Notices. Notice of intent to form an advisory committee

10,366 words·~47 min read·/register/2006/07/11/06-6105

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54094; File No. SR-Amex-2006-42] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Granting Approval To a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to a Retroactive Suspension of Transaction Charges for Specialist Orders in the Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock®

(QQQQ)On May 2, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to retroactively apply a suspension of transaction charges for specialist orders in connection with the trading of the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock® (Symbol: QQQQ) from March 1, 2006, through April 5, 2006. On May 12, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. 3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 1, 2006. 4 The Commission received no comments on the proposal. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53871 (May 26, 2006), 71 FR 31236. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 5 In particular, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act 6 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members. 5 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 7 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Amex-2006-42), as amended, be, and it hereby is, approved. 7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10762 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54097; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-38] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Regarding Transfer of Designated Primary Market Maker Appointments July 5, 2006. On April 17, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposed rule change to amend Exchange rules relating to the transfer of Designated Primary Market Maker (“DPM”) appointments. On May 11, 2006, CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission published the proposed rule change, as amended, for comment in the **Federal Register** on June 1, 2006. 3 The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change, as amended. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53869 (May 25, 2006), 71 FR 31239. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to eliminate section

(f)of CBOE Rule 8.89, which subjects any DPM transfer proposal decision made by the appropriate Exchange committee (“transfer proposal decision”) 4 to a 10-day review period during which any transfer proposal decision may be directly reviewed by the Board of Directors of the Exchange (“Board”) upon:

(1)A written application by a party claiming to be aggrieved 5 by the DPM transfer decision, or

(2)a request for review by any five Directors. The Exchange notes that any member aggrieved by a transfer proposal decision can still seek a review of the decision through the hearing and review process provided for under Chapter XIX of CBOE's rules. 6 In any such appeal proceeding under Chapter XIX, the decision regarding a transfer proposal by the appropriate Exchange committee under CBOE Rule 8.89 would be subject to review by the CBOE Appeals Committee. In addition, the Appeals Committee decision in the matter would be subject to review by the Board on its own motion, or could be appealed to the Board, pursuant to CBOE Rule 19.5. The Exchange believes that the special review process for transfer proposal decisions in CBOE Rule 8.89(f) is no longer necessary, given the more routine nature of DPM transfers, and that the elimination of the special process will improve the overall efficiency of the review process. 7 4 *See* CBOE Rule 8.89(c), (d), and

(e)for a description of the scope of a transfer proposal and the committee decision process. 5 Under CBOE Rule 8.89, a person must be “aggrieved ” as described in Chapter XIX of Exchange Rules. 6 Chapter XIX of CBOE Rules governs the process by which persons, including members, claiming to be economically aggrieved by Exchange action may seek a review of such a decision. 7 The Exchange also proposes to delete Interpretation and Policy .02 of CBOE Rule 8.89, which provided for the application of a transfer fee on any DPM appointment transfer, because it expired on June 30, 2004. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act. 8 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 which requires among other things, that the rules of the Exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the Commission believes it is consistent with the Act for the Exchange to eliminate the special review process for DPM transfer proposal decisions, which the Exchange believes could improve efficiency of the review process for such decisions. The Commission notes that such decisions would continue to be subject to a hearing and review process at the Exchange under Chapter XIX, which provides for review by the Appeals Committee and the Board. The Commission also believes it is consistent with the Act for CBOE to remove, as a matter of housekeeping, Interpretation and Policy .02 of CBOE Rule 8.89 from its rules, as the provision relating to a transfer fee has currently expired. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2006-38) and Amendment No. 1 thereto be, and hereby are, approved. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E6-10788 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54080; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2006-27] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 10.1 (Disciplinary Jurisdiction) June 30, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on June 8, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change as a “non-controversial” rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, 3 which rendered the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 10.1 (Disciplinary Jurisdiction) in the Rules of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. to create a mechanism that would allow the Exchange to contract with another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) for the performance of certain of the Exchange's regulatory functions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site, ( *http://www.nyse.com* ), at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The proposed rule change in the Rules of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. would create a mechanism 4 that would allow the Exchange to contract with another SRO for the performance of certain of the Exchange's regulatory functions. The purpose of the proposed rule change is to enhance the Exchange's ability to carry out its regulatory obligations under the Act by providing the Exchange the ability to contract with another SRO for regulatory services. Under any agreement for regulatory services with another SRO, the Exchange would remain an SRO registered under section 6 of the Act 5 and, therefore, would continue to have statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing compliance by its members, and persons associated with its members, with the Act, the rules thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. 4 The Exchange states that, as a public company, the Board of Directors of the Exchange is currently authorized as part of its duties and responsibilities to delegate authority to enter into these types of agreements. For example, the Exchange states that in March of 2006 it entered into a contract with NYSE Regulation, Inc. to provide certain regulatory services. The Exchange, however, recognizes that current industry practice is to have the authority to delegate this responsibility explicitly written in the rules or constitution of an exchange. As such, the Exchange states that it is voluntarily submitting the instant filing to conform to current industry practice. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f. This change in the Rules of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. would have immediate applicability with respect to a Regulatory Services Agreement (“RSA”) between the Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE”), and other options markets participating in the proposed Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority national market system plan. The Exchange has determined that, to best discharge certain of its SRO responsibilities, it will contract with CBOE, which is subject to Commission oversight pursuant to sections 6 and 19 of the Act, 6 for CBOE to provide certain regulatory services to the Exchange, as set forth in the RSA between the Exchange and CBOE. In performing services under the RSA, CBOE will be operating pursuant to the statutory SRO responsibilities of the Exchange under sections 6 and 19, as well as performing for itself its own SRO responsibilities. The proposed rule change specifically states that any action taken by another SRO, or its employees or authorized agents, operating on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement with the Exchange ( *e.g.* , CBOE under the RSA) will be deemed an action taken by the Exchange. The Exchange will retain ultimate responsibility for performance of its SRO duties under the RSA, and the proposed rule change states that the Exchange will retain ultimate legal responsibility for, and control of, its SRO responsibilities. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f and 15 U.S.C. 78s. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act 7 in general, and furthers the objectives of sections 6(b)(1), 8 6(b)(6), 9 and 6(b)(7) 10 in that it will enhance the ability of NYSE Arca to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. Further, the proposed rule change will help ensure that members and persons associated with members are appropriately disciplined for violations of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to continue to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated with members. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6). 10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the proposed rule change:

