Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53049

into the United States unless NHTSA

has decided that the motor vehicle is

substantially similar to a motor vehicle

originally manufactured for importation

into and sale in the United States,

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of

the same model year as the model of the

motor vehicle to be compared, and is

capable of being readily altered to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale,

Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’)

(Registered Importer 90–009) has

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1987–1995 BMW K75S motorcycles are

eligible for importation into the United

States. The vehicles which Champagne

believes are substantially similar are

1987–1995 BMW K75S motorcycles that

were manufactured for importation into,

and sale in, the United States and

certified by their manufacturer,

Bayerische Motorenwerke A.G., as

conforming to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared non-U.S. certified 1987–1995

BMW K75S motorcycles to their U.S.

certified counterparts, and found the

vehicles to be substantially similar with

respect to compliance with most Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

Champagne submitted information

with its petition intended to

demonstrate that non-U.S. certified

1987–1995 BMW K75S motorcycles, as

originally manufactured, conform to

many Federal motor vehicle safety

standards in the same manner as their

U.S. certified counterparts, or are

capable of being readily altered to

conform to those standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

non-U.S. certified 1987–1995 BMW

K75S motorcycles are identical to their

U.S. certified counterparts with respect

to compliance with Standard Nos. 106

Brake Hoses, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 116

Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires

for Vehicles other than Passenger Cars,

and 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicles are capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment:

installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies.

Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and

Rims for Vehicles other than Passenger

Cars: installation of a tire information

placard.

Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls

and Displays: installation of a U.S.

model speedometer calibrated in miles

per hour.

The petitioner also states that vehicle

identification number plates meeting

the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565

will be affixed to non-U.S. certified

1987–1995 BMW K75S motorcycles.

Comments should refer to the docket

number and be submitted to: Docket

Section, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated above will be considered, and

will be available for examination in the

docket at the above address both before

and after that date. To the extent

possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: October 7, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 97–27007 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

[Docket No. RSPA–97–2968 (PDA–17(R))]

Application by William E. Comley, Inc.

and TWC Transportation Corporation

for a Preemption Determination as to

Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

Requirements for Cargo Tanks

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Public notice and invitation to

comment.

SUMMARY: Interested parties are invited

to submit comments on an application

by William E. Comley, Inc. and TWC

Transportation Corporation for an

administrative determination whether

Federal hazardous materials

transportation law preempts

requirements enforced by the Public

Utilities Commission of Ohio

concerning the transportation of

hypochlorite solutions in non-DOT

specification cargo tank motor vehicles.

DATES: Comments received on or before

November 24, 1997, and rebuttal

comments received on or before

December 9, 1997, will be considered

before an administrative ruling is issued

by RSPA’s Associate Administrator for

Hazardous Materials Safety. Rebuttal

comments may discuss only those

issues raised by comments received

during the initial comment period and

may not discuss new issues.

ADDRESSES: The application and all

comments received may be reviewed in

the Dockets Office, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590–0001. Comments may be

submitted to the Dockets Office at the

above address. Three copies of each

written comment should be submitted.

Comments may also be submitted by Email to ‘‘rspa.counsel@rspa.dot.gov.’’

Each comment should refer to the

Docket Number set forth above.

A copy of each comment must also be

sent to (1) Mr. William E. Comley, Sr.,

Chairman, WECCO/TWC, 28 Kenton

Lands Road, P.O. Box 18580, Erlanger,

KY 41018, and (2) Mr. William L.

