Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Overview of Comments Received from January 1999 FRNPage 1 of 4 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frover. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search:

EPA Home > Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances > Pollution Prevention > Environmentally Preferable Purchasing > EPP Guidance > Standards Development > Overview of Comments From January 1999 FRN on the use of Third Parties in Developing Standards About EPP EPP Guidance Federal Efforts EPP Tool Suite EPP Documents EPP Links Overview of Comments Received from the January 1999 Federal Register Notice on the use of Third Parties in Developing Standards EPA received 20 responses to its Federal Register notice on the Development of Voluntary Consensus Standards for Environmentally Preferable Goods and Services. Seven of the respondents answered some or many of the specific questions posed by EPA; the rest did not. The responders included representatives of the following groups:

Within the manufacturer/ vendor group, three responders offered candidates for pilot projects; these 3 responders are grouped separately from the 9 manufacturers/ responders who did not offer pilot projects.

The following paragraphs summarize recommendations and issues shared by responders grouped as followed: independent SDOs, purchasers, manufacturers/ vendors offering pilot projects, manufacturers/ vendors not offering pilot projects, and the other responders not belonging to any of these groups.

Back to top Independent Standards Organizations Independent SDOs expressed a strong level of interest. One proposed a pilot The Five Guiding Principles EPA's Final Guidance Standards Development Top 20 Priorities Group Number of respondants Independent standards developing organizations ( SDOs) 4 Purchasers 1 Manufacturers/ vendors 12 Associations 8 Companies 4 Other 3 Total 20 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 JUN20 7: 42AM OPPT 2003 0032 0006 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Overview of Comments Received from January 1999 FRNPage 2 of 4 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frover. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 project ( ASTM) and another encouraged EPA to use existing standards ( Green Seal). The scope of the sectors covered by these organizations was either very broad ( ASTM, UL, Green Seal) or narrow ( NSF). Most are ANSI accredited ( ASTM, UL, NSF) or have detailed written procedures ( Green Seal). Most of these SDOs also conduct product certification ( UL, Green Seal, NSF). Outside of the suggested pilot project ( buildings), these responders had little or no information about EPP market needs. These responders offered relatively few recommendations to EPA and raised few other issues. There was some division within the group between advocating a consensus generating process ( NSF) and recommending that EPA not use consensus standards ( Green Seal).

Purchasers One responder, the U. S. Navy, was a purchaser. It recommended extensive criteria that voluntary standards should meet and encouraged EPA to first establish minimum criteria for voluntary consensus standards for EPP.

Manufacturer/ Vendors Offering Pilot Projects Three responders ( Terresolve, NAIMA, RIPA) in the manufacturer/ vendor group offered up pilot project candidates. These responders were all supportive about EPP and demonstrated knowledge of the environmental attributes of their products, especially in regard to competing products.

Manufacturers/ Vendors Not Offering Pilot Projects Manufacturers and vendors, including their associations and representatives, provided the largest number of responses. However, the responses from manufacturers/ vendors not offering pilot projects focused on general issues and not the specific questions listed by EPA. Several of the manufacturer/ vendor responses had a large number of common items and/ or endorsed the responses of other responders in this group.

First, many of these responders recommended that EPA focus its use of voluntary standards on pre selected pilot projects that had the support of the responsible sector. These commenters argued that E. O. 13101, NTTAA, and OMB Circular A 119 limited EPA's use of SDOs to pilot projects or that EPA should as a matter of policy start with pilot projects advocated by industry ( Georgia Pacific, American Forest & Paper Association ( AF& PA), Amway, Eastman Kodak, Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association ( CSMA), Edison Electric Institute ( EEI), Chlorine Chemistry Council ( CCC), and Coalition for Truth in Environmental Marketing Information ( CTEMI)).

Second, many of the responders in this group recommended that EPP standards development should conform to ISO standards, including reasonable efforts to achieve consensus ( Georgia Pacific, AF& PA, Amway, Eastman Kodak, CSMA, EEI, CCC, CTEMI).

