INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR BASELINE STANDARDS AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE COAL MINING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ( 40 CFR PART 434)  COAL REMINING SUBCATEGORY AND WESTERN ALKALINE COAL MINING SUBCATEGORY ( final rule)

August 23, 2001 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division 401 M. Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission 3( c) Consultations 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection 3( e) General Guidelines 3( f) Confidentiality 3( g) Sensitive Questions 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and SIC Codes 4( b) Information Requested 4( c) Respondent Activities 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility 5( d) Collection Schedule 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden 6( b) Estimating Government Burden 6( c) Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table 6( d) Reasons for Change of Burden 6( e) Burden Statement 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR: Baseline Standards and Best Management Practices for the Coal Mining Point Source Category ( 40 CFR part 434)  Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory ( EPA ICR No. 1944.02; OMB Control Number 2040 NEW).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community ( approximately 234 coal remining sites and 46 western alkaline surface coal mining sites) and NPDES permit control authorities for data collection and record keeping associated with modeling, BMP implementation, baseline monitoring, and performance monitoring requirements of the Coal Mining Point Source  Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory Effluent Limitations Guidelines ( 40 CFR part 434.70 and Part 434.80). This is a new ICR. EPA is amending the current regulations for the Coal Mining Point Source Category ( 40 CFR Part 434) by adding two new subcategories to the existing regulation; the Coal Remining Subcategory and the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory. This regulation is projected to result in an annual cost savings of approximately $ 13 million.

Coal Remining Subcategory Coal remining is the mining of surface mine lands, underground mine lands, and coal refuse piles that have been previously mined and abandoned. Acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines is a significant problem in Appalachia, with approximately 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal mine lands and over 9,700 miles of streams polluted by acid mine drainage. The establishment of the coal remining subcategory is projected to cost $ 0.33 to 0.67 million annually; result in annual benefits of $ 0.7 to 1.2 million; reduce hazards associated with abandoned mine lands; and encourage the extraction of 7.1 to 14.5 millions tons of coal per year that may not otherwise be recovered.

During the remining process, acid forming materials are removed with the extraction of the coal, pollution abatement Best Management Practices ( BMPs) are implemented under applicable regulatory requirements, and the abandoned mine land is reclaimed. During remining, many of the problems associated with abandoned mine land, such as dangerous highwalls, vertical openings, and abandoned coal refuse piles can be corrected without using public funds.

The current regulations at 40 CFR part 434 create a disincentive for remining because of the high compliance costs of meeting BAT standards for drainage which has been severely impaired. The remining subcategory will allow alternative effluent limits such that the mine operator cannot worsen the pollutant loadings of these parameters.

The remining regulations include a requirement that the operator implement best management practices ( BMPs) to demonstrate the potential to improve water quality. The site specific BMPs will be incorporated into a pollution abatement plan. Data collection and record keeping requirements under this Subcategory will include baseline determination, annual monitoring and reporting for pre existing discharges and a description of site specific BMPs. In most cases, EPA believes that the BMP requirements for the pollution abatement plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan.

Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory The establishment of the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory will encourage the use of alternative sediment controls for the control of sediment in non process areas of western alkaline coal mines. Western alkaline coal mines include surface and underground mining operations located in the interior western United States. EPA estimates that 46 mine sites will be affected by this subcategory, representing 2% of the total number of US coal mines, but accounting for 1/ 3 of US coal production.

The western alkaline subcategory is projected to result in annual cost savings of approximately $ 13 million, and result in annual benefits of $ 0.039 to 0.745 million. The cost savings are a result of adopting alternative sediment control technologies for reclamation areas in the arid west. Specifically, coal mine operators will incur cost savings because they will no longer have to construct extensive sediment ponds. Additionally, EPA projects that western mines will be able to obtain phase II bond release in a shorter period of time due to the use of alternative sediment controls, resulting in additional cost savings to the industry.

