[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30278-30279]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12321]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0254; FRL-9517-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal
Parts and Products (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0254, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0254, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted either electronically or in paper, will be made available for
public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and
without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information
about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2056.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0486.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2012. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
MMMM.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
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. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    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 EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMM, as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions data and other information that have
been determined to be private.
    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 the EPA
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 226
hours per response. ``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 which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
either transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of miscellaneous
metal parts and products.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,992.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,254,948.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $217,117,118, which includes
$216,067,118 in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $1,050,000
in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
labor hours for the respondent as compared to the

most recently approved ICR. This decrease is not due to any program
changes. The decrease reflects a correction in the ``person-hours per
occurrence'' estimate for magnet wire facilities in Table 1 based on
comments received from industry consultation. The per-person burden
hour estimate for line items ``5.1 Gather information and monitor'' and
``6.1 Process/compile and review'' in the previous ICR were incorrectly
based on burden estimates for the entire industry sector rather than a
single magnet wire facility, and therefore were inflated by a factor of
ten.
    There is an increase in the total O&M costs in this ICR as compared
to the previous ICR. This change reflects an update in the respondent
universe for the magnet wire industry. Based on comments received from
consultation, EPA updated the number of magnet wire facilities from 10
to 11 in order to reflect more accurately the potential respondent
universe.
    In addition, there is an increase in burden costs to both the
respondent and the Agency due to an adjustment in labor rates. This ICR
uses the most recent labor rates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics in calculating the labor costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-12321 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41429-41430]
[DOCID:fr17au09-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1522-000]

Torofino Trading, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

August 6, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Torofino Trading, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 26, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19600 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]


17805 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2003 / Notices meeting should contact Shirley Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and Development ( 8701R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or by telephone at ( 202) 564   6853. In general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley R. Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Research ( MC 8701R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, ( 202) 564   6853.

Dated: April 4, 2003. John C. Puzak, Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Research. [ FR Doc. 03   8952 Filed 4   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0107; FRL   7300   2]

Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of an application 75015   EUP   G from Nutra Park Inc. requesting an experimental use permit ( EUP) for the NPI 100 10EC growth regulator. The Agency has determined that the application may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in accordance with 40 CFR 172.11( a), the Agency is soliciting comments on this application.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0107, must be received on or before May 12, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol E. Frazer, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8810; e mail address: frazer. carol@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are interested in biochemical pesticides or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0107. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 26 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11APN1. SGM 11APN1 17806 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2003 / Notices close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0107. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0107. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0107. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0107. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Background Nutra Park Inc., 3230 Deming Way, Suite 125, Middleton, WI 53525, has applied for an EUP for field testing of a new end use product of the biochemical pesticide lysophosphatidylethanolamine ( LPE). This active ingredient has been given an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance ( 40 CFR 180.1199) and the registrant wishes to continue testing it in a new formulation to evaluate its use as a growth regulator to enhance ripening and shelf life of various food commodities. Testing of 2,244 gallons of NPI 100 10EC containing 224.40 gallons of LPE will occur in nine states: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. Total acreage is 5,100.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

Following the review of the Nutra Park Inc. application and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register.

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

The Agency's authority for taking this action is under FIFRA section 5.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 26 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11APN1. SGM 11APN1 17807 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2003 / Notices Dated: April 2, 2003. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   8825 Filed 4   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection( s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission April 1, 2003. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection( s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104   13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning ( a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; ( b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ( c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and ( d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before May 12, 2003. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1   C804, 445 12th Street, SW., DC 20554 or via the Internet to Judith B. Herman@ fcc. gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection( s), contact Judith B. Herman at 202   418   0214 or via the Internet at Judith B. Herman@ fcc. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control No.: 3060   0454. Title: Regulation of International Accounting Rates. Form No.: N/ A. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other forprofit Number of Respondents: 20 respondents; 760 responses ( 20 carriers will file information for 38 routes annually). Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual and one time reporting requirement. Total Annual Burden: 760 hours. Total Annual Cost: $ 7,000. Needs and Uses: The Commission implemented rules to make it easier for U. S. carriers engaged in international telecommunications services to negotiate lower accounting rates. Reductions and changes are subject to the International Settlements Policy approach. The Commission uses the information as a method to monitor the international accounting rates to insure that the public interest is being served and also to enforce Commission policies and rules. The information enables the agency to preclude one way bypass and safeguard of its international policy. OMB Control No.: 3060   0859. Title: Suggested Guidelines for Petitions for Ruling Under Section 253 of the Communications Act. Form No.: N/ A. Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Business or other forprofit Number of Respondents: 80. Estimated Time Per Response: 63   125 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement. Total Annual Burden: 6,280 hours. Total Annual Cost: N/ A. Needs and Uses: Section 253 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. 253, requires the Commission, with certain important exceptions, to preempt the enforcement of any state or local statute or regulation, or other state or local legal requirement ( to the extent necessary) that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. The Commission's consideration of preemption begins with the filing of a petition by an aggrieved party. The petition is placed on public notice and commented on by others. The Commission's decision is based on the public record, generally composed of the petition and comments. The Commission has considered a number of preemption items since the passage of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, and believes it in the public interest to inform the public of the information necessary to support its full consideration of the issues likely to be involved in preemption actions.

Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   8855 Filed 4   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712   01   P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Notice of Public Information Collection( s) Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission for Extension Under Delegated Authority 5 CFR 1320 Authority, Comments Requested April 1, 2003. SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection( s), as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104   13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning ( a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; ( b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ( c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and ( d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before June 10, 2003. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 26 Apr 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11APN1. SGM 11APN1


[Federal Register: May 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28539-28541]
[DOCID:fr16my08-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57813; File No. SR-NSCC-2007-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To
Provide a New Alternative Investments Products Service

 May 12, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On July 17, 2007, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') and on February 19, 2008, amended proposed rule change
SR-NSCC-2007-12 pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ Notice of the proposal was published in the
Federal Register on March 17, 2008.\2\ No comment letters were
received. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57461 (March 10, 2008),
73 FR 14294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    NSCC is establishing a new Alternative Investment Products service
(``AIP Service''), a processing platform for alternative investment
products such as hedge funds, funds of hedge funds, commodities pools,
managed futures, and real estate investment trusts (``REITs'').