Several responders in this group expressed concerns that EPA might be trying to develop a standard for defining such broad terms as " environmentally preferable" ( CSMA, AF& PA, Amway, American Wood Products Institute ( AWPI)) Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Overview of Comments Received from January 1999 FRNPage 3 of 4 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frover. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 and/ or referred to the FTC Guidelines ( Georgia Pacific, AF& PA, Amway, Eastman Kodak, CSMA).

Several responders in this group also expressed concern about adverse market impacts ( Georgia Pacific, AF& PA, Amway, Eastman Kodak, CTEMI). Two recommended that EPA avoid categorically steering agencies toward or away from particular goods and services ( EEI, Amway). Others urged that EPA not initiate new EPP pilot projects on products ( e. g., paper and wood products) that already are being addressed through other programs ( Georgia Pacific, AF& PA, Amway, Eastman Kodak).

Other Not falling into the Independent SDO, Purchaser, or Manufacturer/ Vendor Groups are responders Chemical Compliance Systems, Inc., a consulting firm looking for funding to develop a computerized EPP support tool; the Consumer's Choice Council, a coalition of environmental, labor, and human rights organizations that works to facilitate the identification of environmentally and socially responsive products through third party certification, which made recommendations and raised issues; and the Logistics Management Institute, a nonprofit research and consulting organization, which also made recommendations and raised issues related to EPA's notice. Both the Consumer's Choice Council and the Logistics Management Institute encouraged EPA to take advantage of existing standards and expressed concern that waiting for standards would delay government progress in green purchasing.

Back to top Cross Cutting Issues Degree of Interest in EPP Standards Although there are literally hundreds of organizations involved in voluntary standard setting according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the leading independent SDOs with potential interest in environmentally preferable purchasing ( Green Seal, ASTM, UL, NSF) all responded to EPA's notice.

Degree of Consensus Needed for Standards The major issue that cuts across the five categories relates to the necessary or desirable degree of consensus process needed to develop EPP standards. Positions include ( 1) consensus standards must be used, ( 2) reasonable effort to achieve consensus on standards is sufficient, without requiring consensus, and ( 3) " leadership" standards must be used, not consensus standards. Position 1 is supported by some of the Manufacturer/ Vendor commenters who addressed this issue ( CTEMI, EEI, and CCC) as well as NSF. Position 2 is supported by many of the Manufacturer/ Vendor responders ( Georgia Pacific, AF& PA, Amway, Eastman Kodak, CCC) who addressed this issue. Position 3 is supported by Green Seal and the Consumer's Choice Council. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing  Overview of Comments Received from January 1999 FRNPage 4 of 4 http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frover. htm 6/ 20/ 2003 Who Should Decide the Need for Standards A related issue of great concern to the Manufacturer/ Vendor group  that industry sectors should decide whether EPP standards are needed  was not addressed by the other responders; however, the recommendations of Green Seal and the Consumer's Choice Council for " leadership standards" could be interpreted as in opposition to the Manufacturer/ Vendor group position. A couple of responders, both of whom recommended pilot projects, expressed concerns about misinformation in the marketplace ( AWPI, NAIMA).

Back to top Pollution Prevention Home | OPPT Home EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us Last updated on Friday, May 9th, 2003 URL: http:// www. epa. gov/ opptintr/ epp/ guidance/ frover. htm


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N) were proposed on July 20, 1983, and promulgated on August 4, 1986. The standards were amended on May 31, 1990, to add an alternative test method. These standards apply to each glass melting furnace that uses commercial arsenic as a raw material. These standards do not apply to pot furnaces. Also, rebricking is not considered construction or modification for the purposes of 40 CFR Section 61.05. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Regional Office.

Approximately 28 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no new sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. 2 2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

( A) Establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, arsenic emissions from glass manufacturing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, NESHAP were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of arsenic from glass manufacturing plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of arsenic from glass manufacturing plants are the result of the operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the capture of arsenic emissions using emission control equipment or the reduction of arsenic added to the glass raw materials. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Forecasts of arsenic emissions for the different types of glass melted in a furnace must be calculated so that the steps necessary to achieve compliance are anticipated. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and 3 reporting requirements described in this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the control equipment and achieve compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting is necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The recordkeeping and reporting requested are required under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or local agency. If a State or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2001. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations There has been consultation with two national glass manufacturing associations to estimate the number of facilities subject to this standard. However, neither association was able to provide an accurate estimate. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease. 4 3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are glass manufacturing plants with inorganic arsenic emissions. The SIC ( United States Standard Industrial Classification) codes and corresponding NAICS ( The North American Industry Classification System) codes for the respondents affected by the standards can be found in the table below.

