30 Day FR notice

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78).
Dated: November 3, 2011.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Julie P. Agarwal,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–29156 Filed 11–9–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2008–0291]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities
Request for public comments
and OMB approval of new Information
Collection.

ACTION:

Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
SUMMARY: On December 13, 2010, in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) published a
notice in the Federal Register of its
intent to create a national registry of
pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG)
operators. PHMSA received one
comment in response to that notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to
respond to the comment, to provide the
public with an additional 30 days to
comment on the proposed revisions to
the operator registry forms, including
the form instructions, and to announce
that the revised Information Collections
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for approval.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be
received by December 12, 2011 to be
assured of consideration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Dow by telephone at (202) 366–
1246, by fax at (202) 366–4566, by email
at [email protected], or by mail at
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., PHP–30, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by the docket number
PHMSA–2008–0291 by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 1 (202) 395–6566.
• Mail: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

AGENCY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:38 Nov 09, 2011

Jkt 226001

Management and Budget, 726 Jackson
Place NW., Washington, DC 20503,
ATTN: Desk Officer for the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
• Email: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, at the
following address:
[email protected].
Requests for a copy of the Information
Collection should be directed to Angela
Dow by telephone at (202) 366–1246, by
fax at (202) 366–4566, by email at
[email protected], or by mail at U.S.
Department of Transportation, PHMSA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP–30,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations requires PHMSA to provide
interested members of the public and
affected agencies an opportunity to
comment on information collection and
recordkeeping requests. This notice
identifies a new information collection
request that PHMSA will be submitting
to OMB for approval. The information
collection will be titled: ‘‘National
Registry of Pipeline and Liquefied
Natural Gas Operators.’’ PHMSA
published a final rule in the Federal
Register on November 26, 2010 (75 FR
72878), titled ‘‘Pipeline Safety: Updates
to Pipeline and Liquefied Natural Gas
Reporting Requirements.’’ That final
rule added two new sections, 49 CFR
191.22 and 195.64, to the pipeline safety
regulations for the establishment of a
‘‘National Registry of Pipeline and
Liquefied Natural Gas Operators,’’
which will be used by operators to
obtain an Operator Identification (OPID)
number. The following information is
provided for each information
collection: (1) Title of the information
collection; (2) Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number; (3)
Type of request; (4) Abstract of the
information collection activity; (5)
Description of affected public; (6)
Estimate of total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden; and (7)
Frequency of collection. PHMSA will
request a three-year term of approval for
each information collection activity.
The comments are summarized and
addressed below as specified in the
following outline:
I. Background
II. Summary of Comments/Topics
III. Proposed Information Collection
Revisions and Request for Comments

I. Background
PHMSA published a final rule in the
Federal Register on November 26, 2010,
(75 FR 72878), titled ‘‘Pipeline Safety:
Updates to Pipeline and Liquefied
Natural Gas Reporting Requirements.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00111

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

70217

That final rule added two new sections,
49 CFR 191.22 and 195.64, to the
pipeline safety regulations for the
establishment of a national pipeline
operator registry, which will be used by
operators to obtain an Operator
Identification (OPID) number. PHMSA
is proposing to use two forms as part of
this information collection. When an
operator requests an initial OPID
number, an online form titled ‘‘OPID
Assignment Request (PHMSA F
1000.1)’’ will be used. For an operator
notifying PHMSA of certain required
changes associated with an OPID (see 49
CFR 191.22 and 195.64) or for operators
updating their OPID information, a form
titled ‘‘Operator Registry Notification
(PHMSA F 1000.2)’’ will be used.
Copies of these forms have been placed
in the docket and are available for
comment.
II. Summary of Comments/Topics
During the two month response
period, PHMSA received a combined
comment from American Petroleum
Institute (API) and American Oil
Pipelines Association (AOPL) on the
proposal outlined in the December 2010
Federal Register notice.
A. OPID Assignment Request (Form
PHMSA F 1000.1)
A1. API–AOPL noted that Step 1,
‘‘Enter Basic Information,’’ incorrectly
implies that some rural low-stress
hazardous liquid pipelines are not
subject to part 195 although they are
required to submit reports under
Subpart B. They noted that being subject
to Subpart B is being subject to Part 195.
They also note that this step incorrectly
implies that unregulated rural gathering
lines are subject to reporting
requirements.
Response: PHMSA agrees and has
revised and reordered the elements of
Question 1 in this step to better align
these elements with the degree to which
pipelines are subject to part 195.
A2. In Step 2, API–AOPL requested
clarification of the term ‘‘vessels’’ in the
item ‘‘Hazardous Liquid Breakout Tanks
→ Total Number of Tanks/Caverns/
Vessels.’’
Response: This item meant to indicate
that the operator should report the total
number of tanks, caverns, or other
containers (i.e., vessels) that serve as
breakout tanks. PHMSA agrees that the
term ‘‘vessels,’’ is not used elsewhere
and could cause confusion. PHMSA also
concludes that the intended clarification
is unnecessary and has revised this item
to indicate only that operators should
report the total number of breakout
tanks.