(1) Summary of AIP Service

    The AIP Service will provide for processing of information relating
to transactions in alternative investment products and for settlement
of related payments (``AIP Payments''). It will facilitate, among other
things, processing activities such as subscriptions and redemptions,
distributions, position reporting, and account maintenance. Activities
that will be supported by the AIP Service are more fully described
below in the section titled ``Scope of AIP Service.''
    Settlement of AIP Payments through NSCC will be done on a prefunded
basis. NSCC will simply pass-through AIP Payments from AIP members to
the contraside AIP members without netting or without guaranteeing
payment in the event of contraside default. NSCC will not be liable to
make payment to an AIP member in the event of a default in payment by
the contraside AIP member. Settlement of AIP Payments (``AIP
Settlement'') will be segregated from all other money settlements at
NSCC. NSCC will have no exposure to credit risk as a result of the
operation of the AIP Settlement. AIP Settlement is more fully described
below in the section titled ``AIP Settlement.''
    Participation in the AIP Service will be governed by NSCC's Rules
and procedures applicable to the AIP Service. Each user of the AIP
Service (``AIP Member'') will be required to enter into an AIP
membership agreement with NSCC that will govern its use of the AIP
Service. Entities eligible for membership will include entities subject
to regulation under U.S. federal or state laws such as registered
broker-dealers, investment advisers, banks, and insurance companies.
Because of the unique processing and distribution features of
alternative investment products and because NSCC will have no exposure
to the credit risk of AIP Members and will have no liability to make
payments in the event of an AIP Member's AIP Settlement default,
entities that are not required to register under applicable U.S.
federal or state law and entities organized under applicable law
outside of the U.S. will also be eligible to become AIP Members.
Membership in the AIP Service is more fully described below in the
section titled ``AIP Members.''
    NSCC developed the concept and functionality for the AIP Service at
the request of and in consultation with industry participants, many of
which were NSCC members using other NSCC services. Some of these
interested parties committed to become pilot subscribers to the
proposed AIP Service and committed to assist NSCC in funding the launch
of the AIP Service. These parties are more fully described below in the
section titled ``AIP Pilot Group.''

(2) Alternative Investment Products

    Alternative investment products are typically illiquid, pooled
investment products that are exempt from registration under the
Security Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 and that
are offered through private placements to high net worth individuals
and institutional investors such as pension funds.
    Alternative investment products may be placed and held by an end
investor through a direct relationship with the issuer or manufacturer
of an alternative investment product (called the ``AIP Manufacturer''
for purposes of NSCC Rules) or through an entity acting on behalf of an
issuer or manufacturer. They may also be placed and held through a
distribution channel such as a registered broker-dealer that
facilitates transactions as a processing contraparty to the AIP
Manufacturer (called the ``AIP Distributor'' for purposes of NSCC
Rules). Alternative investment products are not generally traded in the
secondary market. In this respect, the distribution for alternative
investment products is similar to the distribution of mutual funds on
NSCC's Fund/SERV system. Alternative investment products have
processing characteristics and risk profiles that differ from those of
mutual funds, and those differences have been taken into account and
reflected in the functionality of the AIP Service and in NSCC Rules and
procedures.
    Increasingly, investors and their advisers are including
alternative investment products as part of their portfolios. The
alternative investment products market currently represents over $1
trillion in assets and continues to grow. Despite the large asset base,
processing remains extremely manual using methods such as delivery of
hard-copy documents, transmission of information by fax, e-mail
messages and spreadsheets, and telephone calls. The lack of automation
and standardized, centralized processing is inefficient, prolongs
transaction processing time, results in high costs per transaction, and
increases the likelihood of errors--factors that increase in importance
as the volume of transactions in alternative investment products
continues to increase as it has in recent years.

(3) AIP Pilot Group

    Accordingly, several industry participants (many of which were
members of NSCC) approached NSCC to explore whether NSCC could bring
automation and standardization to the alternative investment product
market analogous to that which NSCC's Mutual Fund Services has provided
to the mutual fund market. Mutual funds and alternative investment
products frequently share similar distribution channels and are
frequently both included in an investor's portfolio for which a
financial intermediary consolidates asset reporting and servicing.
    NSCC solicited its members to assess industry interest. A pilot
group of interested broker-dealers, alternative product manufacturers,
and fund administrators was formed to determine the feasibility of NSCC
providing such a service and if feasible to assist in the development
of the business requirements and functional specifications for such a
service. Some members of the pilot group committed to assist in the
costs of development of such a service through payment of a

fixed amount that would be applied to their respective usage fees when
the service was in production. Consistent with this commitment to
support the costs developing and implementing the service, NSCC agreed
to consult with the members of the pilot group in refining and
enhancing the necessary functionality for the service. The
functionality for the initial scope of the AIP Service is described
below in the section titled ``Scope of AIP Service.''

(4) Eligible AIP Products

    Alternative investment products that can be processed through
NSCC's AIP Service (``Eligible AIP Products'') will initially include
the types of products referenced above (i.e., hedge funds, funds of
hedge funds, commodities pools, managed futures, and REITs). Additional
products could be added in the initial phase or from time to time as
requested by industry participants and as approved by NSCC.\3\ Eligible
AIP Products may include those registered with the Commission and those
not required to be registered. When an AIP Manufacturer submits an
alternative investment product for processing through the AIP Service,
pursuant to NSCC rules and procedures, it represents and warrants to
NSCC that the offer and sale of the investment product complies with
applicable law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Due to the nature of alternative investment products, NSCC
retains the right to refuse to process a specific product or type of
product through the AIP Service or to require that a product or type
of product no longer be processed through the AIP service if NSCC
deems it to be in the interests of NSCC and its members to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) AIP Members