(i)Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)does not impose any significant burden on competition; and

(iii)by its terms, does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 12 The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period for “non-controversial” proposals and make the proposed rule change effective and operative upon filing. The Commission hereby grants the request. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. In this regard, the Commission believes that the proposal should be implemented without delay because of its immediate applicability with respect to the RSA among the Exchange, CBOE and the other participants in the Options Regulatory Surveillance Authority national market system plan. 13 For this reason, the Commission designates the proposal to be effective and operative upon filing with the Commission. 14 11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 13 The Commission notes that the proposed rule change is based on a similar rule of the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53436 (March 7, 2006), 71 FR 13194 (March 14, 2006) (SR-BSE-2006-08). 14 For the purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-27 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-27. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2006-27 and should be submitted on or before August 1, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-10787 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [License No. 02-72-0624] NJTC Venture Fund SBIC, L.P.; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest Notice is hereby given that NJTC Venture Fund SBIC, L.P., 1001 Briggs Road, Suite 280, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). NJTC Venture Fund SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to Innovation Engineering, Inc. The financing is contemplated for working capital and general corporate purposes. The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Mr. Greg Olsen and GHO Ventures, both Associates of NJTC Venture Fund SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of Innovation Engineering, Inc. Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. March 17, 2006. Jaime Guzmán-Fournier, Associate Administrator for Investment. This document was received at the Office of the Federal Register on July 6, 2006. [FR Doc. E6-10876 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION North Florida District Advisory Council; Public Meeting The U.S. Small Business Administration, North Florida District Advisory Council will host a public meeting on Thursday, August 10, 2006. The meeting will be located at DEI Services, Inc., 7213 Sandscove Court, Suite One, Winter Park, FL 32792. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss SBA loan reports and the status on goals for FY 2006. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, North Florida District Office, in writing or fax no later than Friday, August 4, 2006, in order to be placed on the agenda. Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, North Florida District Office, U.S. Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way; Suite 100B, Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone

(904)443-1900; fax

(904)443-1980. Matthew K. Becker, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E6-10871 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary [Order 2006-7-3; Docket OST-2006-25307] Notice of Order To Show-Cause; International Air Transport Association Tariff Conference Proceeding AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation. SUMMARY: The Department is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order withdrawing its approval under 49 U.S.C. 41309 for an International Air Transport Association (“IATA”) agreement, the Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA Traffic Conferences, insofar as that agreement establishes conferences whereby IATA's member carriers discuss and agree upon passenger fares and cargo rates for U.S.-Australia/Europe markets. If the Department withdraws its approval for the agreement, the agreement will no longer have immunity from the antitrust laws under 49 U.S.C. 41308 for conference discussions of fares and rates for the U.S.-Australia/Europe markets. DATES: Objections must be submitted on or before August 21. Answers to objections must be filed by September 20. ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections must be filed in Docket number OST-2006-25307 by one of the following means:

(1)By mail to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

(2)By hand delivery to room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

(3)Electronically through the Web site for the Docket Management System at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Comments must be filed in Docket OST-2006-25307. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kiser, Pricing & Multilateral Affairs Division (X-43, Room 6424), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-2435; or Thomas Ray, Office of the General Counsel (C-30, Room 4102), U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590,

(202)366-4731. Dated: July 3, 2006. Michael W. Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-10792 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2006-24957] Safe Routes to School Task Force to the Secretary of Transportation AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent to form an advisory committee. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 1404

(h)of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Secretary of Transportation is establishing a Safe Routes to School Task Force to study and develop a strategy for advancing safe routes to school programs nationwide. The FHWA Office of Safety will serve as sponsor of the Task Force for the Secretary. The purpose of this notice is to invite interested parties to submit comments to the FHWA on the strategy or issues that should be discussed by the Task Force, and the organizations and participants to be considered for representation on the Task Force. DATES: Comments and/or applications for membership or nominations for membership on the Task Force must be received on or before August 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Arnade, Safe Routes to School Program Manager, FHWA Office of Safety Programs, 202-366-2205( *Tim.Arnade@dot.gov* ); or Ms. Lisa MacPhee, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202)366-1392 ( *Lisa.MacPhee@dot.gov* ); 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Access You may submit or retrieve comments online through the Document Management System