Regulation SIC Codes NAICS Codes 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N 3211 327211 3221 327213 3229 327212 3296 327993 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N, NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants. 5 A source must make the following reports:

Reports for 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N Construction or modification application 61.07 Notification of anticipated startup 61.09( a)( 1)

Notification of actual startup 61.09( a)( 2)

Source status report 61.10( a)

Notification of initial performance test ( emissions test) 61.13( c), 61.165( d)( 1)

Report initial performance test results ( emissions test) 61.13( f), 61.165( d)( 2)

Notification of physical or operational change 61.15 Report of arsenic emission estimates 61.165( d)( 3)

Report of uncontrolled arsenic emission rates 61.165( d)( 4)

Request approval of control device bypass 61.165( e)

Report of results of continuous monitoring system ( CMS) evaluation 61.165( f)( 1)

Semiannual report of excess emissions ( opacity) 61.165( f)( 2)

A source must maintain the following records:

Recordkeeping for 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N Record continuous opacity and temperature of gas entering control device 61.165( a)( 1)

Records of emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions 61.13( g), 61.165( a)( 2)

Records of CMS performance evaluations 61.165( a)( 3)

Occurrence and duration of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of furnace 61.165( a)( 4)

Malfunction of air pollution control device 61.165( a)( 5)

Periods when monitors are inoperative 61.165( a)( 6) 6 Recordkeeping for 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N Maintenance and repair of control device, CMS, or monitor 61.165( a)( 7)

Records of approved control device bypass 61.165( b)

Semiannual records of uncontrolled arsenic emission rate 61.165( c)

Records are required to be retained for two ( 2) years 61.14( f)

( ii.) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity, or for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber.

Perform initial performance test as described in 61.164, using Reference Methods 108, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5D, and repeat performance tests if necessary Write the notifications and reports listed above Enter information required to be recorded above Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information 5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information 7 Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry Audit facility records Input, analyze, and maintain data in the AIRS ( Aerometric Information Retrieval System) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) database 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AFS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, EPA Regional Offices and EPA Headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility 8 A majority of the affected facilities are large entities ( e. g., large businesses). However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed , the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 2: Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing ( 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N).

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the Subpart included in this ICR. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 4,524 labor hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses a Technical Labor Rate of $ 55.34 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2000, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rate is from column 1, " Total compensation." The wage rate has been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. 9 ( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the regulations are labor and continuous emissions monitors ( CEMs). The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Startup Cost ($) for One Affected Facility ( C) Number of New Affected Facilities to Startup ( D) Total Startup ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs ($) for One Affected Facility ( F) Number of Affected Facilities with O& M ( G) Total O& M ( E X F)

Continuous Opacity Monitor n/ a 0 0 $ 3,000 28 $ 84,000 Temperatur e Monitor n/ a 0 0 $ 500 28 $ 14,000 Since there are no new sources anticipated over the next three years, there are no capital costs associated with this information collection. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs, on the OMB 83 I form. It should be noted that the numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 98,000. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M), on the OMB 83 I form.