    The following types of entities will be eligible to become AIP
Manufacturers or AIP Distributors:
    (i) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act or a non-US
broker-dealer subject to regulation by the appropriate financial
services regulator in its home jurisdiction;
    (ii) A bank or trust company under supervision of federal or state
banking authorities or a non-US bank subject to regulation in its home
jurisdiction;
    (iii) An investment company registered under the Investment Company
Act or an issuer (structured as a fund or other pooled investment
vehicle) that is not required to register thereunder;
    (iv) An investment adviser as defined under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 regardless of whether it is registered under the Investment
Advisors Act or is exempt from registration;
    (v) A commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor as
defined in the Commodity Exchange Act regardless of whether the
commodity pool operator or commodity trading advisor is registered
pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act or is exempt from registration
thereunder;
    (vi) An insurance company regulated under state insurance law or a
non-US insurance company subject to regulation by the appropriate
insurance regulator in its home jurisdiction;
    (vii) An AIP Manufacturer that is an entity engaged under contract
to provide administrative services to one or more Eligible AIP
Products; or
    (viii) An entity that does not qualify as one of the above entities
but that has demonstrated to the Board of Directors of NSCC that its
business and capabilities are such that it could reasonably expect
material benefit from direct access to the AIP Service.
    Because AIP Settlement will be prefunded and because NSCC will be
insulated from exposure to the credit risk of AIP Members and will have
no liability to make payments in the event of an AIP Member's AIP
Settlement default, there are no financial requirements for
participation in the AIP Service. Members will be required to meet
NSCC's operational requirements and general standards applicable to
competency for membership and to meet such other requirements as NSCC
may establish from time to time.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NSCC's general standards applicable to competency are
designed to screen for any action or condition of an applicant or
member that could in the judgment of NSCC present undue risk to NSCC
or its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Scope of AIP Services

    The AIP Service will support communication of information and
settlement of AIP Payments between AIP Manufacturers and the AIP
Distributors in order to facilitate the processing of subscriptions and
purchases, tenders and redemptions, dividends and distributions,
commissions and fees, position reporting, product information, account
maintenance, automated transmission of imaged documents, and such other
actions as NSCC may determine from time to time. The AIP Service will
provide AIP Members with the ability to transmit data in connection
with transactions whether the payments are made outside of NSCC or
through the AIP Service.
    As with all NSCC services, NSCC will not be responsible for the
completeness or accuracy of data transmitted through the AIP Services
or for any errors, omissions, or delays which may occur in the absence
of gross negligence on the part of NSCC.
    Fees for the use of the AIP Service have not yet been established
and will be the subject of a subsequent proposed rule change filed
under section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act if this proposed rule filing is
approved.

(7) AIP Settlement

    AIP Settlement will be in same day funds over fedwire and will be
segregated from all other settlement payments at NSCC. Unless otherwise
provided by NSCC, AIP Members will be required to appoint a settling
bank (``AIP Settling Bank'') for purposes of settlement similar to NSCC
settlement procedures for its other money settlements.
    NSCC will maintain credit balances and debit balances for each AIP
Member to which NSCC will post gross credits and gross debits for
settlement on the date designated for settlement by the AIP Member
(``Settlement Date''). AIP Settlement will be on a gross bais meaning
that the credit balance of an AIP Member will not be netted against its
debit balance. If NSCC does not receive funds from an AIP Member in the
amount of the debit balance by the requisite time on the Settlement
Date, NSCC will reduce the corresponding settlement credit balances of
the AIP Members that are the contrasides to the AIP Member that did not
pay its gross debit balance. Nonpayment of a debit balance will not be
deemed a payment default under NSCC Rules, but NSCC may establish fees
for late payment or nonpayment and may establish a threshold number of
instances of late payment or nonpayment which would result in other
sanctions, including NSCC's ceasing to act for such an AIP Member.
    After receipt of an AIP Member's debit balance from the AIP
Member's AIP Settling Bank on Settlement Date, NSCC will transfer to
the AIP Settling Bank(s) of the contraside AIP Member(s) the settlement
credit balance(s). NSCC's payment will include gross credit balances
which may have been reduced to reflect the reversal of any credits with
respect to debit balance amounts that were not paid by a contraside AIP
Member.
    Use of NSCC's AIP Service will provide the alternative investment
product industry with the ability to process transactions and to settle
funds on a centralized, fully redundant platform that will provide more
robust business continuity in the event of interruption to processing
on a primary system, better audit trails on

transactions, lower costs, and fewer errors and delays than is
currently the case.
    Settlement on the basis of gross debits and gross credits without
offsets insulates NSCC from any financial risks associated with
Eligible AIP Products and AIP Members. Because NSCC's obligation to pay
a credit balance will be conditioned upon receipt by NSCC of the debit
balance from the contraside AIP Member, NSCC will not bear the risk
that an AIP Member may default at settlement.

(8) AIP Document Transmission

    The AIP Service will automate the transmission of imaged hard-copy
documents (``paper workflow'') between AIP Manufacturers and AIP
Distributors. The alternative investment industry has a number of
investment instruments that are private or are traded outside of the
normal processes and that require the exchange of documentation. It is
not untypical for the parties to exchange up to forty pages of hard-
copy documents. Subaccount documentation is typically sent for both
initial and subsequent subscriptions, depending on the requirements of
the alternative investment product, and for tender offers. The paper
workflow component of the AIP Service will allow parties to scan and to
convert documents to a file format such as portable document format
(``PDF'') file for transmission with or without a pending transaction
message.

(9) Proposed Changes to NSCC Rules

    A new Rule 53, ``Alternative Investment Product Services and
Members,'' will be added to NSCC's Rules, and additional confirming
changes will be made elsewhere throughout NSCC's Rules as needed to
provide consistency with the new Rule 53.

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a clearing agency be designed to remove impediments to and
to perfect the mechanism of a national system for prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\5\ By facilitating
the transmission of standardized information for alternative investment
products on a centralized communications platform and by automating
money settlements through a centralized facility in the same day funds,
the AIP Service will provide increased efficiencies and reduced risks
that are typically associated with the current alternative investment
products processing. As such, the proposed changes will help remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2007-12) be and hereby
is approved.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-10968 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


fresh mortar in as tub pointers.  Do you think that it would be better
to separate the individuals removing the mortar as just grinders as --
instead of including them with tub pointers and -- because what's the
actual exposure that you find when actually putting the mortar into the,
you know, replacing the mortar?

		MR. BOLAND:  Well, Jim Boland's my name.  So this sort of work,
restoration of masonry, it would be done by a contractor and the people
doing the work would have an array of skills that would include
grinding, tuckpointing, assessing the portion of the building that they
were repairing.  So this division of labor thing probably wouldn't
happen that way.  You may have a separate guy who's building scaffolds
or mixing mortar or that, but I would think the mason or the tuckpointer
would be grinding and tuckpointing and planning his day's work and
laying it out before himself what he would try to accomplish in the
course of a day, or at least that was my experience when I spent some
time at bits of restoration work here and there.  Does that answer your
question?

		MR. MOORE:  Yeah.  Basically the same people who are replacing the
mortar grinded the mortar out?

		MR. BOLAND:  Well, that's been my experience.