(DMS)at: *http://dms.dot.gov/submit* . The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the **Federal Register** 's home page at: *http://www.archives.gov* and the Government Printing Office's database at: *http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara* . Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in a **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (70 FR 19477), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments and we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. We will consider late comments to the extent practicable. Background On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144). Section 1404

(h)of SAFETEA-LU mandates the establishment of a Safe Routes to School Task Force. The DOT has determined that the establishment of the Task Force falls within the scope of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. II. A. Notice of Intent To Establish a Task Force and Request for Comment In accordance with the requirements of the FACA, an agency of the Federal government cannot establish or utilize a group of people in the interest of obtaining consensus advice or recommendations unless that group is chartered as a Federal advisory committee. The purpose of this notice is to indicate the FHWA's intent to create a Task Force to study and develop a strategy for advancing safe routes to school programs nationwide, including information regarding the use of funds for infrastructure-related and noninfrastructure-related activities funded by the new Federal aid Safe Routes to School Program. B. Name of Committee National Safe Routes to School Task Force. C. Purpose and Objective The National Safe Routes to School Task Force will study and develop a strategy for advancing safe routes to school programs nationwide and will submit a report to the Secretary containing the results of the study conducted, a description of the strategy developed, and information regarding use of funds for infrastructure related projects and non-infrastructure related activities funded by the new Federal aid Safe Routes to School Program. The Safe Routes to School

(SRTS)Task Force does not exercise program management or regulatory development responsibilities, and makes no decisions directly affecting the programs on which it provides advice. The SRTS Task Force provides a forum for the development, consideration, and communication of information from a knowledgeable and independent perspective of a strategy for advancing Safe Routes to School Programs nationwide. D. Balanced Membership Plans Task Force members shall represent a cross-section of the diverse agencies, organizations and individuals that are involved in Safe Routes to School activities and programs in the U.S. According to section 1404(h) of SAFETEA-LU, “The Secretary shall establish a Safe Routes to School Task Force composed of leaders in health, transportation, and education, including representatives of appropriate Federal agencies.” Pursuant to Congressional conference report language, Congress acknowledges the need to include a broad range of agencies and organizations in the Task Force and “members could include representatives from State and local agencies as well as relevant non-profit organizations and associations including organizations or associations that represent automobile drivers.” This document gives notice to potential participants of the process and affords them the opportunity to request representation on the SRTS Task Force. The procedure for requesting such representation is set out below. In addition, we invite comments and suggestions for potential participants. The FHWA is aware that there are many more potential organizations and participants than there are membership positions on the SRTS Task Force. It is very important to recognize that interested parties who are not selected for membership on the SRTS Task Force can make valuable contributions to the work of the SRTS Task Force in several ways. For example, the person or organization could request to be placed on the SRTS Task Force mailing list, submitting written comments, as appropriate. Any member of the public is welcome to attend the SRTS Task Force meetings, and, as provided in FACA, speak to the SRTS Task Force. Time will be set aside during each meeting for this purpose, consistent with the SRTS Task Force's need for sufficient time to complete its deliberations. E. Applications for Membership Each application for membership or nomination to the Task Force should include:

(1)A brief resume or letter (no more than one page) demonstrating the applicant or nominee's knowledge in SRTS projects or programs and why they are interested in serving on the Task Force (please note, resumes or letters will be posted on the public docket and therefore should not contain personal information such as date of birth, etc).

(2)The name of the applicant or nominee and the interest(s) identified in either section 1404

(h)of SAFETEA-LU or the conference report language such person would represent;

(3)Evidence that the applicant or nominee is authorized to represent parties related to the interest(s) the person proposes to represent; and

(4)A written commitment that the applicant or nominee would participate in good faith. Since all comments and/or applications for membership or nominations for membership on the Task Force will be posted on the Public Docket, we encourage you to include only that information you are willing to provide for the public docket and submit your application electronically using the docket number provided on this notice through the U.S. DOT online Document Management System found at: *http://dms.dot.gov/submit* . Every effort will be made to select Task Force members who are objective. A balanced membership is needed and weight will be given to a variety of factors including but not limited to geographical distribution, gender, minority status, organization, and expertise. Members of the Task Force may receive travel and per diem, as allowed by Federal regulations and U.S. Department of Transportation policy. F. Duration Two years from the establishment of the Task Force Charter. G. Notice of Establishment After evaluating applications and nominations received as a result of this notice, the Department will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice announcing the establishment and composition of the SRTS Task Force. (Authority: Section 1914 of Pub. L. 109-59.) Issued on: July 3, 2006. J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. E6-10754 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waivers of Compliance In accordance with 49 CFR 211.9 and 211.41, notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)has received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of the Federal safety laws and regulations. The petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, and the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Canadian National Railway Company [Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2000-8089] Canadian National Railway Company