The total respondent non labor costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 98,000. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 ( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 10 The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AFS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Agency cost during the three ( 3) years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 5,975. The increase in agency burden hours from the previous ICR is due to an omission of a program requirement regarding the Agency review of reports on estimated arsenic emission rates. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total of $ 38.50. This rate is from the Office of Planning and Management's ( OPM) " 2001 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 1: Average Annual EPA Resource Requirement, NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing ( 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N) attached.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Respondent Universe and Number of Responses/ Year Regulation Citation ( A) Number of New Sources/ Year ( B) Number of Reports for New Sources ( C) Number of Existing Sources ( D) Number of Reports for Existing Sources ( F) Number of Recordkeepers that do not submit reports ( E) Total Annual Responses = ( AxB)+( CxD)+ F 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N 0 0 28 1.1 n/ a 31 The number of total respondents is 28. This number is the sum of Column A and Column C of the Respondent Universe table. This represents the number of existing sources plus the number of new sources averaged over the three year period. It is shown in block 13 ( a), Number of respondents, on the OMB 83 I form.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 31. This number includes, reports on the arsenic emissions estimate rates, reports on uncontrolled arsenic emission rates, semiannual excess emission reports, and any requests for control device bypasses. It is shown in block 13 ( b), Total annual responses, on the OMB 83 I form. The total annual labor costs are $ 250,358. This number is not shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c), Total hours requested. Only the burden hours are reflected in block 13( c). Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing ( 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N).

The total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 98,000. This number 11 is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours And Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in industry burden hours from the most recently approved ICR is due to a net adjustment decrease. The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to an decrease in the number of existing sources. The decrease in the number of existing facilities is due to more accurate estimates of existing and anticipated new sources. A small increase is realized due to an increase in the annual labor cost rate from the previous ICR.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's standards are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Ms. Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), Office of Environmental Information, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR Number and OMB Control Number in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register: July 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 32909]
[DOCID:fr09jy09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL09-61-000]

Louisiana Public Service Commission, Complainant v. Entergy
Corporation, Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy
Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc.,
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and Entergy Texas, Inc.,
Respondents; Notice of Complaint

June 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2009, the Louisiana Public Service
Commission filed a formal complaint against Entergy Corp., Entergy
Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., and
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 18 CFR 386.206, alleging that
sales of electric energy by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. to third party power
marketers and others that are not members of the Entergy System
Agreement (System Agreement): (a) Violated the provisions of the System
Agreement that allocate the energy generated by System resources, (b)
imprudently denied the System and its ultimate consumers the benefits
of low-cost System generating capacity, and (c) violated the provisions
of the System Agreement that prohibits sales to third parties by
individual companies absent an offer of a Right-of-First-Refusal to the
other companies.
    The Louisiana Public Service Commission certifies that copies of
the complaint were served on the contacts for Entergy Corp., Entergy
Services, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy
Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., and
Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions or protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16167 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42388-42392]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17615]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0295]
RIN 1625-AA00; 1625-AA11

Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Area; Shell Arctic
Drilling/Exploration Vessels and Associated Voluntary First Amendment
Area, Puget Sound, WA, Extension