Wright, Assistant Attorney General,

Public Utilities Section, 180 East Broad

Street, Columbus, OH 43215–3793. A

certification that a copy has been sent to

these persons must also be included

with the comment. (The following

format is suggested: ‘‘I certify that

copies of this comment have been sent

to Messrs. Comley and Wright at the

addresses specified in the Federal

Register.’’)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frazer C. Hilder, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Research and Special Programs

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Washington, DC 20590–

0001 (Tel. No. 202–366–4400).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Application for a Preemption

Determination

William E. Comley, Inc. (WECCO) and

TWC Transportation Corporation (TWC)

have applied for a determination that

Federal hazardous material

transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et

seq., preempts certain requirements of

the State of Ohio, enforced by the Public

Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO),
53050 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

with respect to cargo tank motor

vehicles used to transport hypochlorite

solutions. This application arises out of

enforcement proceedings brought by

PUCO against WECCO and TWC for

transporting hypochlorite solutions in

non-DOT specification cargo tank motor

vehicles. These companies have

provided documents, including

opinions and orders of PUCO, that

indicate the following:

1. WECCO’s truck No. 88 was

inspected by PUCO on June 3 and

September 26, 1991, and WECCO was

cited both times for several violations

including transporting hypochlorite

solution in an unauthorized package.

2. At the time of PUCO’s 1991

inspections, truck No. 88 did not have

any specification plate. Sometime

thereafter, WECCO attached

specification plates to its three cargo

tanks, including truck No. 88.

3. In its December 17, 1992 Opinion

and Order relating to the 1991 citations,

PUCO found that, ‘‘in order to be an

authorized package for the

transportation of sodium hypochlorite

under HMR 49 CFR 173.277(a)(9),

respondent’s tank must be classified as

an MC 310, MC 311, MC 312 or DOT

412 cargo tank.’’ PUCO also found that

truck No. 88 ‘‘has several design flaws

which prevent it from qualifying under

the HMR as a specification MC 312

cargo tank.’’ PUCO assessed a fine of

$11,470 against WECCO, which

included $10,750 for violations of 49

CFR 173.277, transporting hazardous

material in an unauthorized package

and willful misrepresentation of cargo

tank certification. Of the total fine,

$5,000 was suspended for six months.

4. Truck No. 88, which had been

transferred by WECCO to TWC, was

inspected by PUCO on June 22, 1993,

and TWC was cited for eight violations

including leaking closures, transporting

hypochlorite solution in an

unauthorized package, and

misrepresenting that the package met

the MC 312 specification. On PUCO’s

hazardous materials report form, the

contents of the cargo tank is indicated

as ‘‘Hypochlorite Solution, PG III.’’

5. TWC’s truck No. 66 was inspected

by PUCO on July 3, 1993, and TWC was

cited for seven violations including

leaking closures, transporting

hypochlorite solution in an

unauthorized package, and

misrepresenting that the package met

the MC 312 specification. On WECCO’s

shipping paper attached to PUCO’s

hazardous materials report form, the

hypochlorite solution is classed within

‘‘PG III.’’

6. In its October 25, 1995 Opinion and

Order relating to the 1993 citations,

PUCO found that ‘‘numerous defects for

both cargo tanks (Nos. 88 and 66) * * *

preclude either from meeting the

specifications of an MC 312 cargo tank.’’

PUCO also stated that whether or not

TWC ‘‘need[ed] an MC 312 certified

cargo tank to haul sodium hypochlorite

solution of the concentration involved

in these cases * * * is not an issue

before us and respondent has not been

charged with any such violation.’’

PUCO assessed a total civil forfeiture of

$14,290.50 against TWC for violations

which included transporting

hypochlorite solution in unauthorized

packages and in tanks misrepresented as

meeting MC 312 specifications, in

violation of 49 CFR 173.33(a) and 49

CFR 171.2(c), respectively.

Based on telephone conversations with

WECCO and PUCO, RSPA understands

that no part of the fines or civil

forfeitures assessed against WECCO and

TWC has been paid, and PUCO is

currently seeking to collect these

penalties.