(CN)seeks an extension of an existing waiver in Docket Number FRA 2000-8089 on behalf of itself and its U.S. affiliates. CN is North America's fifth largest railroad with 18,300 route miles and approximately 22,000 employees in Canada and the U.S. It operates the largest rail network in Canada and the only transcontinental network in North America. Within the last ten years, CN has integrated operations with Illinois Central, Wisconsin Central, and Great Lakes Transportation rail entities. CN seeks an extension for an existing waiver in which the FRA has waived compliance with 49 CFR part 231, which specifies the number, location and dimensional specifications for handholds, ladders, sill steps, uncoupling levers and handbrakes, and 49 CFR 231.31 (formerly 232.2), which regulates drawbar height, for CN's use of RoadRailer® equipment. In a letter dated May 23, 2001, the FRA granted CN approval of their petition FRA-2000-8089 to operate RoadRailer® trains on their railroad property. Since granting of the waiver in 2001, the CN has operated RoadRailer® equipment without incident. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number ( *e.g.* Waiver Petition Docket Number 2000-8089) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 665, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Issued in Washington, DC on July 5, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-10755 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: National Advisory Council public meeting. SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration announces that the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold a meeting to discuss MTS needs, regional MTS outreach and education initiatives, Committee on the Marine Transportation System

(CMTS)coordination, congestion issues, and disaster response and recovery efforts. A public comment period is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Thursday, July 27, 2006. To provide time for as many people to speak as possible, speaking time for each individual will be limited to three minutes. Members of the public who would like to speak are asked to contact Richard J. Lolich by July 20, 2006. Commenters will be placed on the agenda in the order in which notifications are received. If time allows, additional comments will be permitted. Copies of oral comments must be submitted in writing at the meeting. Additional written comments are welcome and must be filed by August 4, 2006. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 26, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, July 27, 2006 from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Norfolk Marriott Waterside Hotel, 235 E Main Street, Norfolk, VA. The hotel's phone number is 757-627-4200. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lolich,

(202)366-4357; Maritime Administration, MAR-830, Room 7201, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590; *richard.lolich@dot.gov.* (Authority: 49 CFR 1.66) Dated: July 5, 2006. Murray Bloom, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E6-10756 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA 2006-24707; Notice 2] Pilkington Glass of Canada Ltd., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Pilkington Glass of Canada Ltd. (Pilkington) has determined that certain aftermarket windshields that it manufactured in 2005 and 2006 do not comply with S6.2 and S6.3 of 49 CFR 571.205, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, “Glazing Materials.” Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Pilkington has petitioned for a determination that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.” Notice of receipt of a petition was published, with a 30-day comment period, on May 19, 2006, in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 29214). NHTSA received no comments. Affected are a total of approximately 760 aftermarket number GW1549GBY windshields manufactured between September 9, 2005 and March 31, 2006. Pilkington explains that the exact number of noncompliant windshields is unknown, but that 8.1 percent of the windshields that remain in the company's possession are noncompliant, and applying that percentage to the 9,383 windshields that have been distributed produces a result of approximately 760 windshields. S6.2 and S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205 require that each windshield be marked with certain information including a manufacturer's model number and manufacturer's code mark. The affected windshields are marked with either an illegible model number or an illegible manufacturer's code. Pilkington has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production. Pilkington believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. The petitioner states that the windshields are clearly inscribed “Pilkington” and “Made in Canada,” which would allow a distributor or consumer to clearly identify the manufacturer. Pilkington further states that consumers do not need the illegible information to operate their vehicles safely, and “repair shops typically do not use the model number in deciding upon the size or model of the replacement glass. Instead, [they] generally use various manuals and web sites * * * such as * * * National Auto Glass Specifications.” Pilkington also states that it has taken action to prevent additional sales of these windshields by notifying wholesalers and distributors to return windshields with the noncompliant markings. NHTSA agrees with Pilkington that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The manufacturer can be identified by the words “Pilkington” and “Made in Canada,” which are inscribed on the windshield. To identify the proper replacement glass, a repair facility would presumably follow the typical practice of using references such as the National Auto Glass Specifications web site and manuals. Therefore this noncompliance does not present a safety problem in terms of replacement or recall. The windshields meet all other FMVSS requirements. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Pilkington's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the noncompliance. Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on July 5, 2006. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E6-10763 Filed 7-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA-2006-23998; Notice 2] Pipeline Safety: Grant of Waiver; Rockies Express Pipeline AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); DOT. ACTION: Grant of waiver. SUMMARY: PHMSA is granting Rockies Express Pipeline, L.L.C. (Rockies Express) a waiver of compliance from the pipeline safety regulation that prescribes the design factor to be used in the design formula for steel pipe. This waiver allows the Rockies Express pipeline to operate at hoop stresses up to 80 percent of the specified minimum yield strength