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the temporary safety zones and
regulated navigation area that were previously established because the
departure of several of the vessels associated with Royal Dutch Shell's
(Shell) planned Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations have
been delayed. The safety zones and regulated navigation area extended
by this rule are necessary to ensure the mutual safety of all waterways
users including the specified vessels and those individuals that desire
to exercise their First Amendment rights.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from July 17, 2015
through July 31, 2015. For purposes of enforcement, the rule is
effective with actual notice from July 1, 2015 through July 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-0295. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Matthew Beck, Waterways Management Division,
Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable since the regulation is immediately necessary to help
ensure the safety of all waterway users including the specified vessels
and those individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment
rights and holding a notice and comment period at this time would delay
regulatory implementation beyond the departure of the last Shell
contracted vessel and expected First Amendment activities regarding
Shell's operations, thereby increasing the safety risk to all waterways
users.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For reasons identical to those
described above, delaying the effective date until 30 days after
publication would be impracticable since the regulation is immediately
necessary to help ensure the safety of all waterway users.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR
1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Shell is planning Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations
for the spring and summer of 2015. In preparation for those operations,
it is staging a large number of vessels in the Puget Sound area. There
has been a significant amount of First Amendment activity related to
Shell's operations in the Puget Sound during the last month including
the formation of a ``kayak flotilla'' used to exercise the
participating individuals First Amendment rights regarding Shell's
operations in the region. Among other activities, the ``kayak
flotilla'' attempted to block the POLAR PIONEER's departure from
Seattle, Washington. Also, Greenpeace International members conducted
an unauthorized boarding of a Shell contracted vessel on the high seas.
Draft restrictions, vessel maneuvering characteristics, and geographic/
environmental conditions may constrain the ability of large commercial
vessels (the Shell-contracted vessels) to maneuver in close quarters
with other vessels, particularly small craft piloted by recreational
operators. Intentional close-in interaction of these vessels will
create an increased risk of collision, grounding, or personal injury
for all parties. Furthermore, while moored or at anchor the vessels
will have ongoing operations occurring onboard, some of which could
pose a safety risk to other maritime traffic. The myriad of potential
safety risks to all parties and the port itself is best addressed by
mandating a minimum zone of separation. For these reasons, the Coast
Guard believes that safety zones around the Shell-contracted vessels
are necessary to ensure the safety of all waterways users.
    Additionally, the Coast Guard believes that given the nature of the
First Amendment activity expected and the likely type of vessels used
by individuals desiring to express their First Amendment rights, namely
kayaks and other small vessels, a regulated navigation area designating
a Voluntary First Amendment Area is necessary to ensure the safety of
those vessels and persons. The regulated navigation area encompassing
the Voluntary First Amendment Area would do so by establishing it as a
``no wake'' area, which is particularly important for small boats such
as kayaks, to better enable persons and vessels to congregate and
exercise their First Amendment rights safely and without interference
from or interfering with other maritime traffic.
    This rule is extending the rule established at 33 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Sec.  165.T13-289 as published in the Federal
Register (80 FR 23445) due to the fact that the departure from the
Puget Sound of several of the vessels associated with Shell's planned
Arctic oil drilling and exploration operations have been delayed.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    In this rule, the Coast Guard is extending the temporary safety
zones and regulated navigation area established at 33 CFR 165.T13-289
as published in the Federal Register (80 FR 23445).
    The safety zones are established in subsection (a) of this
temporary regulation. Per subsection (a)(1)(i), while transiting, the
safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within
500 yards of the vessel in all directions. Per subsection (a)(1)(ii),
while moored or anchored, the safety zone around each of the vessels
will encompass all waters within 100 yards of the vessel in all
directions. Persons and/or vessels that desire to enter these safety
zones must request permission to

do so from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound by contacting the Joint
Harbor Operations Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or the on-scene Law
Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16.
    The Coast Guard is also establishing a regulated navigation area to
ensure the safety of individuals that desire to exercise their First
Amendment rights related to Shell's activities in subsection (b) of
this regulation. The Voluntary First Amendment Area is being
established in an area where we believe individuals will be able to
effectively communicate their message, without posing an undue risk to
maritime safety, after analyzing maritime traffic patterns and other
environmental factors as well as meeting with some groups who have
expressed a desire to exercise their First Amendment rights. The
regulated navigation area encompassing the Voluntary First Amendment
Area will ensure the safety of small boats by establishing it as a ``no
wake'' area for persons and/or vessels to congregate and exercise their
First Amendment rights safely and without interference from or
interfering with other maritime traffic. The ``no wake'' provisions
will ensure all interactions between vessels within the area occur at a
low rate of speed, thereby reducing risk of collision and personal
injury. Likewise, the designation of a Voluntary First Amendment Area
will help to ensure that a large congregation of vessels does not
impede or endanger other commercial and recreational users who are not
associated with Shell's arctic drilling and exploration operations or
the associated First Amendment activity.
    These provisions are particularly vital given the expected presence
of the ``kayak flotilla'' described above. Persons or vessels desiring
to exercise their First Amendment rights to free speech regarding
Shell's Arctic drilling and exploration operations may enter the
regulated navigation area at any time. All other persons or vessels are
advised to avoid the regulated navigation area. When inside the
regulated navigation area, all vessels must proceed at ``no wake''
speed and with due regard for all other persons and/or vessels inside
the regulated navigation area.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action as the safety zones and regulated
navigation area are limited in both size and duration and any person
and/or vessel needing to transit through the safety zones or regulated
navigation area may be allowed to do so in accordance with the
regulatory provisions.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit the affected waterways when the safety zones and
regulated navigation areas are in effect. The safety zones and
regulated navigation areas will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, however, because the safety
zones and regulated navigation area are limited in both size and
duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit through the
safety zones or regulated navigation area may be allowed to do so in
accordance with the regulatory provisions.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. First Amendment Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of all
individuals. This regulation establishes a regulated navigation area to
create a Voluntary First Amendment Area so that persons and vessels can
congregate and exercise their First Amendment free speech rights safely
and without interference from or interfering with other maritime
traffic. Of particular note, large vessels operating in restricted
waters cannot maneuver freely, nor can they stop immediately. As such,
any First Amendment activity taking place in immediate proximity to
such vessels can quickly result in extremis. The Voluntary First
Amendment Area has been located to allow individuals a meaningful
opportunity to be heard. Individuals that desire to exercise their
First Amendment rights are asked utilize the designated area to the
extent possible, however, its use is voluntary. Individuals that desire
to exercise their First Amendment rights outside the designated area
are requested to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate their activities so that
their message can be heard, without jeopardizing the safety or security
of people, places, or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of temporary safety
zones and a regulated navigation area to deal with an emergency
situation that is one week or longer in duration. This rule is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-289 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-289  Safety Zones and Regulated Navigation Area; Shell
Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels and Associated Voluntary First
Amendment Area, Puget Sound, WA, Extension.