Existing effluent limitation guidelines establish relatively stringent controls on the amount of solids that can be discharged into waterways. EPA has concluded that the current requirements are not appropriate for arid and semiarid western reclamation areas because of the negative non water quality impacts associated with the predominant use of sedimentation ponds used to control runoff. Therefore, the new subcategory establishes non numeric limitations on the amount of sediment that can be discharged from coal mine reclamation areas. In lieu of numeric standards, the mine operator must develop a site specific sediment control plan for surface reclamation areas identifying BMP design, construction, and maintenance specifications and expected effectiveness. The operator will be required to demonstrate, using models accepted by the regulatory authority, that implementation of the BMPs will ensure that average annual sediment levels in drainage from reclamation areas would not exceed predicted natural background levels of sediment discharges at that site. Data collection and record keeping requirements under this Subcategory will include a description of site specific sediment control BMPs and watershed model results. EPA believes that plans developed to comply with SMCRA requirements will usually fulfill the EPA requirements for sediment control plans.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection EPA is adding two new subcategories to 40 CFR part 434 for coal mining operations to address environmental issues not covered under the existing regulations. The addition of these two new subcategories is expected to ( 1) reduce severe and extensive damage resulting from abandoned mine lands in the Appalachian and mid continent coal regions, and ( 2) reduce adverse environmental impacts resulting from the predominant use of sedimentation ponds for sediment control in the arid and semiarid western coal regions.

These regulations are to be promulgated under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), 33 U. S. C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361.

The CWA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to include Best Management Practices in effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations. EPA's legal authority for regulations based on BMPs is found in Section 402( a)( 1), Section 402( a)( 2), and Section 501( a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. 1251. et. seq. EPA also relies on 40 CFR 122.44( d). The BMP regulation is consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U. S. C. 13101. et. seq.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The primary users of the information generated through the baseline determination and monitoring data and BMP descriptions will be the coal mining companies who perform remining operations at abandoned mine lands and those who perform coal mining reclamation activities in arid and semiarid western coal regions. In addition, the baseline determination and monitoring data and BMP descriptions will be used by NPDES control authorities to set baseline standards and to determine compliance with the regulations.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication The baseline determination and annual monitoring required under the remining subcategory may potentially impact remining sites in ten states. For pre existing discharges at AML remining sites, the monitoring requirements of the regulation are already currently required in whole or part by seven of the states which issue Rahall remining permits. For three states, Rahall permits are not issued and EPA is assuming that monitoring burden will need to be assessed for these states under this rule. EPA is also assuming that monitoring burden will need to be assessed for states whose requirements are less than those required under these regulations. This incremental data collection and reporting burden for the baseline determination and annual monitoring will not be available elsewhere.

For pre existing discharges at AML remining sites, EPA is incorporating BMP standards into the regulation by requiring that a site specific pollution abatement plan be developed and implemented for each site. The requirements of the plan are consistent with SMCRA requirements for mining operations to achieve successful revegetation and post mine land use. Therefore, in most cases, the BMP requirements for the pollution abatement plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan and will not be duplication in the reporting burden associated with the BMP requirements. However, EPA or the State NPDES permitting authority will review the plan and will retain the authority to recommend additional or incremental BMPs as necessary to ensure that implementation of the identified BMPs is the best available technology economically achievable.

For discharges at western alkaline coal mining sites, EPA is incorporating BMP standards into the regulation by requiring that a site specific sediment control plan be developed and implemented for each site. The requirements of the plan are consistent with SMCRA requirements for mining operations to achieve successful revegetation and post mine land use. Therefore, in most cases, the BMP requirements for the pollution abatement plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan and will not be duplication in the reporting burden associated with the BMP requirements. However, EPA or the State NPDES permitting authority will review the plan and will retain the authority to recommend additional or incremental BMPs as necessary to ensure that implementation of the identified BMPs is the best available technology economically achievable.

EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 501, and 503. The Agency has also consulted other sources of information to determine if similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere. These examinations have revealed no additional duplicative reporting requirements.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et. seq.), the EPA solicited comments on the proposed information collection in the Federal Register as part of the proposed regulation prior to submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget.

3( c) Consultations EPA has had discussion with the following organizations regarding development of this regulation and the attendant record keeping and reporting requirements:

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission ( IMCC);

The National Mining Association ( NMA);

Western Interstate Energy Board ( WIEB);

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement ( OSMRE);

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( PADEP);

Other States;

Tribes; and

Industry Representatives. 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The Remining regulations require collection of pre existing discharge data at a minimum frequency of once per month per pre existing discharge point for a 12 month period to set baseline standards, and at the frequency of once per month per pre existing discharge point thereafter to demonstrate compliance. This frequency of data collection to set baseline standards is required to allow sufficient data to statistically determine an average discharge value and variability associated with that value. This frequency of data collection is considered by EPA to be the smallest frequency that would allow a significant probability of revealing a substantial increase above baseline levels within one year. In addition, the frequency of collection will allow for data representative of seasonal conditions. If a facility fails to demonstrate compliance with the baseline standards, the monitoring frequency may be increased so that the permitting authority can monitor the pre existing discharge more closely and effect corrective action to re establish compliance.

3( e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2).

3( f) Confidentiality EPA does not expect that any confidential business information or trade secrets will be required from coal mining operators as part of this ICR. If information submitted in conjunction with this ICR were to contain confidential business information, the respondent has the authority to request that the information be treated as confidential business information. All data so designated will be handled by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 2. This information will be maintained according to procedures outlined in EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Pursuant to Section 308( b) of the CWA, effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and SIC Codes The respondents for this ICR will be approximately 234 coal remining sites at AML with pre existing discharges located in the Appalachian and mid continent coal regions and approximately 46 surface coal mining reclamation sites in the arid and semiarid western coal regions. These sites fall under SIC codes 1221 ( Bituminous Coal and Lignite Surface Mining), 1222 ( Bituminous Coal Underground Mining), and 1231 ( Anthracite Mining). Government respondents are expected to be approximately 10 State authorities who will prepare new NPDES permits in the implementation of the regulation and will conduct technical review of a site's SMCRA reclamation plan to assess the adequacy of the BMPs.

4( b) Information Requested The regulations at 40 CFR 434.74 and 434.84 include the following major components:

Coal Remining at AML with Pre existing Discharges

Coal remining operators are required to perform and report baseline determination for each pre existing discharge for acidity, solids, iron ( total), and manganese ( total) at a frequency of once per month for 12 months. Thereafter, monitoring will occur once per month. Monitoring may be increased if baseline standards are not met.

Coal remining operators are required to employ appropriate, site specific best management practices to result in the potential for improved water quality. This requirement is satisfied by implementation of a site specific pollution abatement plan that is subject to the NPDES permit authority review and approval.

Western Alkaline Coal Mining with Sediment Control

Western coal mining operators are required to apply appropriate, site specific best management practices that will result in average annual sediment yields that will not be greater than background levels from pre mined, undisturbed conditions. This requirement is satisfied by development of a site specific sediment control plan developed using a watershed model and describing best management practices. The sediment control plan and model results are subject to NPDES permit authority review and approval.

4( c) Respondent Activities Coal Remining at AML with Pre existing Discharges respondent activities include the following:

Preparing basic information. This includes collection of baseline determination data and monitoring data, developing the pollution abatement plan ( which includes applicable BMPs) that will be described in the SMCRA permit reclamation plan, and making reports to the NPDES permit authority.

Maintaining records. All coal mining and remining operators must keep records of the monitoring information required by the regulation.

Western Alkaline Coal Mining with Sediment Control respondent activities include the following:

Preparing basic information. This includes modeling of sediment yield, developing the sediment control plan ( which includes applicable BMPs) that will be described in the SMCRA permit reclamation plan, and making reports to the NPDES permit authority.