The State of Ohio has adopted (as

State law) the requirements in the

Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR,

49 CFR parts 171–180) applicable to

highway transportation of hazardous

materials, including hypochlorite

solutions. Under the HMR, since

January 1, 1991, hypochlorite solutions

containing more than 5% but less than

16% available chlorine may be

transported in ‘‘non-DOT specification

cargo tank motor vehicles suitable for

transportation of liquids’’ and which

also meet the general requirements for

bulk packagings set forth in 49 CFR

173.24 and 173.24b. 49 CFR 173.241(b);

see also 172.101 (Hazardous Materials

Table). (At present, hypochlorite

solutions up to 5% available chlorine

are not subject to the HMR. During a

transition period that continued until

October 1, 1996, the HMR also

authorized the transportation of

hypochlorite solutions containing up to

7% available chlorine by weight

transported in nonspecification cargo

tanks that were ‘‘free from leaks and

[with] all discharge openings * * *

securely closed during transportation.’’

49 CFR 173.510 (1990 ed.))

According to WECCO and TWC, in

the course of these enforcement

proceedings, PUCO has required the use

of a DOT specification cargo tank motor

vehicle, bearing a specification plate, for

transportation of hypochlorite solutions

containing more than 5% but less than

16% available chlorine. These

companies also assert that PUCO has

required cargo tank motor vehicles built

under the MC 312 specification, that are

unloaded at a pressure less than 15 psig,

to be designed and constructed in

accordance with the ASME code and

also required the certification of MC 312

cargo tank motor vehicles in some

manner other than as specified in the

HMR.

In comments addressed to this

application, PUCO has stated that its

policy is to enforce the requirements in

the HMR ‘‘aggressively yet fairly.’’ It

stated that the focus of its enforcement

proceedings against WECCO and TWC

was the misrepresentation of these two

cargo tank motor vehicles as meeting the

MC 312 specification, when PUCO

‘‘specifically found that the cargo tanks

in question did not meet MC 312

specifications.’’ PUCO also stated that it

allows the use of non-specification

cargo tank motor vehicles for the

transportation of hypochlorite solutions

with less than 16% available chlorine,

but that WECCO and TWC have never

provided any evidence on the

concentration of the sodium

hypochlorite solution being transported

in their trucks.

Although WECCO and TWC assert

that their cargo tanks were constructed

to ASME requirements, and had wall,

head, and lining thicknesses that

exceeded requirements for specification

MC 312 cargo tank motor vehicles, their

application does not contain an

assertion that these trucks actually meet

DOT’s MC 312 specification. Rather, the

applicants state that specification plates

are not required for these vehicles to

transport sodium hypochlorite with less

than 16% available chlorine, but that

specification plates were applied to

their trucks only to satisfy PUCO’s

insistence that a specification cargo tank

motor vehicle was required for the

transportation of this material. RSPA

notes that the misrepresentation of any

packaging as qualified for the

transportation of a hazardous material is

a serious violation of both 49 U.S.C.

5104(a) and the HMR, whether or not

that packaging is actually used for the

transportation of hazardous materials.

However, because there is no evidence

that PUCO has enforced design,

construction, and operational

requirements for MC 312 specification

cargo tanks against these companies in

any manner different from that specified

in the HMR, issues relating to PUCO’s

assessment of penalties for

misrepresenting cargo tank motor

vehicles as meeting the MC 312

specification are not part of this

proceeding.

The application submitted by WECCO

and TWC is being considered solely

with respect to issues that concern

whether PUCO has required the use of

a specification cargo tank motor vehicle
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices 53051

for the transportation of sodium

hypochlorite with less than 16%

available chlorine, after January 1, 1991.

Neither the applicants nor PUCO has

provided RSPA with copies of shipping

papers or other documents to indicate

the concentration of the sodium

hypochlorite in the 1991 shipments.

However, as stated above, the PUCO

hazardous materials report forms for the

June and July 1993 inspections (as

provided by WECCO and TWC) indicate

that the hypochlorite solutions were

classed as Packing Group III materials.

Packing Group III applies to

hypochlorite solutions with more than

5% but less than 16% available

chlorine. 49 CFR 172.101.

The following materials have been

placed in the public docket of this

proceeding:

Mr. Comley’s April 24, 1997

application for a preemption

determination and attachments.

RSPA’s May 7, 1997 letter dismissing

Mr. Comley’s application.

