced in the Federal
Register. Public comments submitted during the public comment period
will be provided to the external peer reviewers before the panel
meeting and considered by EPA in the revision of the draft document.
Public comments received after the public comment period closes will
not be submitted to the external peer reviewers and will only be
considered by EPA if time permits. The listening session will be held
on August 10, 2011, during the public comment period for this draft
assessment. The purpose of the listening session is to allow all
interested parties to present scientific and technical comments on
draft IRIS health assessments to EPA and other interested parties
attending the listening session. EPA welcomes the comments that will be
provided to the Agency by the listening session participants. The
comments will be considered by the Agency as it revises the draft
assessment after the independent external peer review. If listening
session participants would like EPA to share their comments with the
external peer reviewers, they should also submit written comments
during the public comment period using the detailed and established
procedures described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
notice.

DATES: The public comment period begins June 30, 2011, and ends August
29, 2011. Comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by
August 29, 2011.
    The listening session on the draft assessment for acrylonitrile
will be held on August 10, 2011, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 4
p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, or when the last presentation has been
completed. To attend the listening session, interested parties should
register no later than August 3, 2011. To present at the listening
session, indicate in your registration that you would like to make oral
comments at the session and provide the length of your presentation.
The following are instructions for registering: To attend the listening
session, register by August 3, 2011 online at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/peerreview/register-acryl.htm, via e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Acrylonitrile Listening Session), by
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by faxing a
registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (please reference the
``Acrylonitrile Listening Session'' and include your name, title,
affiliation, full address and contact information). When you register,
please indicate if you will need audio-visual equipment (e.g., laptop
computer and slide projector). In general, each presentation should be
no more than 30 minutes. If, however, there are more requests for
presentations than the allotted time allows, then the time limit for
each presentation will be adjusted. A copy of the agenda for the
listening session will be available at the meeting. If no speakers have
registered by August 3, 2011, the listening session will be cancelled,
and EPA will notify those registered, as observers, of the
cancellation.

ADDRESSES: The draft ``Toxicological Review of Acrylonitrile: In
Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS)'' is available primarily via the Internet on the NCEA
home page under the Recent Additions and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of paper copies are available from
the Information Management Team (Address: Information Management Team,
National Center for Environmental Assessment (Mail Code: 8601P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile: 703-347-
8691). If you request a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing
address, and the assessment title.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by e-mail, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand
delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.
    The listening session on the draft acrylonitrile assessment will be
held at the EPA offices at Potomac Yard (North Building), 7th Floor,
Room 7100, 2733 South Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Please
note that to gain entrance to this EPA building to attend the meeting,
attendees must have photo identification with them and must register at
the guard's desk in the lobby. The guard will retain your photo
identification and will provide you with a visitor's badge. At the
guard's desk, attendees should give the name Christine Ross and the
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> to the guard on duty. The guard will
contact Ms. Ross who will meet you in the reception area to escort you
to the meeting room. When you leave the building, please return your
visitor's badge to the guard and you will receive your photo
identification.
    A teleconference line will also be available for registered
attendees/speakers. The teleconference number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the
access code is<PHONE_NUMBER>, followed by the pound sign ().
The teleconference line will be activated at 8:45 a.m., and you will be
asked to identify yourself and your affiliation at the beginning of the
call.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: EPA
welcomes public attendance at the acrylonitrile listening session and
will make every effort to accommodate

persons with disabilities. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Christine Ross at 703-
347-8592 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Ms. Ross, preferably at least 10 days prior
to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.
    Additional information: For information on the docket,
www.regulations.gov, or the public comment period, please contact the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on the public listening session, please contact
Christine Ross, IRIS Program, National Center for Environmental
Assessment (Mail Code: 8601P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-
347-8592; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions about the assessment, please contact Ambuja
Bale, IRIS Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment (Mail
code: 8601P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
703-347-8689; or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About IRIS

    EPA's IRIS is a human health assessment program that evaluates
quantitative and qualitative risk information on effects that may
result from exposure to specific chemical substances found in the
environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides the highest quality
science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's
regulatory activities. The IRIS database contains information for more
than 540 chemical substances that can be used to support the first two
steps (hazard identification and dose-response evaluation) of the risk
assessment process. When supported by available data, IRIS provides
oral reference doses (RfDs) and inhalation reference concentrations
(RfCs) for chronic noncancer health effects and cancer assessments.
Combined with specific exposure information, government and private
entities use IRIS to help characterize public health risks of chemical
substances in a site-specific situation and thereby support risk
management decisions designed to protect public health.