(SMYS)in Class 1 locations. The waiver also grants Rockies Express relief from equipment requirements for pressure relieving and limiting stations. Before granting the waiver, PHMSA performed a thorough technical review of Rockies Express's application and supporting documents. PHMSA requested and received supplementary information pertaining to numerous technical aspects of its metallurgy, pipeline design, and engineering practices. These materials are available in the docket PHMSA-2006-23998 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* PHMSA also sought comments from the public and received positive feedback from the impacted States along the pipeline and the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee. The waiver is subject to and conditional upon supplemental safety criteria set forth in this notice. The supplemental safety criteria address the life cycle management of the subject pipeline and require Rockies Express to adhere to maintenance, inspection, monitoring, control, and reporting standards exceeding existing regulatory requirements. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Rockies Express is a joint development of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. and Sempra Pipelines & Storage, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy. Rockies Express is obtaining regulatory approvals to construct a new 1,323-mile interstate natural gas pipeline. When it is complete, the 42-inch diameter pipeline will transport natural gas from basins in Colorado and Wyoming to markets in the upper Midwest and Eastern United States. The pipeline will cross portions of Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Rockies Express plans to construct the pipeline in three phases. The first or western segment of the pipeline will be approximately 710 miles long. It will start at the hub in Cheyenne, Wyoming and extend to an interconnection with the Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company in Audrain County, Missouri. Four additional compressor stations will be installed at the Cheyenne Hub to support operations. The second or central segment of the pipeline will be approximately 425 miles long and extend from the terminus of the western segment of the pipeline in Audrain County, Missouri to the hub in Lebanon, Ohio. The final or eastern segment of the pipeline will be approximately 188 miles long and extend from the Lebanon Hub terminus to a point at or near Clarington, Ohio. Rockies Express' Waiver Requests Rockies Express requests a waiver of compliance from the following regulatory requirements: 49 CFR 192.111—Design Factor

(F)for Steel Pipe; and 49 CFR 192.201—Required Capacity of Pressure Relieving and Limiting Stations. The design factors are found in the following table: Class location Design factor

(F)1 0.72 2 0.60 3 0.50 4 0.40 The waiver request is for approximately 1,323 miles of 42-inch diameter pipe located within the United States. The waiver will allow Rockies Express to:

(1)Operate its new pipeline at hoop stresses up to 80 percent of SMYS in Class 1 locations, and at a maximum allowable operating pressure

(MAOP)of 1,480 pounds per square inch gauge.

(2)Operate each pressure relief station installed to protect pipelines in Class 1 locations at pressures that may not exceed the MAOP plus 4 percent, or the pressure that produces a hoop stress of 83 percent of SMYS, whichever is lower at that time. The pipe to be used for the Rockies Express pipeline will be either a longitudinal seam submerged arc welded pipe or a helical seam submerged arc welded pipe. The pipe also will be API Grades X80 and X70, and high-strength and high-toughness steel pipe, suitable for high-pressure gas transmission service. The Rockies Express pipeline will be 42 inches in diameter, coated externally with fusion-bonded epoxy (FBE), and be protected by an impressed current cathodic protection

(CP)system. The field weld joints will be externally coated with field applied FBE. All welds on the Rockies Express pipeline will be nondestructively tested. If any weld imperfections are discovered, they will be repaired or removed prior to putting the line in service. The Rockies Express pipeline also will be hydrostatically tested to a minimum of 100 percent of SMYS. Prior to commissioning the pipeline for gas service, it will be surveyed with a multi-channel geometry-smart-tool capable of detecting anomalies including dents and buckles. Approximately 90 percent of the Rockies Express pipeline will be located in Class 1 areas in a common right-of-way with other pipelines. Further, Kinder Morgan will install variable resistance bonds between the various pipelines and metallic structures sharing the right-of-way to eliminate stray electrical currents, and to equalize the voltage potentials between Rockies Express and other underground metallic structures. Kinder Morgan conducted a risk analysis for Rockies Express and compared the risks associated with using a 0.80 design criteria to using a 0.72 design criteria. The risk analysis considered risks in the following nine areas:

(1)Stress corrosion cracking;

(2)manufacturing defects;

(3)weather/outside factors;

(4)welding and fabrication defects;

(5)equipment failure;

(6)equipment impact or third-party damage;

(7)external corrosion;

(8)internal corrosion; and

(9)incorrect operation. From the risk analysis results Kinder Morgan determined that there was no significant increase in the overall risk associated with using the 0.80 design criteria for this type of pipe. Moreover, according to Kinder Morgan, only in the areas of external corrosion, internal corrosion, and incorrect operation did the risk analysis show a slightly higher degree of risk associated with using a 0.80 design factor. A pipe wall designed with a 0.80 design factor results in a slightly higher risk factor because it is manufactured with a thinner wall pipe than the pipe designed with a 0.72 design factor; therefore, the pipe designed with a 0.80 design factor operates at higher stress levels. Consequently, the factor of safety between the MAOP and the pipe's SMYS is reduced. Rockies Express indicated that they will employ several control and prevention programs to mitigate these increased risks. Grant of Waiver PHMSA considered Rockies Express' waiver request and whether its proposal will yield an equivalent or greater degree of safety than the current regulations. PHMSA published a notice of intent to consider the waiver and solicited comments on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14573). No comments were received. Based on the Rockies Express' application for waiver for its new pipeline and PHMSA's extensive technical analysis and favorable feedback from the impacted States and the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, PHMSA hereby grants Rockies Express' waiver request with the following supplemental safety criteria: Pipe and Material Quality 1. Steel Properties: The skelp/plate must be micro alloyed, fine grain, fully killed steel with calcium treatment and continuous casting. 2. Manufacturing Standards: The pipe must be manufactured according to American Petroleum Institute