		MR. MOORE:  Your experience.

		MR. BOLAND:  That's been my experience

		MR. MOORE:  Okay.  All right.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Further questions from the OSHA panel?

		MR. MOCKLER:  Yeah.  Tom Mockler.  I've got a couple of questions.
Just to follow up on the engineering controls, it sounds as if they're
frequently available, but they have not been maintained properly, and I
guess one of the questions I would have is what kind of effort would be
required to maintain those controls?

		MR. WARD:  I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

		MR. MOCKLER:  Yeah.  My question was what kind of effort would be
required in the course of a day or a week to maintain the controls so
that they're in proper working order.

		MR. WARD:  It -- it's really quite --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Tom Ward.

		MR. WARD:  -- thank you, Judge.  It's quite simple.  The control
systems are simple.  Sean talked about the vacuum system, the pulse vac
for terrazzo.  The restoration workers use those as well.  And it's as
simple as -- it's not much more complicated than changing a bag on your
vacuum at home.  It doesn't take a ton of training to learn how to do
that.  As far as the water-fed systems, I personally always liked
running a hose -- a garden hose directly to it that prevented any kind
of clogging of the system and any flow rate issues and slurry build-up.
So the systems are pretty simple.  So I would say it would be fairly
easy and in most cases just as simple as showing someone how to do it
and providing whatever it is they need to do that.

		MR. MOCKLER:  But more specifically, say in the case of changing a
filter, how long would that take if it was done properly?

		MR. BARRETT:  Sean Barrett.  It would literally take about 5 to 10
minutes.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Okay.

		MR. BARRETT:  In the morning.  And it would be very easy to get it
done.  You basically just have to tell these contractors that they have
to allow the employees time and equipment to do it because they all want
to do it.  They just -- nobody wants to get black-balled.  You don't
want to be the complainer, you don't want to be the trouble-maker.  You
know what I mean?  It's -- in terrazzo and tile and business like this
the squeaky wheel gets fired.  He doesn't get the grease, you know?  You
-- they'll find a way to get rid of you and have you go home and then
they'll tell the other contractors, oh, always safety with him.  This,
that, and the other thing.  That's just the bottom line.  If you guys
don't make them do it, they aren't going to do it.

		MR. MOCKLER:  This question is more for Tom Ward.  It had to do with
the planning process.  At the risk of being redundant, it sounds to me
that you're suggesting that if jobs are planned -- are they safer from
reducing -- in terms of reducing silica exposure but they're actually
done more efficiently.  Is this a correct characterization?

		MR. WARD:  Absolutely.  It is.  The morale -- when you take a Quickie
saw or any type of saw up on the scaffold, and you not only smoke
yourself out but everyone else on the scaffold, the guys know that it's
dangerous.  And, like Sean said, no one's going to get up and go
complain to the boss because there are so many -- there's so few jobs
and so many people in line to take them that you will be sent home.  So
it does improve morale.  It improves production and I -- I'm speaking
from experience.  I did not dry cut for five -- the last five years of
my field work and we were profitable and we didn't put a single person
in the hospital, by the way, on other -- for anything else.  So it was
-- it's very doable.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Okay.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Any further questions, Mr. Mockler?

		MR. MOCKLER:  No.  Go ahead.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  I just had one point of clarification for the record.
When the panel members refer to a Quickie saw, would that be the device
that OSHA refers to as a hand-held masonry saw?

		MR. BOLAND:  Yes.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  That was Mr. Bolton [sic].

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Thank you.

		MR. BOLAND:  Excuse me.

		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thank you.  I just have one question for
Mr. Boland.  Do you -- does the Bricklayers Union have any data on the
numbers of cases of silica-related diseases among your members?  Numbers
or percentages?

		MS. HALIFAX:  Could I answer that?

		MR. BOLAND:  I would refer to -- Jim Boland.  I will defer to Caryn
Halifax on that.

		MS. HALIFAX:  Oh, hi.  This is Caryn Halifax.  We don't have those
numbers here today, but we can try to put something together and submit
it in post-hearing comments if we are able to.

		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That would be great.  Thank you.  And if it's
-- do you do any post-employment tracking of illness?

		MS. HALIFAX:  You know, I'm not sure that we do.  But we will look at
what records we have.  It may be, you know, death certificate type
records only.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And that was Ms. Halifax, for the record, again.

		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thank you.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  And again I'd like to thank the panel members for
testifying here this afternoon.  I'm sorry?

		MR. CAHILL:  This is Dennis Cahill.  I want to make one clarification
on early diagnosis of silicosis.  Once a week I go online on the
computer and I look up air quality index for Maricopa County.  And even
though I live in the county next, which is Gila County, air blows from
west to east.  And then that tells me what the pollution rates are and
how I should act accordingly.

		Now, I can tell you when the pollution rates are real high in the
Valley of the Sun, in the Phoenix area, I kind of lay low a little bit
up where I live in Gila County, and I don't go to Maricopa County.
Because they really warn us, if the weather's bad, those with lung
issues stay indoors, don't exert yourself.  So I add that to the list.
And, again, that's one more thing that I wouldn't do if I hadn't been
diagnosed.  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Mr. Cahill, for that additional
information.

		Anything further from the OSHA panel?

		MR. O'CONNOR:  No, nothing further.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.  Gentlemen, ladies, I'd like to thank you all
for your participation today and that concludes this part of the
program.

		The next individual on the agenda is Diane Matthew Brown on behalf of
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.  If
you'd like to come forward, we can go ahead and start with your
presentation.

		MR. BOLAND:  Thank you very much, Your Honor.

		MR. CAHILL:  Thank you.

		MR. BOLAND:  Thank you for having us.  We appreciate it.

		(Cross-talk.)

		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thank you, Judge Purcell.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Purcell.  That's right.  They pronounce it Purcell
over there.

		MR. CAHILL:  I think we were run out of Ireland, the Cahills.

		MR. McNABB:  I had a few Cahills I think in my family tree way back
when.  We're all related one way or another.

		MR. CAHILL:  We are.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Oh, I'm sorry.  Thank you.

		Ms. Brown, take your time, set up, and whenever you're ready just let
me know.

		MS. BROWN:  Nothing -- no PowerPoints here.  And for the record.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Testimony and PowerPoint?

		MS. BROWN:  That's my written comments of this testimony and --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.

		MS. BROWN:  -- that I mentioned.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  I'll mark them -- probably the best way.