Mr. Comley’s May 12, 1997

reapplication for a preemption

determination, with attachments.

RSPA’s May 23, 1997 letter requesting

additional information.

Mr. Comley’s May 29, 1997 letter and

attachments.

PUCO’s July 8, 1997 letter and

attachments.

Copies of these materials will be

provided at no cost upon request to

RSPA’s Dockets Unit, located in Room

8421, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone

202–366–4453.

II. Federal Preemption

The Hazardous Materials

Transportation Act (HMTA) was

enacted in 1975 to give the Department

of Transportation greater authority ‘‘to

protect the Nation adequately against

the risks to life and property which are

inherent in the transportation of

hazardous materials in commerce.’’ Pub.

L. 93–633 § 102, 88 Stat. 2156, amended

by Pub. L. 103–272 and codified as

revised in 49 U.S.C. 5101. The HMTA

‘‘replace[d] a patchwork of state and

federal laws and regulations * * * with

a scheme of uniform, national

regulations.’’ Southern Pac. Transp. Co.

v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 909 F.2d 352,

353 (9th Cir. 1980). On July 5, 1994, the

HMTA was among the many Federal

laws relating to transportation that were

revised, codified and enacted ‘‘without

substantive change’’ by Pub. L. 103–272,

108 Stat. 745. The Federal hazardous

material transportation law is now

found in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51.

A statutory provision for Federal

preemption was central to the HMTA. In

1974, the Senate Commerce Committee

‘‘endorse[d] the principle of preemption

in order to preclude a multiplicity of

State and local regulations and the

potential for varying as well as

conflicting regulations in the area of

hazardous materials transportation.’’ S.

Rep. No. 1102, 93rd Cong. 2nd Sess. 37

(1974). More recently, a Federal Court of

Appeals found that uniformity was the

‘‘linchpin’’ in the design of the HMTA,

including the 1990 amendments which

expanded the preemption provisions.

Colorado Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Harmon,

951 F.2d 1571, 1575 (10th Cir. 1991). In

1990, Congress specifically found that:

(3) many States and localities have enacted

laws and regulations which vary from

Federal laws and regulations pertaining to

the transportation of hazardous materials,

thereby creating the potential for

unreasonable hazards in other jurisdictions

and confounding shippers and carriers which

attempt to comply with multiple and

conflicting registration, permitting, routing,

notification, and other regulatory

requirements,

(4) because of the potential risks to life,

property, and the environment posed by

unintentional releases of hazardous

materials, consistency in laws and

regulations governing the transportation of

hazardous materials is necessary and

desirable,

(5) in order to achieve greater uniformity

and to promote the public health, welfare,

and safety at all levels, Federal standards for

regulating the transportation of hazardous

materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign

commerce are necessary and desirable.

Pub. L. 101–615 § 2, 104 Stat. 3244.

Following the 1990 amendments and

the subsequent 1994 codification of the

Federal hazardous material

transportation law, in the absence of a

waiver of preemption by DOT under 49

U.S.C. 5125(e), ‘‘a requirement of a

State, political subdivision of a State, or

Indian tribe’’ is explicitly preempted

(unless it is authorized by another

Federal law) if

(1) complying with a requirement of the

State, political subdivision or tribe and a

requirement of this chapter or a regulation

issued under this chapter is not possible; or

(2) the requirement of the State, political

subdivision, or Indian tribe, as applied or

enforced, is an obstacle to accomplishing and

carrying out this chapter or a regulation

prescribed under this chapter.

49 U.S.C. 5125(a). These two paragraphs

set forth the ‘‘dual compliance’’ and

‘‘obstacle’’ criteria which RSPA had

applied in issuing inconsistency rulings

before 1990. While advisory in nature,

these inconsistency rulings were ‘‘an

alternative to litigation for a

determination of the relationship of

Federal and State or local requirements’’

and also a possible ‘‘basis for an

application * * * [for] a waiver of

preemption.’’ Inconsistency Ruling (IR)

No. 2, Rhode Island Rules and

Regulations Governing the

Transportation of Liquefied Natural Gas

and Liquefied Propane Gas, etc. 44 FR

75566, 76657 (Dec. 20, 1979). The dual

compliance and obstacle criteria are

based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions

on preemption. Hines v. Davidowitz,

312 U.S. 52 (1941); Florida Lime &

Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S.