State permitting authority activities include the following:

Preparing NPDES permits. This includes reviewing baseline determination, monitoring data and pollution abatement plans or sediment control plans and incorporating baseline standards and BMP provisions in an NPDES permit.

Periodic review. State respondents are authorized to conduct periodic review of monitoring reports and SMCRA reclamation plans to assess compliance with baseline standards and BMP conditions contained in the site's NPDES permit.

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities Upon approval of this ICR, permittees must maintain records as described above in Section 4( c) and at least annually must submit to the NPDES authority a report summarizing the results of monitoring, the number and dates of any exceedances of baseline standards and corrective actions taken when standards are exceeded. The NPDES permitting authority can be either an approved NPDES State or an EPA regional office. The NPDES permitting authority is authorized to review best management practices described in a site's SMCRA permit reclamation plan, conduct compliance audits of facility records, review the data, and where necessary, conduct follow up activities. Follow up activities may include informal contact with the permittee ( by telephone or letter) to discuss the cause of any exceedances of baseline standards and actions taken to correct the exceedences. Review of monitoring records may also be helpful to permit writers in the development of future NPDES permit conditions.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management The data collection and management methodology for coal remining at AML with preexisting discharges will include data collection and reporting of baseline determination data and monitoring data and reporting of the site specific pollution abatement plan. The baseline determination data and subsequent monitoring data for the pre existing discharge points will be reported to the NPDES permit authority. Components of the site specific pollution abatement plan to be employed at a mining site is reported as part of the site's SMCRA permit application to the OSMRE permit authority. EPA believes that the BMP requirements for the pollution abatement plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan and will not be duplication in the reporting burden associated with the BMP requirements. However, EPA or the State NPDES permitting authority will review the plan and will retain the authority to recommend additional or incremental BMPs as necessary to ensure that implementation of the identified BMPs is the best available technology economically achievable.

For western alkaline coal mining, EPA expects that the components of the sediment control plan will largely be satisfied by the SMCRA permit application process. The site specific sediment control plan is reported as part of the site's SMCRA permit application to the OSMRE permit authority. EPA assumes that the requirements for the sediment control plan will largely be satisfied by materials generated as part of SMCRA permit application. However, the sediment control plan and model results will be subject to NPDES permit authority review and approval.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility Pursuant to section 605( b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the EPA Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

5( d) Collection Schedule The information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to occur under the following schedule for each subcategory:

Coal Remining at AML with Pre existing Discharges

Collection and reporting of baseline determination data for pre existing discharges: Due at the time of permit application.

Submittal of a remining pollution abatement plan as part of a site's SMCRA permit application: Due at the time of permit application.

Collection and reporting of subsequent monitoring data for pre existing discharges: due with the Discharge Monitoring Report ( DMR).

Western Alkaline Coal Mining with Sediment Control

Reporting of the sediment yield modeling results for a reclamation site: Due at the time of permit application.

Submittal of a sediment control plan: Due at the time of permit application.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs Tables 1 and 2 present estimates of the initial and recurring respondent burden ( respectively) for labor hours and costs associated with this ICR. The assumptions used in determining the respondent burden and costs are summarized below and footnoted in each table. The numbers presented in this ICR are based on assumptions consistent with those used in EPA's Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment but are presented in a different format. Dollar estimates in this ICR are not directly comparable because they differ in their use and presentation including the use of midpoint values versus estimate ranges; the time period of analysis; and annualization of dollar values.

Table 3 presents estimates of the initial and recurring Agency burden and costs associated with this ICR. A summary of the respondent's burden hours and costs is presented in Table 4.

6( a)( 1) Estimate of the Number of Respondents The potential number of coal remining respondents is documented in an EPA memorandum dated September 27, 1999, from John Tinger, EPA to Kristen Strellec, EPA, Subject: Final Estimation of Facilities Affected by Proposed Remining Subcategory. This memorandum estimates that approximately 78 permits per year may be issued. The duration of this ICR is three years and therefore the potential respondents over this time frame is ( 78 x 3) 234.