		MS. BROWN:  The last presentation of the day.  That's not fair.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  I didn't set up the schedule.  You can blame OSHA for
that.

		All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you'll be seated, I think
Ms. Brown is ready to proceed.

		Ms. Brown, if you would introduce yourself and your organization?

		MS. BROWN:  Good afternoon.  Thank you.  My name is Diane Matthew
Brown.  I'm a Health and Safety Specialist representing the 1.6 million
members and retirees in the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, AFSCME.  My testimony today is to give voice to our
public employees in state and local government whose jobs put them at
risk of silica exposure.

		AFSCME is the nation's largest public services employee union.  We
have approximately 3,400 local unions and 58 councils and affiliates in
46 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.  We represent about
275,000 members in public works, maintenance and highway departments.
These workers perform many tasks that likely expose them to silica,
including highway maintenance and repair, masonry work, sidewalk and
concrete repair and removal, sandblasting and other abrasive blasting,
excavation earth removal and bridge repair and maintenance.  Maintenance
and repair activities also occur in school and university settings.

		Many of these tasks are similar to our brothers and sisters in the
construction and Building Trades.  However, these tasks tend to be very
short term in nature and the work areas, especially in highway repair,
are very mobile.  A public works employee may be building a culvert one
day and breaking up a sidewalk the next.

		Due to the diverse settings, both the silica general industry and
construction standards could apply.  AFSCME believes that the controls
listed in Table 1 are a great way for public employers to control
hazards given some of the improvements have been already in the docket
and in testimony.

		Our members have consistently raised their concerns about dust that
they inhale while on the job, including silica dust.  AFSCME's concern
for public employee exposure to silica substantiated in the public's
literature and the report, "Highway Repair and the Silicosis Threat" in
the American Journal of Public Health, May 2004, researchers found that
large populations of highway workers are at risk of developing
silicosis.  Their conclusions stated the need for engineering controls,
medical screenings, protective health standards, protect workers from
occupational disease related to exposure of silica.  Anecdotally I
learned just last week that two highway workers in Erie County, New
York, have applied for disability due to COPD.  The likely cause?
Silica exposure early in their careers.

		Although our public works, maintenance and highway workers are the
most likely to be exposed to silica, there are other job classifications
that may be at risk.  For example, we represent workers that work in
dental facilities and public health and university settings.  Here these
workers are potentially exposed to silica in the making of certain
molds.  Now, the dental industry has changed an awful lot in the last
couple of years, but the reality is dental students and public employees
are exposed to silica in some of these processes.

		It is firmly established that silica exposure can cause lung cancer in
addition to silicosis.  We heard that quite plainly just a few moments
ago.  There have been over 100 studies of silica and lung cancer.  The
World Health Organization's IARC determined crystalline silica as a lung
carcinogen in 1997 and reaffirmed this conclusion in 2012.

		In the United States, the National Toxicology Program determined that
crystal silica is a human carcinogen in 2000 and reaffirmed this
judgment just in 2011.  Yet the current standard based in 1971 is based
on decades-old science and requires methodology, especially in a
construction site, that are no longer in common use.

		In this study in silica, a lung carcinogen, which is Steenland and
Ward, A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2013, the authors note that new
cases of silicosis and lung cancer are being diagnosed in younger
workers who entered the workforce long after the current silica standard
was in place.  It also notes that patients may develop silicosis years
after their occupational exposure ends.  To conclude that all that's
necessary to protect workers is to better enforce an outdated regulation
ignores the current realities of today's workplaces and the harm being
done to a new generation of workers.

		This updated rule is long overdue.  One of the first things I was
given when I was hired in health and safety within AFSCME was to go to
the silicosis NIOSH conference which happened to be across the street
from our office.  I am wearing the sticker from that.  That was in 1997,
and we're still talking about this now.

		So this rule is long overdue.  And not just for the public employees
in the 25 OSHA plan states.  Many of my members work in states that do
not have an OSHA-approved state plan.  It is not my intention today to
testify as to the need for expanded public employee protections under
OSHA.  Take a whole lot longer than 10 minutes to do that.  But I will
testify how OSHA regulations set the standard for workers in states such
as Ohio, which has its own unique public employee law.

		An updated regulation becomes invalid when we review workers'
compensation claims.  It enables AFSCME to negotiate good contract
language for public employees in those non-OSH states so that they too
can be protected through their collective bargaining agreements.

		OSHA standards eventually become the basis for standard operating
procedures and safe work practices even in those states that do not have
public employee OSH coverage, admittedly sometimes just takes a very
long time.

		We have heard concerns in testimony about the proposed permissible
exposure limit not being feasible, that employers cannot monitor to that
level, but this exposure limit is already in effect in other countries.
For this testimony I reviewed a large amount of information for the
European union and from Canada.  Alberta, Canada has an eight-hour
occupational exposure limit, or OEL for 25 µg.  The government of
Alberta conducted a silica project that reviewed health data, exposure,
and sampling data.  They studied job classifications exposed to silica
and included in public employees, which is why I was interested,
specifically, public works and maintenance laborers and equipment
operators.  All these job classifications were exposed almost 100
percent of the time.

		In a presentation to AIHA in 2012, representatives from the Government
of Alberta state that monitoring for the lower OEL is feasible.  It does
require an increase in volume from 400 to a 1000 L, to 1320 L, 1980 L.
So it is feasible, and it is being done.

		When it comes to hierarchy controls, we of course support the use of
hierarchy controls, preferring engineering controls and work practices
over personal protective equipment.  I can assure you anyone who states
that wearing a respirator all day long will provide adequate protection
has never talked to a public employee.  Even the best-fitting respirator
will become uncomfortable.  Employees will sweat and the fit will be
compromised.  Comfort is the number one reason cited when our members
are asked why they're not wearing their PPE.

		Cartridges do become saturated, and long use of any respirator puts a
strain on respiratory and cardiac systems even for young, healthy
workers.  So personal protective equipment must always be our last line
of defense.  We do realize it's very important because we can't always
control all the exposures all the time.

		Yes, respiratory protection has improved over the years, but so have
engineering controls and equipment, including the vacuum systems and
monitoring devices.  And we've heard these arguments before.  When the
confined-space entry standard was first implemented in 1993, we were
told it was infeasible, technology infeasible, economically infeasible,
especially in public employers.  The monitors that we used were bulky,
they were heavy, they had a very limited battery life.  Entry equipment
was limited in style, and it was pricey.