II. How To Submit Comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-
0204, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number is
202-566-1752. If you provide comments by mail, please submit one
unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of
the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
     Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center's Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered
consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments,
provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and
submit an unbound original and three copies.
    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 and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0204. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a 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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters and any form of encryption and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: June 24, 2011.
Darrell A. Winner,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2011-16487 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29338]
[DOCID:fr25my10-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD09-11-000]

Energy Efficiency of Natural Gas Infrastructure and Operations
Conference; Final Notice of Public Conference

May 18, 2010.
    As announced in the ``Notice of Public Conference'' issued on March
31, 2010, a public conference will be held on May 25, 2010, from 9 a.m.
to 3 p.m. (EST) in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
conference will be open for the public to attend and advance
registration is not required. Members of the Commission are expected to
attend and participate in the conference.
    The purpose of this conference is to explore issues related to
efficiency measures on the interstate natural gas grid as well as waste
heat recovery opportunities. This conference will also provide an
opportunity for interested parties to express their views and
suggestions regarding ongoing efforts at the Commission to promote
efficiency measures. Attached to this notice is the agenda of
conference.
    A free Webcast of this event is available through http://
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to this
event can do so by navigating to the Calendar of Events at http://
www.ferc.gov and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will
contain a link to its Webcast. The Capitol Connection provides
technical support for webcasts and offers the option of listening to
the conference via phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions,
visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accom modations.
    For information about the conference, please contact Pamela Romano
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Energy Efficiency of Natural Gas Infrastructure and Operations
Conference

Public Conference; May 25, 2010
9 a.m.--Opening Remarks and Introductions
9:10 a.m.--Agenda Overview
    Pamela Romano, Facilitator, Office of Energy Projects
9:15 a.m.--Panel 1: Industry Trade Groups

    Topics include efficiency measures across the national pipeline
grid.
     Richard D. Murphy, S.V.P. Energy Solutions Services,
National Grid, on behalf of the American Gas Association (AGA).
     Bryan Neskora, Tennessee Gas Pipeline, on behalf of The
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA).

9:45 a.m.--Panel 2: Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Companies

    Topics include efficiency measures as well as opportunities for
waste heat recovery projects and issues associated with fugitive
methane.
     Bruce Hedman, ICF International, on behalf of INGAA.
     Scott Messersmith, Questar Pipeline Co.
     Murray Birch, Alliance Pipeline Inc.
     Robert S. Checketts, MidAmerican Energy Pipeline Group.
     Al Behrens, Northern Border Pipeline.
10:45 a.m.--Panel 3: Waste Heat Recovery Facilities Installation

    Topics include issues and solutions for installing waste heat
recovery facilities on natural gas pipelines from the facility
manufacturers' standpoint.
     Paul Thomsen, Ormat Technologies.
     Jeremy Barnes, GE Oil & Gas.

11:45 a.m.--Break for Lunch
12:45 p.m.--Panel 4: Cost Allocation and Revenue Crediting for
Efficiency Measures

    Topics to include rate impacts, tariff concerns and revenue
allocations for efficiency measures, waste heat recovery facilities and
issues associated with fugitive methane.
     Richard D. Murphy, S.V.P. Energy Solutions Services,
National Grid, on behalf of AGA.
     Richard Notte, on behalf of Process Gas Consumers Group.
     Michael McMahon, Boardwalk Pipeline Partners.
     Tony Straquadine, Alliance Pipeline Inc.
1:45 p.m.--Open Forum
2:45 p.m.--Closing Remarks
3 p.m.--Adjourn
[FR Doc. 2010-12499 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P