(API)standard 5L, product specification level

(PSL)2, and supplementary requirements

(SR)for maximum operating pressures and minimum operating temperatures. Pipe carbon equivalents must be at or below 0.25 based on the material chemistry parameter

(Pcm)formula. 3. Fracture Control: The API standard 5L and other standards address steel pipe toughness properties needed to resist initiation and propagation, and arrest

(stop)a pipeline failure caused by a fracture. Rockies Express must institute an overall fracture control plan addressing steel pipe properties necessary to resist and arrest this condition within 6 pipe joints. The plan must include acceptable Charpy Impact and Drop Weight Tear Test values, which are measures of a steel pipeline's toughness and resistance to fracture. The fracture control plan must also be in accordance with API standard 5L, Appendix F and must include the following tests: •

(a)SR 5A—Fracture Toughness Testing for Shear Area: Test results must be at least 80 percent of the minimum average shear area for all heats with a minimum result of 80 percent shear area for any single test; •

(b)SR 5B—Fracture Toughness Testing for Absorbed Energy; and •

(c)SR 6—Fracture Toughness Testing by Drop Weight Tear Test: Test results must be at least 80 percent of the average shear area for all heats with a minimum result of 60 percent of the shear area for any single test. The above fracture initiation, propagation and arrest plan must account for the entire range of pipeline operating temperatures, pressures and gas compositions planned for the pipeline diameter, grade, and operating stress level associated with this wavier. 4. Steel Plate Quality Control: The steel mill and/or pipe rolling mill must incorporate a comprehensive plate/coil mill and pipe mill inspection program to check for defects and inclusions that could affect the pipe quality. This program must include a plate (body and all ends) ultrasonic testing

(UT)inspection program to check for imperfections such as laminations. An inspection protocol for centerline segregation evaluation using a test method referred to as slab macro-etching must be employed to check for inclusions that may form as the steel plate cools after it has been cast. A minimum of one macro-etch test must be performed from the first heat (manufacturing run) of each sequence (approximately 4 heats) and graded on the Mannesmann scale or equivalent. Test results with a Mannesmann scale rating of one or two out of a possible five are acceptable. 5. Pipe Seam Quality Control: A quality assurance program must be instituted for pipe weld seams. The pipe weld seam tests must meet the minimum requirements for tensile strength in API standard 5L for the appropriate pipe grade properties. A pipe weld seam hardness test using the Vickers hardness testing of a cross-section from the weld seam must be performed on one length of pipe from each heat. The maximum weld seam and heat affected zone hardness must be a maximum of 280 Vickers hardness. The hardness tests must include a minimum of 3 readings for each heat affected zone, 3 readings in the weld metal, and 2 readings in each section of pipe base metal for a total of 13 readings. The pipe weld seam must be 100 percent ultrasonically tested after expansion and hydrostatic testing per APL standard 5L. 6. Puncture Resistance: Steel pipe will be puncture resistant to 35 ton. Puncture resistance will be calculated based on industry established calculations such as the Pipeline Research Council International's “Reliability Based Prevention of Mechanical Damage to Pipelines” calculation method. 7. Mill Hydrostatic Test: The pipe must be subjected to a mill hydrostatic test pressure of 95 percent SMYS or greater for 10 seconds. 8. Pipe Coating: The application of a corrosion resistant coating to the steel pipe must be subject to a coating application quality control program. The program must address pipe surface cleanliness standards, blast cleaning, application temperature control, adhesion, cathodic disbondment, moisture permeation, bending, minimum coating thickness, coating imperfections, and coating repair. 9. Field Coating: A field girth weld joint coating application specification and quality standards to ensure pipe surface cleanliness, application temperature control, adhesion quality, cathodic disbondment, moisture permeation, bending, minimum coating thickness, holiday detection, and repair quality must be implemented in field conditions. Field joint coatings must be non-shielding to CP. Field coating applicators must use valid coating procedures and be trained to use these procedures. 10. Coatings for Trenchless Installation: Coatings used for directional bore, slick bore, and other trenchless installation methods must resist abrasions and other damages that may occur due to rocks and other obstructions encountered in this installation technique. 11. Bends Quality: Certification records of factory induction bends and/or factory weld bends must be obtained and retained. All bends, flanges, and fittings must have carbon equivalents

(CE)below 0.42 or a pre-heat procedure prior to welding for CE above 0.42. 12. Fittings: All pressure rated fittings and components (including flanges, valves, gaskets, pressure vessels, and compressors) must be rated for a pressure rating commensurate with the MAOP and class location of the pipeline. Designed fittings (including tees, elbows and caps) must have the same design factors as the adjacent pipe class location. 13. Design Factor—Stations: Compressor and meter stations must be designed using a design factor of 0.50 in accordance with § 192.111. 14. Temperature Control: The compressor station discharge temperature must be limited to 120° Fahrenheit or a temperature below the maximum long-term operating temperature for the pipe coating. 15. Overpressure Protection Control: Mainline pipeline overpressure protection must be limited to a maximum of 104 percent MAOP. 16. Welding Procedures: Automated or manual welding procedure documentation must be submitted to the appropriate PHMSA regional office. The PHMSA's regional office must be notified within 14 days before welding procedure qualification activities. 17. Depth of Cover: The soil cover must be a minimum of 36 inches except in areas where threats from chisel plowing or other activities require the top of the pipeline to be installed one foot below the deepest penetration. Construction 18. Construction Quality: A construction quality assurance plan to ensure quality standards and controls must be maintained throughout the construction phase with respect to: Inspection, pipe hauling and stringing, field bending, welding, non-destructive examination