E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM

10NON1

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

70218

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices

A3. API–AOPL commented that
identifying all counties through which a
pipeline passes will be an additional
reporting burden. They suggested that a
drop-down list including all counties in
each state be provided as part of the
online reporting system.
Response: PHMSA agrees and will
include drop-down lists in the online
reporting system to facilitate providing
this information.
A4. API–AOPL pointed out a
formatting error in that the statement at
the bottom of each page indicating that
a step continues did not always refer to
the correct question number.
Response: PHMSA has revised the
form to fix this error.
A5. API–AOPL asked that PHMSA
clarify the reason for requesting right-ofway miles as well as pipeline miles
(Step 2, Question 3). They noted that
not all companies calculate right-of-way
miles for business purposes and that
reporting this information could result
in additional burden.
Response: PHMSA has agreed to
remove the question concerning rightof-way miles.
A6. Step 2, Question 4, asks for a brief
description of the pipelines/facilities
covered by an OPID assignment request.
API–AOPL noted that the amount of
detail to be provided in this description
is not clear and suggested that PHMSA
include examples in the instructions.
They noted that this form is applicable
to hazardous liquid pipelines and gas
pipelines as well as LNG facilities and
requested that the examples address all
of these types of facilities.
Response: PHMSA agrees that
examples for each facility type would be
useful and has included them in the
revised instructions.
A7. Step 3 collects information
concerning PHMSA-required safety
programs. Pipeline operators with
systems covered by multiple OPIDs
often manage these as common
programs covering all (or multiple)
OPIDs. This step asks that the operator
designate the ‘‘primary’’ OPID for each
program. API–AOPL requested
clarification as to how the designation
of an OPID as ‘‘primary’’ is to be made.
Response: This ‘‘primary’’ OPID
designation is intended to represent the
OPID that should be the focus of
PHMSA inspection activities covering
the specific safety program in question.
As such, it should be the OPID under
which that particular safety program is
managed or administered, and typically
will be associated with the physical
location where the main documentation
and description of the safety program
exist. (For example, if the pipelines
covered by an OPID assignment request

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:38 Nov 09, 2011

Jkt 226001

for OPID 67890 are part of an Integrity
Management Program that is
administered by the operator under its
existing OPID 12345, then the primary
OPID would be 12345). The designation
of which multiple OPIDs is ‘‘primary’’ is
at the operator’s discretion, but it is
important that once a particular OPID is
selected as ‘‘primary,’’ the operator
continue to list this same OPID as
‘‘primary’’ in future notifications
concerning the safety program in
question. PHMSA has clarified this in
the instructions.
A8. Step 4, Question 1, asks for
information about the ‘‘operator contact
responsible for assuring compliance’’
with PHMSA regulations. API–AOPL
noted that several personnel could fit
this description and requested
additional clarification.
Response: PHMSA agrees that this
description was vague. Ultimately, any
operator personnel who perform or
manage work required by the
regulations have some responsibility for
assuring compliance. This question was
intended to collect information
regarding the person who oversees
compliance and typically is the
principal contact with PHMSA to
discuss regulatory issues. This would
include such titles as ‘‘Manager of
Compliance,’’ ‘‘Regulatory Compliance
Officer,’’ ‘‘DOT Compliance
Supervisor,’’ ‘‘Pipeline Safety Manager,’’
etc. PHMSA has revised the form to
state ‘‘operator contact responsible for
overseeing compliance’’ and has
included these position titles as
examples in the instructions.
A9. API–AOPL requested that the
contact information collected in Step 4
be kept confidential.
Response: PHMSA does not intend to
make this information publicly
available. It could be subject to release
under a Freedom of Information Act
request, but all such releases are subject
to privacy exemptions in that Act and
the Privacy Act.
A10. API–AOPL noted that the
various ‘‘contacts’’ included in Step 4
are often located at a common address
and asked that the form allow for
entering this information only once.
Response: PHMSA has revised the
online reporting system to allow
designation of a common address for
multiple contacts.
A11. API–AOPL requested that the
online reporting system provide a
simple mechanism for updating contact
information for an OPID.
Response: PHMSA agrees that such a
mechanism will be useful and has plans
to incorporate such a mechanism in the
near future.