    (a) Safety Zones--(1) Location. The following areas are designated
as safety zones:
    (i) All waters within 500 yards of the following vessels while
transiting within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the Sector
Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-10:
NOBLE DISCOVERER, BLUE MARLIN, POLAR PIONEER, AIVIQ, FENNICA, NORDICA,
ROSS CHOUEST, TOR VIKING, OCEAN WIND, OCEAN WAVE, HARVEY SISUAQ, HARVEY
CHAMPION, HARVEY SUPPORTER, HARVEY EXPLORER, NANUQ, GUARDSMAN, KLAMATH,
PT OLIKTOK, ARCTIC ENDEAVOR, CORBIN FOSS, ACS, ARCTIC CHALLENGER,
ARCTIC SEAL, CROWLEY DIANA G, LAUREN FOSS, TUUQ, BARBARA FOSS, AMERICAN
TRADER, and any other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting
those vessels.
    (ii) All waters within 100 yards of the following vessels while
moored or anchored within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of
the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR
3.65-10: NOBLE DISCOVERER, BLUE MARLIN, POLAR PIONEER, AIVIQ, FENNICA,
NORDICA, ROSS CHOUEST, TOR VIKING, OCEAN WIND, OCEAN WAVE, HARVEY
SISUAQ, HARVEY CHAMPION, HARVEY SUPPORTER, HARVEY EXPLORER, NANUQ,
GUARDSMAN, KLAMATH, PT OLIKTOK, ARCTIC ENDEAVOR, CORBIN FOSS, ACS,
ARCTIC CHALLENGER, ARCTIC SEAL, CROWLEY DIANA G, LAUREN FOSS, TUUQ,
BARBARA FOSS, AMERICAN TRADER, and any other vessel actively engaged in
towing or escorting the listed vessels.
    (2) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165 Subpart C, no persons or vessels may enter these safety
zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his
designated representative. To request permission to enter one of these
safety zones contact the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-
6001, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM
CH 16. If permission for entry into one of these safety zones is
granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation.
    (b) Regulated navigation area--(1) Location. The following area is
designated as a regulated navigation area: All waters of Elliot Bay
encompassed by lines connecting the following points located between
Seacrest Park and Terminal 5: 47[deg]35'20.47'' N, 122[deg]21'53.32''
W; thence south to 47[deg]35'11.54'' N, 122[deg]21'53.24'' W; thence
west to 47[deg]35'11.47'' N, 122[deg]22'26.44'' W; thence north to
47[deg]35'20.47'' N, 122[deg]22'26.40'' W; thence back to the point of
origin.
    (2) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165 Subpart B, persons or vessels desiring to exercise their
First Amendment right to free speech regarding Royal Dutch Shell's
Arctic drilling and exploration operations may enter the regulated
navigation area at any time. All other persons or vessels

are advised to avoid the regulated navigation area. When inside the
regulated navigation area, all vessels must proceed at no wake speed
and with due regard for all other persons and/or vessels inside the
regulated navigation area.
    (c) Dates. This rule will be enforced from July 1, 2015 through
July 31, 2015.