(NDE)of girth welds, field joint coating, pipeline coating integrity tests, lowering of the pipeline in the ditch, padding materials to protect the pipeline, backfilling, alternating current

(AC)interference mitigation and CP systems. All girth welds must be non-destructively examined by radiography or alternative means. The NDE examiner must have all required certifications that are current. 19. Interference Currents Control: Control of induced AC from parallel electric transmission lines and other interference issues that may affect the pipeline must be incorporated into the design of the pipeline and addressed during the construction phase. Issues identified and not originally addressed in the design phase must be brought to PHMSA's attention. An induced AC program to protect the pipeline from corrosion caused by stray currents must be in place within six months after placing the pipeline in service. Pre-In Service Hydrostatic Pressure Test 20. Test Level: The pre-in service hydrostatic test must be to a pressure producing a hoop stress on 0.8 designed class 1 pipe of at least 100 percent SMYS and 1.25 X MAOP. 21. Assessment of Test Failures: Any pipe failure occurring during the pre-in service hydrostatic test must undergo a root cause failure analysis to include a metallurgical examination of the failed pipe. The results of this examination must preclude a systemic pipeline material issue and the results must be reported to PHMSA headquarters and the appropriate PHMSA regional office. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) 22. SCADA System Capabilities: A SCADA system to provide remote monitoring and control of the entire pipeline system must be employed. 23. Mainline Valve Control: Mainline valves that reside on either side of pipeline segment containing a High Consequence Area

(HCA)where personnel response time to the valve exceeds one

(1)hour must be remotely controlled by the SCADA system. The SCADA system must be capable of opening and closing the valve and monitoring the valve position, upstream pressure and downstream pressure. As an alternative, a leak detection system for mainline valve control is acceptable. 24. SCADA Procedures: A detailed procedure for establishing and maintaining accurate SCADA set points must be established to ensure the pipeline operates within acceptable design limits at all times. Operations and Maintenance 25. Leak Reporting: Rockies Express must notify the appropriate PHMSA regional office within 24 hours of any non-reportable leaks occurring on the pipeline. 26. Annual Reporting: Following approval of the waiver, Rockies Express must annually report the following: • The results of any in-line inspection

(ILI)or direct assessment results performed within the waiver area during the previous year; • Any new integrity threats identified within the waiver area during the previous year; • Any encroachment in the waiver area, including the number of new residences or public gathering areas; • Any reportable incidents associated with the waiver area that occurred during the previous year; • Any leaks on the pipeline in the waiver area that occurred during the previous year; • A list of all repairs on the pipeline in the waiver area made during the previous year; • On-going damage prevention initiatives on the pipeline in the waiver area and a discussion of their success; and • Any company mergers, acquisitions, transfers of assets, or other events affecting the regulatory responsibility of the company operating the pipeline to which this waiver applies. 27. Pipeline Inspection: The pipeline must be capable of passing ILI. All headers and other segments covered under this waiver that do not allow the passage of an ILI device must have a corrosion mitigation plan. 28. Gas Quality Monitoring and Control: An acceptable gas quality monitoring and mitigation program must be instituted to not exceed the following limits: a. H 2 S (4 grains maximum); b. CO 2 (3 percent maximum); c. H 2 O (less than or equal to 7 pounds per million standard cubic feet and no free water); and d. Other deleterious constituents that may impact the integrity of the pipeline must be instituted. Filters/separators must be installed at locations where gas is received into the pipeline to minimize the entry of contaminants and to protect the integrity of downstream pipeline segments. Gas quality monitoring equipment must be installed to permit the operator to manage the introduction of contaminants and free liquids into the pipeline. 29. Cathodic Protection: The initial CP system must be operational within 12 months of placing the pipeline in service. 30. Interference Current Surveys: Interference surveys must be performed within six months of placing the pipeline in service to ensure compliance with applicable NACE International

(NACE)standards (Recommended Practice

(RP)0169 and RP 0177) for interference current levels. 31. Corrosion Surveys: Corrosion surveys of the affected pipeline must be completed within six months of placing the respective CP system(s) in operation to ensure CP (in accordance with the NACE standard RP 0169, paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3), test stations, AC interference mitigation, and AC grounding programs (NACE standard RP 0177) are being implemented along the pipeline. 32. Verification of Cathodic Protection: A close interval survey