PO 00000

Frm 00112

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

A12. API–AOPL questioned whether
this same form would be used to
validate/collect information for existing
OPIDs and requested that any such
information collection be delayed until
the on-line reporting system is available.
Response: 49 CFR 191.22(b) and
195.64(b) require validation of
information for existing OPIDs by gas
pipeline/LNG operators and hazardous
liquid pipeline operators, respectively.
This same form will be used for that
purpose. PHMSA is planning for the online reporting system to be available to
operators for validation purposes before
validation is required.
B. Operator Registry Notification (Form
PHMSA F 1000.2)
B1. API–AOPL noted that Step 1,
Question 7, indicates the operator is to
select only one type of facility and
asked whether the form was to be
completed multiple times for an
operator with more than one type of
facility covered by the same OPID. They
also noted that Step 3, Question 1,
allows operators to select all pipeline
facility types that apply, in apparent
contradiction to this limitation to one
facility type.
Response: PHMSA has modified the
form to allow operators to select all
facility types that apply.
B2. API–AOPL requested that PHMSA
clarify whether a separate form is
required for each type of change listed
in Step 2.
Response: No. Operators may report
multiple types of changes in a single
notification.
B3. API–AOPL requested clarification
as to whether one or both operators
must file a notification in the case of a
transfer of assets. They also questioned
whether the date to be reported should
be the date on which ownership or
operating responsibility is transferred in
cases where they do not occur
simultaneously.
Response: Both operators are required
to file a notification in the event of a
transfer of assets, each reporting the
change affecting their OPID(s). The date
should be the date operating
responsibility is transferred. The
instructions have been revised to clarify
this.
B4. For changes involving the name of
an operator (TYPE A) or the entity
responsible for operation (TYPE B), the
form asks an operator to enter the reason
for the change. API–AOPL asked for
justification for requiring this
information and why reports are needed
for this type of change when there is no
simple mechanism for reporting smaller
changes such as address or name of
Senior Executive Officer.

E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM

10NON1

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices
Response: The operator of a pipeline
facility is responsible for compliance
with pipeline safety regulations.
Accordingly, PHMSA’s regulatory
activities are focused on the operating
entity. PHMSA thus needs to know
whether changes of this type reflect a
new operating entity. A change in name
of operator can, for example, reflect a
corporate re-branding or it can mean a
more significant change in the operating
company. A change in responsible
entity could be due to a sale of assets
or to a shift in responsibility from one
subsidiary of a common parent
company to another. The potential effect
of these changes on continuity in
responsibility for compliance would
vary, and determine PHMSA’s followup to the notification. This form only
requires reporting of those changes
where the regulations require that an
operator notify PHMSA. Changes in
address or contact information for key
personnel are not required to be
reported. PHMSA plans, however, to
provide on-line means to report such
changes in basic information in the near
future.
B5. For several change types which
involve changes in operating
responsibility, the draft form included a
question on whether the operator
wanted PHMSA to deactivate the
existing OPID. API–AOPL noted that
only the holder of a specific OPID
should be able to request deactivation.
Response: PHMSA agrees that only
the holder of an OPID should be able to
request deactivation and that this
question should not be included on a
form that will be completed by both
parties involved in a transfer of
responsibilities. PHMSA has deleted
this question from the form. The
question was not intended to result in
automatic deactivation, but rather to
prompt PHMSA to follow-up with the
reporting operator. PHMSA will instead
address the question of OPID
deactivation as part of its normal
contact with operators.
B6. API–AOPL asked for clarification
concerning changes of TYPE D
(acquisition/divestiture of 50 or more
miles of pipe) and TYPE E (acquisition/
divestiture of a pipeline facility). They
noted, for example, that a ‘‘pipeline
facility’’ may consist of only a few miles
of pipe and questioned whether
acquisition/divestiture of such a facility
should be reported as TYPE E when a
transaction involving the same mileage
would not be reported as TYPE D.
Response: ‘‘Pipeline facility’’ is
defined in both Parts 192 and 195 and
includes ‘‘new and existing pipelines,
right-of-ways, and any equipment,
facility, or building used in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:38 Nov 09, 2011