    Dated: June 29, 2015.
R.T. Gromlich,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2015-17615 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46437-46438]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18834]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9914-83-Region 5]

EPA Great Lakes Advisory Board; Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the EPA Great
Lakes Advisory Board is a necessary committee which is in the public
interest. Accordingly, the Advisory Board will be renewed for an
additional two-year period. The purpose of the Advisory Board is to
provide advice to the Administrator in her capacity as Chair of the
Inter-Agency Task Force established per Executive Order 13340 (May 18,
2004), on matters related to Great Lakes restoration and protection.
The Advisory Board's major objectives are to provide advice and

recommendations on: Great Lakes protection and restoration policy; long
term goals and objectives for Great Lakes protection and restoration;
annual priorities to protect and restore the Great Lakes that may be
used to help inform budget decisions; and issues addressed by the Great
Lakes Interagency Task Force. Inquiries may be directed to Rita
Cestaric, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson, Chicago,
IL 60604, Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone number: (312)
886-6815.

    Dated: July 23, 2014.
Cameron Davis,
Senior Advisor to the Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-18834 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71597-71598]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28630]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR14-7-000.
    Applicants: Lee 8 Storage Partnership.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2) +: Rate Change Filing
to be effective 11/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 10/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20131114-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/5/13.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/13/14.

    Docket Numbers: CP14-20-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Application of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
LLC to abandon service under Rate Schedule FT provided to Delmarva
Power & Light Company.
    Filed Date: 11/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20131113-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-165-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--Village of Bethany to be effective
12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20131114-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-166-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Cities of Pickneyville and Salem--Negotiated Rate to
be effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20131114-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-167-000.
    Applicants: Horizon Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--Nicor to be effective 11/13/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20131114-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-168-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Incorporation by Reference of Storage Rates to be
effective 12/14/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20131114-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-170-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Panda Non-conforming Agmts filing to be effective 12/
15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-171-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Zero Fuel Transaction Exemption Filing (eff 12-15-13)
to be effective 12/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-172-000.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Operational Transactions Report of Southern Natural
Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-173-000.
    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: 2014 HMRE Filing to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-174-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Modification to Posting Deadline to be effective 12/
15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-175-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: Modification to Posting Deadline to be effective 12/
15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.

    Accession Number: 20131115-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-176-000.
    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.
    Description: Modification to Posting Deadline to be effective 12/
15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-177-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Modification to Posting Deadline to be effective 12/
15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-178-000.
    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.
    Description: Modification to Posting Deadline to be effective 12/
15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-179-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing in Docket No. RP13-1080 to be
effective 12/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/15/13.
    Accession Number: 20131115-4007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-180-000.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.
    Description: Medford E-2 Rate Removal to be effective 12/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20131118-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-181-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Negotiated Rate--Perryville FTS and FTS-G to be
effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20131118-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-182-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate--Town of Corning, IL to be
effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20131118-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-183-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate--City of Sullivan to be
effective 12/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/18/13.
    Accession Number: 20131118-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/2/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date. Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 19, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28630 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 22619-22621]
[DOCID:fr13my09-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59879; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees for Members Using the NASDAQ Market Center and NASDAQ
Options Market