		Today the monitors that we use for our confined spaces are not much
larger than a cell phone.  They are accurate, easy to use, battery life
way over eight hours.  The entry equipment now is available in all
types, sizes, configurations to meet employer needs and quite frankly
costs less than it did years ago.  The argument that equipment is not
available or too costly doesn't hold up.  Equipment manufacturers will
meet the demands of its customers and produce options, creating jobs.

		Indeed, most of this equipment's already available, and we've heard
testimony to that, and it's in use in many places.  As far as costs,
those costs change as technology improves and because more available
costs will drop.

		Lastly I would like to comment specifically on the training
requirements in the proposed rule.  The proposed rule relies heavily on
the Hazard Communications standard as the basis for worker training
related to sili-containing materials and possible exposure risks.

		As a Health and Safety Specialist for AFSCME, I have developed and
delivered hundreds of training programs for our members.  In fact, that
is my main job at the International.  And I can assure you that the bulk
of the hazard communication programs provided by public employers do not
cover silica-containing products or the tasks that produce silica dust
in sufficient detail, if at all.

		OSHA should clarify in the proposed rule that initial training must be
done prior to giving a worker assignment that would likely expose them
to silica dust.  Initial training should, at a minimum, include what
silica is, where it's found, the health effects to not just include
silicosis but lung cancer, other diseases including renal disease,
hazard recognition, sources of silica exposure related specifically to
the tasks they're going to be doing, requirements under the standard,
whether it's general industry or construction, again, according to task,
monitoring that will be done, medical screening that's available and
then most importantly the ways to reduce exposure, those engineering
controls specific to the operation, the tools and equipment and
including proper handling and operation of those tools and the proper
maintenance required for those tools, work practices including what
processes, personal protective equipment, respiratory protection and
include proper fit, cleaning storage, cartridge selection where
applicable and personal hygiene.

		Training should be interactive as possible, allowing for different
learning styles.  The standard should include a specific requirement
that training be provided in language that employees understand.

		While this is inferred in preamble, it is not specified in proposed
rule itself.  The standard does not refresh refresher training.  As --
again, as my job is training 99 percent of the time, we strongly support
an annual refresher requirement.

		In conclusion, AFSCME supports OSHA's proposed rule on silica.  Silica
has been a known hazard for centuries, but our regulatory system simply
has not kept up with the current knowledge base on silica and its health
effects.  Continuing to rely on an outdated standard does not protect
workers.  It burdens their families; it hurts the economy.  Public
employees with silica-related diseases cannot be productive and serve
the constituents.  These illnesses make it difficult, if not impossible,
for workers to continue to work and contribute to the economy.  The cost
of these debilitating illnesses adds strain to the healthcare system,
and in the public sector these costs are covered by the taxpayer.
Taxpayer dollars pay those benefits.

		While we recognize that the rule will likely require employers in both
the private and public sector to make investments in engineering and
equipment, these investments pale in comparison to the death and
long-term disability suffered by workers, their families, and their
communities.  It is necessary to review and update safety and health
regulations when evidence strongly shows that workers remain at risk.
Our current and next generation of workers deserve nothing less.

		AFSCME appreciates the opportunity to share its position on the
proposed rule on respirable crystalline silica.  This concludes our
testimony.  Thank you very much.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Brown.

		Before opening up to questions, Ms. Brown handed me several documents
before testifying, so I'm going to mark and introduce those as exhibits.
 The first will be hearing exhibit 103, which is a written copy of her
testimony.  The second document I'll mark as Hearing Exhibit Number 104.
 That's a January 22nd, 2014 submission by AFSCME to OSHA.  Hearing
Exhibit 105 is a printout from the CDC website dated March 12, 2004, and
it's an article entitled "Silicosis in Dental Laboratory Technicians,
Five States, 1994 to 2000."  The next document I'll mark is Hearing
Exhibit 106.  It is a copy of an article for the American Journal of
Public Health from May 2004, Volume 94, Number 5, and the title of that
document is "Highway Repair: a New Silicosis Threat."  And, finally, the
next document I've marked as Hearing Exhibit 107 which is a printout of
a PowerPoint presentation from the government of Alberta dated March
9th, 2012, entitled "Dangerous Dust: Exposure to Crystalline Silica in
Alberta."

(Whereupon, the documents referred to as Hearing Exhibits 105 through
107 were marked and received in evidence.)

		JUDGE PURCELL:  With that I'll provide those documents to OSHA and ask
how many people in the audience have questions for Ms. Brown.  Okay.  I
see three hands right now.  We'll start with Ms. Trahan.

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thank you, Your Honor.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  And please state your name for the record and your
affiliation.

		MS. TRAHAN:  It's Chris Trahan with the Building Trades.

		I just wanted to thank you for testifying and for calling attention to
the fact that there are people doing construction work on the public
sector side, and I think it's important.

		My question really is a simple one, and that's if you can articulate
what it's like -- how the protections are improved in those states that
have state plan states versus the non-state plan states.

		MS. BROWN:  I would say that they're probably night and day.  In the
state plan, states they generally do follow most of the OSHA standards.
Some of the states actually have stricter standards.  On the other side
of things it is very dependent on whether they are following what their
workers' compensation wants them to do.  If they have a actual workers'
compensation policy and they are not self-insured, the policyholder may
require they follow OSHA standards, and so they will do that to the best
of their ability.  Sometimes that is still quite lacking.

		If they are self-insured and there is no state law in place for them
to follow, then they will do whatever they can get the workers to do
regardless of whether or not that is even considered the standard
practice or not.  I will give you an example of Huntington, West
Virginia, where we have a small local.  West Virginia is not a state
plan state.  They do have a state law on the books, but it's never been
funded.  Recently did a confined space entry class for them and told
them all their equipment had to be taken out of service.  This stuff was
probably about 25 years old, and they were still using it on a regular
basis.  No one told them that the equipment wasn't any good.  I took one
look at it and told them they had to take it out of service immediately.
 That's typical.

		As far as silica is concerned, they don't even know they're being
exposed to silica.  I had to show them examples and video clips and they
go, oh, yeah, we do that.  Yeah.  I bet you do.  And they -- it will
take them a long time to come up to speed, but they do eventually do so
--

		MS. TRAHAN:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Trahan.

		Ms. Seminario?