Jkt 226001

transportation’’ of the commodity. (Both
definitions are included in the
instructions under TYPE E.) API–AOPL
is correct that the acquisition/
divestiture of an entire pipeline
consisting of only a few miles would
need to be reported as TYPE E while
acquisition/divestiture of the same
amount of pipe that did not involve sale
of a complete facility would not need to
be reported. The difference reflects
PHMSA’s need for the information.
PHMSA regulates the operator of a
facility. If a complete facility changes
hands, then PHMSA needs to update its
records, inspection plans, etc., to assure
that appropriate attention is paid to the
new operator. If, on the other hand, a
larger operator acquires or divests itself
of a few miles of pipe, significant
changes in PHMSA oversight plans are
not needed. PHMSA will obtain
information about these changes
through routine inspections and update
its records/plans as appropriate. To
reduce the aggregate reporting burden
associated with this form, we will not
require that operators report
acquisition/divestiture of small amounts
of pipe (< 50 miles). PHMSA has made
changes to clarify these distinctions.
B7. Change TYPE F involves
‘‘rehabilitation, replacement,
modification, upgrade, uprate, or update
of facilities, other than a section of line
pipe that costs $10 million or more.’’
API–AOPL requested clarification,
including the basis for the stated
exclusion. They asked if rehabilitation
of line pipe costing more than $11
million would need to be reported.
Response: Construction-type changes
are reported as either TYPE F or G.
Pipeline operators continually
construct/rehabilitate facilities, and
routine activities of this type are
addressed as part of PHMSA’s routine
inspection program. These notifications
are to collect information on larger
changes for which special inspections
may be required. Thus, a reporting
threshold was needed. For line pipe, a
threshold based on miles of pipe to be
constructed is appropriate. Cost is not
an appropriate threshold for changes in
line pipe because per-mile construction
costs vary significantly depending on
the environment in which construction
is to occur (e.g., rural vs. urban). A
mileage threshold alone, however,
would not identify other significant
changes (e.g., construction of a new
pump/compressor station) for which
construction inspections would be
appropriate. Changes not involving
construction of line pipe and which are
expected to cost $10 million or more
should be reported as TYPE F.
Construction of 10 miles or more of line

PO 00000

Frm 00113

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

70219

pipe, (including replacement of 10 or
more miles of an existing pipeline)
should be reported as TYPE G.
Construction of line pipe costing more
than $10 million but involving less than
10 miles need not be reported.
B8. Changes of TYPES F and G must
be submitted 60 days before planned
start of construction. API–AOPL noted
that construction dates often slip. They
questioned whether reported dates for
anticipated start of work would need to
be updated.
Response: No. As described above, the
purpose of these notifications is for
PHMSA to plan for inspections to be
conducted during construction.
Notifications of this type will prompt
PHMSA to contact the operator to
arrange for such inspections. PHMSA
expects that the operator will keep
PHMSA informed of changes in the
anticipated date of field operations as
part of these pre-inspection interactions.
B9. API–AOPL commented that it was
inappropriate to include an operations
question referring to maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) in
an OPID data form (TYPE G).
Response: PHMSA disagrees. This
question applies only to gas
transmission pipelines and asks
whether the new pipeline will use
alternate MAOP under 49 CFR 192.620.
Pipe to be operated at alternate MAOP
is subject to many requirements not
applicable to other pipelines and for
which special inspections by PHMSA
may be required. As noted above, the
purpose for notifications of this type is
for PHMSA to manage its inspection
resources.
B10. API–AOPL commented that it
was not clear which portions of Step 3
need to be completed for each change
‘‘Type’’ in Step 2.
Response: The on-line reporting
system will be configured so that only
those questions applicable to the change
types selected in Question 2 will be
presented for answers. This should
resolve the confusion.
B11. Step 3, Question 4, asks for a
brief description of the pipelines/
facilities covered by this notification.
API–AOPL asked that examples be
included indicating the level of detail
that PHMSA expects in these
notifications.
Response: PHMSA has included
examples in the instructions.
C. Comments Applicable to Both Forms
C1. API–AOPL noted that the paper
forms are confusing, in large part
because it is difficult to track which
questions in later steps apply to specific
change types selected in earlier steps.
They suggested that PHMSA make