The potential number of western alkaline surface mining respondents is documented in the 1998 Keystone Coal Industry Manual. Using information from this reference, EPA estimates that there are approximately 46 potential respondents for this subcategory.

The Agency also compiled profile information on 24 existing underground coal mines in the arid/ semi arid Western states. Information provided by OSM indicates that underground mines will incur zero incremental modeling costs due to the small acreage and lack of complexity associated with these reclamation areas.

Although there are a total of 44 authorized NPDES states, the number of state NPDES authorities estimated to be impacted by the rule is 10.

6( a)( 2) Baseline Determination and Estimate of the Incremental Monitoring Burden and Cost The extent to which EPA would require additional monitoring for remining sites as part of the regulation depends on what the states are already requiring for Rahall remining permits. Table A below summarizes the baseline determination monitoring and subsequent annual monitoring required by state in their current Rahall remining permits and the incremental monitoring that would be associated with the rule. This table also shows the number of sites expected to be permitted under the regulations annually by state. Table A. Baseline Determination and Incremental Monitoring Required State State Required Baseline Determination Monitoring ( Samples/ Site/ Yr) Incremental Baseline Determination Monitoring ( Samples/ Site/ Yr) State Required Annual Monitoring ( Samples/ Site/ Yr) Incremental Annual Monitoring ( Samples/ Site/ Yr) Estimated Annual Number of Sites Permitted AL 6 6 12 0 0 IL NA 12 NA 12 0 IN NA 12 NA 12 5 KY 6 6 12 0 7 MD 12 0 12 0 1 OH 12 0 4 8 21 PA 12 0 12 0 26 TN NA 12 NA 12 9 VA 12 0 12 0 9 WV 12 0 12 0 0 Total 78 NA = Rahall permits are not issued in these states. Source: Economic and Environmental Impact Assessment EPA is assuming for mine sites in Indiana and Tennessee that baseline determination monitoring and annual monitoring costs will be required for all of the reporting requirements. In addition, EPA is assuming that flow metering from an installed weir will also be required for mine sites in these two states. For all other states, EPA is assuming that flow metering will already be required and installed as part of the implementation of the state Rahall remining permit program. Table B and Table C below present the respondent burden and monitoring costs associated with the incremental monitoring required by the regulation for baseline determination monitoring and annual monitoring, respectively. Assumptions made for determining the respondent burden and costs are footnoted at the end of the tables. Table B. Respondent Burden and Costs for Baseline Determination Monitoring State Incremental Baseline Determination Monitoring ( Total Samples) ( a) Labor Burden ( Hrs) ( b) Labor Cost ($) ( c) Monitoring Cost ($) ( d)

AL 0 0 0 0 IL 0 0 0 0 IN 720 540 15,660 88,224 KY 504 378 10,962 12,701 MD 0 0 0 0 OH 0 0 0 0 PA 0 0 0 0 TN 1,296 972 28,188 158,803 VA 0 0 0 0 WV 0 0 0 0 Total 2,520 1,890 54,810 259,728 ( a) Assumes 4 pre existing discharge points per site. The average number of pre existing discharges per site is based on a review of the number of pre existing discharge points per site from the 119 Study, the 104 Study and the Pennsylvania Coal Remining Database. Total samples = Incremental samples/ site/ yr x Number of permitted sites/ yr x 3 years x 4 pre existing discharge points/ site.

( b) Assumes 0.75 hours/ sample of labor burden based on PADEP estimates.

( c) Assumes a labor cost of $ 29.00/ hour based on PADEP estimates.