132 (1963); Ray v. Atlantic Richfield,

Inc., 435 U.S. 151 (1978).

In the 1990 amendments, Congress

also confirmed that there is no room for

differences from Federal requirements

in certain key matters involving the

transportation of hazardous material. As

now codified, a non-Federal

requirement ‘‘about any of the following

subjects, that is not substantively the

same as a provision of this chapter or a

regulation prescribed under this

chapter,’’ is preempted unless it is

authorized by another Federal law or

DOT grants a waiver of preemption:

(A) the designation, description, and

classification of hazardous material.

(B) the packing, repacking, handling,

labeling, marking, and placarding of

hazardous material.

(C) the preparation, execution, and use of

shipping documents related to hazardous

material and requirements related to the

number, contents, and placement of those

documents.

(D) the written notification, recording, and

reporting of the unintentional release in

transportation of hazardous material.

(E) the design, manufacturing, fabricating,

marking, maintenance, reconditioning,

repairing, or testing of a packaging or a

container represented, marked, certified, or

sold as qualified for use in transporting

hazardous material.

49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1). RSPA has defined

‘‘substantively the same’’ to mean

‘‘conforms in every significant respect to

the Federal requirement. Editorial and

other similar de minimis changes are

permitted.’’ 49 CFR 107.202(d).

Under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d)(1), any

directly affected person may apply to

the Secretary of Transportation for a

determination whether a State, political

subdivision or Indian tribe requirement

is preempted. This administrative

determination replaced RSPA’s process

for issuing inconsistency rulings. The

Secretary of Transportation has

delegated to RSPA the authority to make

determinations of preemption, except

for those concerning highway routing

which have been delegated to FHWA.

49 CFR 1.53(b). Under RSPA’s

regulations, preemption determinations

are issued by RSPA’s Associate

Administrator for Hazardous Materials

Safety. 49 CFR 107.209(a).
53052 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 1997 / Notices

Section 5125(d)(1) requires that notice

of an application for a preemption

determination must be published in the

Federal Register. Id. Following the

receipt and consideration of written

comments, RSPA publishes its

determination in the Federal Register.

See 49 CFR 107.209(d). A short period

of time is allowed for filing of petitions

for reconsideration. 49 C.F.R. 107.211.

Any party to the proceeding may seek

judicial review in a Federal district

court. 49 U.S.C. 5125(f).

RSPA’s authority to issue preemption

determinations does not provide a

means for review or appeal of State

enforcement proceedings, nor does

RSPA consider any of the State’s

procedural requirements applied in an

enforcement proceedings. The filing of

an application for a preemption

determination does not operate to stay

a State enforcement proceeding.

Preemption determinations do not

address issues of preemption arising

under the Commerce Clause of the

Constitution or under statutes other

than the Federal hazardous material

transportation law unless it is necessary

to do so in order to determine whether

a requirement is authorized by another

Federal law. A State, local or Indian

tribe requirement is not authorized by

another Federal law merely because it is

not preempted by another Federal

statute. Colorado Pub. Util. Comm’n v.

Harmon, above, 951 F.2d at 1581 n.10.

In making preemption determinations

under 49 U.S.C. 5125(d), RSPA is

guided by the principles and policy set

forth in Executive Order No. 12,612,

entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (52 FR 41685,

Oct. 30, 1987). Section 4(a) of that

Executive Order authorizes preemption

of State laws only when a statute

contains an express preemption

provision, there is other firm and

palpable evidence of Congressional

intent to preempt, or the exercise of

State authority directly conflicts with

the exercise of Federal authority.

Section 5125 contains express

preemption provisions, which RSPA has

implemented through its regulations.