E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM

10NON1

jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

70220

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices

maximum use of on-line reporting, with
the on-line system limiting the
questions presented for completion,
making maximum use of drop-down
menus, etc.
Response: PHMSA agrees. The new
regulation requires on-line reporting.
The purpose of the paper form is to
collect public comments. The on-line
system will use ‘‘smart navigation’’ that
will screen later questions based on
information entered earlier. Drop down
menus will be used whenever possible.
C2. API–AOPL expects the time it
takes to complete the form to exceed the
15 minutes PHMSA proposed by up to
three times as much.
Response: Completion of the OPID
Assignment Request form is intended to
be a one-time effort to collect as much
as possible of the operator’s information
that PHMSA needs. Once this
information is completed, PHMSA does
not require the operator to undertake
this effort again. The Operator Registry
Notification form will be used to update
any pertinent information that may have
changed based on PHMSA’s notification
requirements since the OPID was
originally issued. Operators will not
have to complete the entire form. They
will only update the section that is
applicable to the change for which
PHMSA is being notified. Given that
most companies know this information
prior to informing PHMSA, we estimate
that the average time for completing
these forms will be 15 minutes.
C3. API–AOPL commented that the
forms request information not specified
in the rule or discussed in the
rulemaking (e.g., the counties through
which involved pipeline is routed).
They noted that this could be construed
as rulemaking without notice and
comment.
Response: The rule did not specify the
particular information that must be
submitted for each type of notification.
That is the purpose of these forms, and
the forms have been subjected to notice
and comment.
C4. API–AOPL suggested that PHMSA
expand the instructions, where possible,
to include more detail and specific
examples. They noted that operators
want to submit all of the information the
agency needs and that more detailed
instructions would help facilitate this.
Response: PHMSA appreciates API–
AOPL’s comments on these forms and
pipeline operators’ efforts to submit
information as needed. PHMSA has
revised the instructions to include more
specificity and details. PHMSA invites
stakeholders to submit suggestions for
additional changes at any time, which
will be considered for future revisions
of these instructions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:38 Nov 09, 2011

Jkt 226001

D. Master Meter and Small Petroleum
Gas Systems
The form will specify that operators of
master meter systems or operators that
solely operate petroleum gas systems
which serve fewer than 100 customers
from a single source (small petroleum
gas operators) do not need to follow the
Operator Registry requirements in 49
CFR 191.22 and 195.64. However, this
exception does not extend to operators
of these systems who also operate other
system types. Small petroleum gas
operators that do not have an OPID and
are required to file an incident report
will be able to request an OPID during
the incident filing process.
III. Proposed Information Collection
Revisions and Request for Comments
The forms to be created as a result of
this information collection are the OPID
Assignment Request form and the
Operator Registry Notification form. The
burden hours associated with these
information collections are specified as
follows:
Title of Information Collection:
National Registry of Pipeline and
Liquefied Natural Gas Operators.
OMB Control Number: Pending.
Type of Request: New information
collection.
Abstract: PHMSA is requiring each
operator to have an OPID number. The
OPID number will contain detailed
information on the operator. In addition,
PHMSA is requiring that an operator
provide PHMSA with update
notifications for certain changes to
information initially provided by the
operator.
Affected Public: Pipeline Operators.
Recordkeeping:
Estimated Number of Respondents:
2,753.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 5,506.
Frequency of collection: On occasion.
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the proposed
collection of information for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques.

PO 00000

Frm 00114

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Issued in Washington, DC on November 3,
2011.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2011–29084 Filed 11–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0294 (PDA–
35(R)]

New Jersey Regulations on
Transportation of Regulated Medical
Waste
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Public notice and invitation to
comment.
AGENCY:

Interested parties are invited
to comment on an application by the
Healthcare Waste Institute (Institute) for
an administrative determination as to
whether Federal hazardous material
transportation law preempts regulations
of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
which apply to the transportation of
regulated medical waste in commerce,
including the packaging of regulated
medical waste for transportation;
marking and labeling of containers of
regulated medical waste offered for
transportation or transported; the
description of regulated medical waste
on documents accompanying shipments
of regulated medical waste and the use
and retention of such documents; and
the marking of vehicles which transport
regulated medical waste.
DATES: Comments received on or before
December 27, 2011 and rebuttal
comments received on or before
February 8, 2012 will be considered
before an administrative determination
is issued by PHMSA’s Chief Counsel.
Rebuttal comments may discuss only
those issues raised by comments
received during the initial comment
period and may not discuss new issues.
ADDRESSES: The Institute’s application
and all comments received may be
reviewed in the Docket Operations
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
The application and all comments are
available on the U.S. Government
Regulations.gov Web site: http://
www.regulations.gov.
Comments must refer to Docket No.
PHMSA–2011–0294 and may be
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM

10NON1