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Peg Seminario -- excuse me -- Peg Seminario from the
AFL-CIO.  A number of the participants in the hearing have suggested,
recommended that OSHA focus its efforts currently on stronger
enforcement of the current standard and that enforcement of the current
standard would be sufficient to protect workers.

		In your experience in dealing with enforcement under state plans for
public employees, do you believe that enforcement of the current
standard would be sufficient to protect workers?  And recognizing that
there are differences in enforcement for public sector workers than
there are for private sector, and if you could speak to that as well?

		MS. BROWN:  Yes.  I do not believe that that would change much in the
public sector.  Generally -- and this is not a knock on OSHA enforcement
-- they are more likely to go to a actual construction site.  That is
where the bulk of the enforcement activities are, not public employee
sites.  They would only come to a public employee site in those states
where there are enforcement officers who are assigned to the public
sector.

		In vast majority of the state plan states there is no mechanism to
fine a public employer.  I can think of maybe three states off the top
of my head, Iowa, Minnesota, New York maybe, but most of the time they
are not fining a public employer, they are writing a corrective order.
So there is no financial incentive to do so --  The -- but again, the
vast majority of enforcement efforts is going to be done on the
construction industry side, not public employees.  They -- public
employers may go years and never see an OSHA inspection.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Okay.  You've also had experience with there being
standards coming into effect on other health hazards such as asbestos
that do affect public employees as well as private sector.  Have those
standards brought about change and made a difference in working
conditions for public sector workers who are exposed to asbestos?

		MS. BROWN:  I would say, yes, they have.  There is a great deal of
knowledge base, especially exposure to asbestos in schools and school
maintenance.  That there was hard look at what had to be done to protect
workers, controlled areas, medical exams were -- that were never done
before.  It is still -- asbestos is, like, the big thing for public
employees.  They are very -- still very concerned about it.

		That is not to say the non-OSH states, that it doesn't get ignored
because then it is in fact enforced by EPA, and they don't know how to
enforce it when it comes to a public employee work site.  So in those
states without OSHA protections, it's still not as strict as it is in
OSH state plans, but the awareness level and where it can be found has
made a huge difference.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  All right.  So the standard when it comes into effect
does have an impact in changing practices and conditions, even when
there isn't enforcement?

		MS. BROWN:  I call it the osmosis effect.  It's, you know, by osmosis
it filters down to other folks, and they pick it up as best practices.
Especially, again, if they are privately insured where there's workers'
compensation, they may in fact insist that they adopt them or that their
rates go up.  And it is the driver in some public employee settings.
And, again, when they are -- where they are self-insured, this is all
coming out of the taxpayer dollars.  Every public employee right now is
facing budget constraints.  There is no state out there with maybe North
Dakota, South Dakota being the exception that says they are flush with
money.  So they are all looking for ways to save money.  If that means
cutting back into workers' compensation costs, they will do so --  And
this is one way to cut back on workers' compensation's costs.  Better
enforcement of the standards.  Newer standards that make sense.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  All right.  Turning to the issue of job tenure, we've
heard from other witnesses in other sectors, the -- there were testimony
last week from the Auto Workers and the Steelworkers, and there's been
testimony today from the Bricklayers about how long people work in
particular jobs.  And just like to ask you, is it common for public
sector workers to have long tenures of employment and be employed in
jobs for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years --

		MS. BROWN:  Thirty years.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  -- 40 years?

		MS. BROWN:  Yes.  The average age of a public employee according to
our last survey is 48 years of age.  The average tenure, about 25 to 28
years is normal.  I met a custodian, University of Iowa, who was in --
75 and was working at the university.  He'd been there for over 30
years.  That was his -- after -- it was after coming from another
country, and that's where he was doing.

		So a vast majority of our members stay for a long time.  They start
off in lower level jobs, and they move their way up similar to the
Building Trades, except that we often don't have formal apprenticeship
programs.  They will stay for years and years and years and jump around
from skill base to skill base.  They may start off in highways and go to
public works.  They may start out as a custodian, go to a maintenance
worker.  But they will stay with that public employer for long periods
of time, and it -- they may jump from county to state, but they're still
public employees.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Hmm.  And turning to the issue of medical
surveillance, are you aware if there's any kind of regular medical
surveillance that is currently conducted for public employees for
occupational health problems in any states?  You mentioned asbestos
before because that standard does apply, but are you aware that there
are any established ongoing medical surveillance programs that would
address issues of dust exposure, particularly silica exposure?

		MS. BROWN:  I don't know if it's still ongoing.  There was one in New
Jersey with New Jersey DOT.  There is an occupational environmental
health clinic group that -- in New York that handles not just public
employees but private sector as well and they collect data.  It's not --
in fact, I was trying to get some of it for this testimony and wasn't
able to get it in time.  Other than that, I'm not aware of any that are
actively going on right now.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  So you're not aware of any employer-provided medical
surveillance?

		MS. BROWN:  Only for respiratory protection.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.

		MS. BROWN:  That would be not -- nothing that's done otherwise.

		MS. SEMINARIO:  Right.  Thank you very much.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Thank you, Ms. Seminario.

		Ms. Nadeau, I think you had some questions?

		MS. NADEAU:  No, I -- she's asked --

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Okay.  Any further questions, then, from the audience?
 Not seeing any hands, I'll turn it over to OSHA.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you Ms. Brown for
testifying here this afternoon.

		Dalton Moore will begin OSHA's questions.

		MR. MOORE:  Hi.  Dalton Moore.  I just have one question for you.  I
know you were -- you said that basically the public works workers and
your highway workers are the ones that are probably most likely exposed
to silica.  Could you just talk a little bit about the training that
they have and how they would know on their job site to, you know, maybe
upgrade to a respirator or institute some other type of control?

		MS. BROWN:  Depending on that state, some of it is your basic hazard
communication training.  This is what you're supposed to do, this is the
hazard, maybe a 10-minute pre-job type of training.  In the non-OSH
states, probably none at all.  That is one of the reasons that I wanted
to stress that there needs to be some very strong language about
training in the standard because right now most public employees are not
getting the type of training they do need.

		If you're talking about highway work, they're going to get your basic
work zone training, flagger training.  They are more worried about
getting hit than they are about silica.  It's only afterwards when they
realize that they're coughing or they're having problems breathing that
they are concerned about the silica or exposure or diesel exposure or a
combination of those things.  That's my experience when it comes to our
public works and our highway folks.

		MR. MOORE:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Another question from OSHA?