(CIS)must be performed in concert with ILI in accordance with subpart O reassessment intervals for all HCA pipeline mileage. If any annual test point readings fall below subpart I requirements, remediation must be performed and must include a CIS on either side of the affected test point to ensure corrosion control. 33. Pipeline Markers: Rockies Express must employ line-of-sight markings on the pipeline in the waiver area except in agricultural areas, subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permits or environmental permits and local restrictions. 34. Pipeline Patrolling: Pipeline patrolling must be conducted at least monthly to inspect for excavation activities, ground movement, wash-outs, leakage, and/or other activities and conditions affecting the safe operation of the pipeline. 35. Monitoring of Ground Movement: An effective monitoring/mitigation plan must be in place to monitor for and mitigate issues of unstable soil and ground movement. Integrity Management 36. Review of Risk Assessment Calculations: A copy of the C-FER PIRAMID risk analysis report regarding the pipe subject to this waiver must be submitted to PHMSA Headquarters. 37. Initial ILI: A baseline ILI must be performed in association with the construction of the pipeline using a high-resolution Magnetic Flux Leakage

(MFL)tool within three years of placing a pipeline segment in service. A geometry tool must be launched either prior to placing the pipeline in service, or no later than six months after placing the pipeline in service. 38. Future ILI: A second high-resolution MFL inspection must be performed and completed on the pipe subject to this waiver within the first reassessment interval required by subpart O, regardless of HCA classification. Future ILI must be performed on a frequency consistent with subpart O for the entire pipeline covered by this waiver. 39. Direct Assessment Plan: Headers, mainline valve bypasses, and other sections covered by this waiver that cannot accommodate ILI tools must be part of a Direct Assessment

(DA)plan or other acceptable integrity monitoring method. 40. Initial CIS: A CIS must be performed on the pipeline within one year of completion of the installation of CP systems. The CIS results must be integrated with the baseline ILI to determine whether further action is needed. 41. Damage Prevention Program: Common Ground Alliance's damage prevention best practices must be incorporated into the Rockies Express damage prevention program. 42. Class 2 and 3 Pipe: Pipe installed in Class 2 and Class 3 locations must use stress factors of 0.60 and 0.50 as required in § 192.111. Pipe in road and railroad crossings must meet the requirements of § 192.111. 43. Anomaly Evaluation and Repair: Anomaly evaluations and repairs must be performed based upon the following: • *Anomaly Response Time* ○ Any anomaly with a failure pressure ratio

(FPR)equal to or less than 1.1 must be treated as an “immediate” per subpart O. ○ Any anomaly with an FPR equal to or less than 1.25 must be remediated within 12 months per subpart O. ○ Any anomaly with an FPR greater than 1.25 must have a remediation schedule per subpart O. • *Anomaly Repair Criteria* ○ Segments operating at MAOP equal to 80 percent stress level—any anomaly evaluated and found to have an FPR equal to or less than 1.25 must be repaired. ○ Segments operating at MAOP equal to 66 percent stress level—any anomaly evaluated and found to have an FPR equal to or less than 1.50 must be repaired. ○ Segments operating at MAOP equal to 56 percent stress level—any anomaly evaluated and found to have an FPR equal to or less than 1.80 must be repaired. a. All other pipe segments with anomalies not repaired must be reassessed according to subpart O and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

(ASME)standard B31.8S requirements. Each anomaly not repaired must have a corrosion growth rate and ILI tool tolerance assigned to it per the Gas Integrity Management Program

(IMP)to determine the maximum re-inspection interval. b. Rockies Express must confirm the remaining strength (R-STRENG) effective area method, R-STRENG—0.85dL, and ASME standard B31G assessment methods are valid for their pipe diameter, wall thickness, grade, operating pressure, operating stress level, and operating temperature. If it is not valid, Rockies Express must confirm a valid evaluation method to PHMSA. Until confirmation of the previously mentioned anomaly assessment calculations has been performed, Rockies Express must use the most conservative of the calculations for anomaly evaluation. c. Dents must be evaluated and repaired per § 192.309(b)(ii) and § 192.933(d)(l)(ii). 44. Preliminary Criteria Reporting: A preliminary report describing the results, completion dates and status of the supplementary requirements must be completed for the western and eastern segments of the pipeline and submitted to PHMSA Headquarters and the appropriate PHMSA regional office prior to commencing construction of each segment. 45. Criteria Completion Reporting: A report describing results, completion dates and status of the outstanding supplementary requirements must be submitted to PHMSA Headquarters and the appropriate regional office within 180 days after completion of the western pipeline segment. A similar report must be completed within 180 days of completion of the eastern segment and submitted to PHMSA Headquarters and the appropriate PHMSA regional office. A follow-up report must be submitted for the western and eastern segments after the baseline ILI run has been performed with assessment and integration of the results. A final report must be submitted upon completion of the second ILI run for the western and eastern segments. These reports must be submitted to PHMSA Headquarters and the appropriate PHMSA regional office. 46. Potential Impact Radius Calculation Updates: If the pipeline operating pressures and gas quality are determined to be outside the parameters of the C-FER Study, a new study with the uprated parameters must be incorporated into the IMP. If at anytime PHMSA determines the effect of the waiver is inconsistent with pipeline safety, PHMSA will revoke the waiver at its sole discretion. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118

(c)and 49 CFR 1.53. Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 2006. Theodore L. Willke, Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety. [FR Doc. 06-6105 Filed 7-6-06; 9:10 am]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

U.S. Code