III. Public Comment

Comments should be limited to

whether Federal hazardous material

transportation law preempts a

requirement allegedly applied and

enforced by PUCO, after January 1,

1991, for the use of a DOT specification

cargo tank motor vehicle for the

transportation of hypochlorite solutions

containing more than 5% and less than

16% available chlorine. WECCO and

TWC have not provided any evidence to

indicate that PUCO enforces different

requirements for the design,

construction, and certification of MC

312 specification cargo tank motor

vehicles. In addition, allegations in the

application relating to PUCO’s

procedures for holding hearings and

assessing penalties are not subject to

this proceeding.

Persons submitting comments should:

(1) Set forth in detail the manner in

which PUCO applies and enforces

requirements for transportation of

hypochlorite solution with more than

5% but less than 16% available

chlorine; and

(2) Specifically address whether

PUCO has enforced a requirement

concerning the packing of a hazardous

material that is ‘‘not substantively the

same as’’ the requirements in the HMR.

Comments may also address the ‘‘dual

compliance’’ and ‘‘obstacle’’ criteria

described in Part II, above.

Persons intending to comment should

review the standards and procedures

governing RSPA’s consideration of

applications for preemption

determinations, set forth at 49 CFR

107.201–107.211.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 3,

1997.

Alan I. Roberts,

Associate Administrator for Hazardous

Materials Safety.

[FR Doc. 97–26918 Filed 10–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT

[Docket No. PS–142; Notice 9]

Pipeline Safety: Remaining Candidates

for the Pipeline Risk Management

Demonstration Program

AGENCY: Office of Pipeline Safety, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Research and Special

Programs Administration’s (RSPA)

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has

completed screening of twelve

candidate companies for the Pipeline

Risk Management Demonstration

Program. OPS named and described the

first three companies screened

(Northwest Pipeline Corporation, Shell

Pipe Line Corporation, Tennessee Gas

Pipeline/East Tennessee Natural Gas) in

a previous notice. The nine additional

companies screened subsequent to that

notice are: Chevron Pipe Line Company;

CNG Transmission Corporation;

Columbia Gas Transmission

Corporation/Columbia Gulf

Transmission Company; Duke Energy;

Florida Gas Transmission Company;

Lakehead Pipeline Company; Mobil

Pipe Line Company; Natural Gas

Pipeline Company of America; and

Phillips Pipe Line Company. OPS

believes these companies’

demonstration project proposals satisfy

all eligibility criteria, based on a Letter

of Intent (LOI) submitted by each

company to OPS, a subsequent OPS

screening, and an examination of each

company’s safety and environmental

compliance record. Although this notice

does not contain specific details of all

project proposals, OPS believes the

information provided in these

companies’ LOIs was sufficient to justify

proceeding to the consultation process.

Additional information, including

further details of specific project

proposals, will be provided in future

Federal Register notices and other

means of communication. This notice is

based on information obtained very

early in the process. It informs the

public of which companies are

interested in participating, the

technologies to be explored, and the

geographic areas demonstration projects

may traverse. OPS invites public

comment on any aspect of these

companies’ proposals.

Comments: OPS requests that

comments to this notice be submitted on

or before December 9, 1997 so that OPS

can give the comments full

consideration before deciding whether

to approve a company’s proposal.

However, comments on any aspect of

the Demonstration Program, including

the individual projects, will be accepted

in the Docket throughout the 4-year

demonstration period. Comments

should be sent to the Dockets Facility,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

Comments should identify the docket

number (PS–142). Persons should

submit the original document and one

(1) copy. Persons wishing to receive

confirmation of receipt of their

comments must include a self-addressed

stamped postcard. The Dockets Facility

is located on the plaza level of the

Nassif Building in Room 401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC.

The Dockets Facility is open from 10:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eben Wyman, (202) 366–0918 regarding

the subject matter of this notice. Contact

the Dockets Unit, (202) 366–5046, for

docket material.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Appendix

A of the Requests for Applications for

the Pipeline Risk Management