May 6, 2009.
    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 May 1, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    NASDAQ proposes to modify pricing for NASDAQ members using the
Nasdaq Market Center. This proposed rule change, which is effective
upon filing, will become operative on May 1, 2009. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ'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, NASDAQ 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. NASDAQ 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
    NASDAQ is modifying the price of trading equities and options on
NASDAQ in several ways. First, NASDAQ is increasing the rebate for
providing liquidity in equities traded on NASDAQ for members that
actively trade both equities and options on NASDAQ. Currently, NASDAQ
offers rebates of $0.0020 to $0.00295 per share for all members that
provide liquidity in equities traded on NASDAQ depending on the volume
of liquidity provided in equities.
    Effective May 1, 2009, a member firm that accesses liquidity of
more than 200,000 contracts per day from The NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM'') and provides average daily volume of liquidity exceeding 25
million shares per day in the NASDAQ equities market, will be credited
a rebate of $0.0029 for providing liquidity in securities listed on
NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') or on other exchanges.
A member that provides 25 million shares of liquidity per day in
equities and does not have the requisite options participation receives
a rebate of $0.0025 per share.
    Second, also effective May 1, 2009, member firms will have the
opportunity to earn a waiver of applicable fees charged for executing
Mid-point Pegged orders (as defined in Nasdaq Rule 4751(f)(4)). Firms
can earn this fee waiver by providing average daily volume of liquidity
through the Nasdaq Market Center in all securities during the month of
more than 125 million shares.
    Third, NASDAQ is implementing pricing for the routing strategy set
forth in Nasdaq Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(i), as set forth in SR-NASDAQ-2009-
036.\3\ Specifically, NASDAQ modified Rule 4758, Order Routing, to
provide market participants with the option of entering orders that do
not check the Nasdaq Market Center book prior to routing. Market
participants using that routing strategy for all securities will be
assessed a fee of $0.0005 per share executed for orders that execute on
venues other than in the NYSE or NASDAQ OMX BX. For securities that
utilize this strategy and that execute on

NASDAQ OMX BX, NASDAQ will pass-through the fees or rebates currently
assessed by NASDAQ OMX BX or $0.0006 rebate per share executed for
Nasdaq-listed and NYSE-listed securities and $0.0014 charge per share
executed for other securities. An order that is routed but does not
execute and is returned to the Nasdaq Market Center will be assessed
fees or provided rebates consistent with those approved for orders that
execute or provide liquidity on the Nasdaq Market Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59807 (Apr. 21, 2009);
74 FR 19251 (Apr. 28, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, NASDAQ is also eliminating from Rule 7018 all provisions
related to process that were in effect from April 1 through April 14,
2009.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls. The proposed fee change applies
uniformly to all similarly situated NASDAQ members. The impact of the
changes upon the net fees paid by a particular market participant will
depend upon a number of variables, including its monthly volume in
equities and options, the prices of its quotes and orders (i.e., its
propensity to add or remove liquidity) in equities and options, and the
listing venue for the securities that it trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive.
The proposed rule change reflects a significant reduction in the
overall cost of trading on NASDAQ. NASDAQ believes that the applicable
fees and credits remain competitive with those charged by other venues
and therefore continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to
those members that opt to direct orders to NASDAQ rather than competing
venues.
    NASDAQ is also responding to the convergence of trading in which
members simultaneously trade different asset classes within a single
strategy. This has been true of equities and options trading which is
increasing, and is now visible in equities and futures trading. For
example, on April 1, 2009, NYSE Euronext LLC announced the ``Futures
Incentive Program'' or ``FIP'' which coordinates fee schedules between
NYSE Liffe US and NYSE Arca with respect to trading gold and silver
futures contracts on NYSE Liffe US and gold and silver based exchange
traded funds on NYSE Arca. Like the NYSE Euronext FIP proposal,
NASDAQ's current proposal enables NASDAQ members to continue to
recognize the full benefit of trading on NASDAQ.
    Additionally, NASDAQ and its members will both recognize additional
operational and administrative efficiencies from linking the billing of
equities and options trading. In addition to the efficiencies
associated with existing volume discounts for equities trading, this
proposal will enable NASDAQ to issue a single invoice to replace two
invoices in various circumstances.
    Finally, this proposal is voluntary with respect to all firms and
should be considered as one among many alternatives within NASDAQ's
current tiered pricing structure. For example, Nasdaq is offering to
waive execution fees for Mid-point Pegged Orders for firms with high
equities trading volume. This fee waiver lowers the total cost of
trading on Nasdaq, and responds to a similar waiver by the ArcaNYSE
[sic] Exchange.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \6\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\7\ 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 furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii) [sic].
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-041. 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, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. 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-NASDAQ-2009-041 and should be submitted on or before
June 3, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11164 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P