		MR. MOCKLER:  Tom Mockler.  I had a question about the occupations and
where you thought the primary silica exposure problems were.  It sounds
as if you've identified the construction-related occupations as the
primary problem, although there might be some other as well.  Is that --

		MS. BROWN:  Yes.  I didn't go into detail here, but we do have a lot
of folks that work in maintenance activities and, like I say, school
settings.  And so they're not your typical highway worker and they're
not in public works, per se.  They do maintenance trades work so they
work on boilers, they work on masonry, they work on concrete.  They may
do some of their own nip tucking.  In fact, that's not uncommon.  They
may fix or repair a sidewalk or, you know, something outside the school.

		They are small jobs, they are jobs that are done quickly by a
tradesperson or, quite frankly, a higher-level maintenance worker, and I
assure you that silica exposure is probably the least of their concerns.
 They have got probably five or six other tasks they are required to do
that day.  But because of the materials that they're using and the
actual type of tools that they're using, it creates silica dust and they
probably are inhaling it.

		I don't have monitoring data because nobody monitors public employees.
 It's lumped in with a great number of other studies when it comes to
highway or maintenance repair.  They don't separate out the public
employees from the private sector employees.  And the other one was the
dental labs.  And we represent, again, you still have your students
there.  And we -- remember, those are going to be your future workers.
So we are concerned about them.  But there are folks that work in the
labs and in these public health clinics that are doing dental work where
some of the materials that they work with contain silica and those
exposures, as well, you know, those again those are not settings that
move.  They are much easier from a engineering standpoint.  You can put
controls in place.  But I sometimes think people forget about that, that
there's that whole other sector that deals with silica that is not
construction or highway related.

		MR. MOCKLER:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MS. BENNETT:  Anna Laura Bennett.  I believe in response to
Ms. Seminario's question, you mentioned that you had tried to get data
from New Jersey and New York but hadn't been able to get it in time for
this hearing.  Would it be possible to submit that in post-hearing
comments?

		MS. BROWN:  I'm going to in fact try to get that information for the
post-hearing comments.

		MS. BENNETT:  Great.  Thank you.  And you mentioned in your testimony
and also in your written testimony on page 4 you have the list of the
recommended components of initial training.  Could you give us an
estimate of about how long that training would take?

		MS. BROWN:  This would be in addition to your hazard communication
training, not a part of it.

		MS. BENNETT:  Just the portions focused on the silica exposure.

		MS. BROWN:  I could see, if I was doing this training myself, in
addition to the hands-on piece of it, probably 30 minutes of information
plus a hands-on demonstration, probably an hour.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  And that's for the initial training.  And would
it be the same or less time for the annual refresher?

		MS. BROWN:  Refresher would be task-oriented.  So 30 minutes.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  And do you have any information about members'
development of silica-related diseases as far as numbers or percentages,
who might be affected?

		MS. BROWN:  Unfortunately AFSCME's collection of members killed on the
job is almost all acute.  We get that information from the families,
from the councils and locals themselves.  They give that information to
us.  Because silica's such a chronic illness, if we get an information
about someone having a problem with a lung disease, that they died from
it, it comes from a family member.  We have information on one or two
folks who were diagnosed with complications from COPD, but I can't tell
you for sure if it was related to silica or not because, again, that
information's coming from the, you know, the deceased's family member
who reported it to us.

		MS. BENNETT:  And those were the highway workers you mentioned
earlier?

		MS. BROWN:  Those are in addition to the -- I just found out about
those highway workers literally last week.

		MS. BENNETT:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. O'CONNOR:  That's all the questions OSHA has.  Thank you again for
testifying this afternoon.

		MS. BROWN:  Thank you.

		JUDGE PURCELL:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.

		That will conclude the testimony for today.  We'll resume with Day 11
of the hearing tomorrow morning at 9:30.  We're adjourned.

		(Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the hearing was continued, to resume the
next day, Tuesday, May 1, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

	This is to certify that the attached proceedings in the matter of:

INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE

ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO

RESPIRABLE CRYSTALLINE SILICA

March 31, 2014

Washington, D.C.

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcription
thereof for the files of the United States Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety & Health Administration.

			      						         					____________________________

			         	ED SCHWEITZER

			         	Official Reporter

_________________________

		Continued

  PAGE  3132

Free State Reporting, Inc.

1378 Cape St. Claire Road

Annapolis, MD 21409

(410) 974-0947

			   PAGE  3131


[Federal Register: July 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 32905-32906]
[DOCID:fr09jy09-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

July 02, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP09-790-000.
    Applicants: MIGC LLC.
    Description: MIGC, LLC submits First Revised Sheet 50 et al., to
its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 to be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 06/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090630-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-791-000.
    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: MoGas Pipeline, LLC submits its Section 4 rate case to
change its base rates and institute a fuel charge.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-792-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 25 et al., to its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-793-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
First Revised Sheet 370 et al., to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised
Volume 1 to be effective 7/30/09.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-794-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Inc.
    Description: Southern LNG, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 41 et
al., to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.

    Accession Number: 20090701-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-795-000.
    Applicants: Gulf States Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Gulf States Transmission Corporation submits First
Revised Sheet 38 et al., effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-796-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corp submits 129th Revised
Sheet 9 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-797-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Trunkline LNG Company, LLC submits FERC Gas Tariff
Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-798-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC submits First
Revised Sheet 113 et al., to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 to
be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-799-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Trunkline LNG Company, LLC submits Second Revised
Sheet 1 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1-A, to be
effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 06/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-0161.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-800-000.
    Applicants: WTG Hugoton, LP.
    Description: WTG Hugoton, LP submits Second Revised Sheet 5 to
reflect changes to the annual Fuel Retention Percentages applicable to
transportation service provided under Rate Schedules FT and IT.
    Filed Date: 07/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090702-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-801-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Empire Pipeline, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 18 et
al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 effective 8/1/09, to be
effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090702-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-802-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits part of its
FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh revised Volume 1 and First Revised Volume 2,
et al., to be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090702-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-803-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC submits amendments
to existing negotiated rate Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreements
between MEP and the Shippers listed on Appendix A.
    Filed Date: 07/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090702-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-805-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, LP submits Fourth
Revised Sheet 142 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090702-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-806-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Report of annual overrun/penalty revenue distribution
of Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090701-5264.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-807-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Viking Gas Transmission Company submits Seventh
Revised Sheet 1 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to
be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/01/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090702-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16263 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P