( d) Assumes a sample analysis cost of $ 22.00/ sample and mileage costs of $ 3.20/ sample for a total of $ 25.20/ sample. Indiana sample analysis cost = 720 x $ 25.20 = $ 18,144. Kentucky sample analysis cost = 504 x $ 25.20 = $ 12,701. Tennessee sample analysis cost = 1,296 x $ 25.20 = $ 32,659. For Indiana and Tennessee assumes installed weir costs of $ 1,168/ weir based on cost estimates from Weir & Flume Sales Co. And Tarco Tech. Industries. Indiana will have 5 sites/ yr x 3 years x 4 pre existing discharge points/ site x $ 1,168/ weir = $ 70,080. Tennessee will have 9 sites/ yr x 3 years x 4 pre existing discharge points/ site x $ 1,168/ weir = $ 126,144. Table C. Respondent Burden and Costs for Annual Monitoring State Incremental Annual Monitoring ( Total Samples) ( a) Labor Burden ( Hrs) ( b) Labor Cost ($) ( c) Monitoring Cost ($) ( d)

AL 0 0 0 0 IL 0 0 0 0 IN 720 540 15,660 18,144 KY 0 0 0 0 MD 0 0 0 0 OH 2,016 1,512 43,848 50,803 PA 0 0 0 0 TN 1,296 972 28,188 32,659 VA 0 0 0 0 WV 0 0 0 0 Total 4,032 3,024 87,696 101,606 ( a) Assumes 4 pre existing discharge points per site. The average number of pre existing discharges per site is based on a review of the number of pre existing discharge points per site from the 119 Study, the 104 Study and the Pennsylvania Coal Remining Database. Total samples = Incremental samples/ site/ yr x Number of permitted sites/ yr x 3 years x 4 pre existing discharge points/ site.

( b) Assumes 0.75 hours/ sample of labor burden based on PADEP estimates.

( c) Assumes a labor cost of $ 29.00/ hour based on PADEP estimates.

( d) Assumes a sample analysis cost of $ 22.00/ sample and mileage costs of $ 3.20/ sample for a total of $ 25.20/ sample. Table 1. Initial Respondent Burden and Costs Subcategory Activity Labor Hours Labor Costs ($) Monitoring Costs ($) Total Initial Costs ($)

Coal Remining at AML with preexisting discharges Baseline Determination Monitoring 1,890 54,810 259,728 314,538 Development of sitespecific remining BMP plan ( a) ( a) ( a) 0 NPDES Control Authority  review of BMP plan and permit preparation 8,190 ( b) 259,459 ( c) 0 259,459 Western Alkaline Coal Mining with Sediment Control Sediment Yield Modeling ( a) ( a) 0 0 Development of sitespecific sediment control BMPs ( a) ( a) ( a) 0 NPDES Control Authority  review of modeling and BMP plan and permit preparation 1,610 ( b) 51,005 ( c) 0 51,005 ( a) The hour and cost burden associated with these activities is already covered by the " Surface Mining Permit Applications  Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plan  30 CFR part 780" ICR, OMB Control Number 1029 0036.

( b) Assumes 25 hrs/ plan for review ( based on the SMCRA ICR burden for review of the reclamation plan) and 10 hrs/ site for NPDES permit preparation for a total of 35 hours/ site. For coal remining sites: 35 hrs/ permit x 234 potential permits = 8,190 hours. For western alkaline sites: 35 hrs/ permit x 46 potential reclamation sites in the arid and semi arid western states = 1,610 hours.

( c) U. S. Labor Department average annual salary for state and local employees is $ 41,185. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 19.80. Overhead costs for state and local employees are estimated to be 60 percent ( EPA ICR Handbook), or $ 11.88 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $ 31.68/ hour. 8,190 hours x $ 31.68 = $ 259,459. 1,610 hours x $ 31.68 = $ 51,005. Table 2. Recurring Respondent Burden and Costs*

Subcategory Activity Labor Hours/ Yr. Labor Costs ($/ Yr.) Monitoring Costs ($/ Yr.) Total Recurring Costs ($/ Yr.)

Coal Remining at AML with preexisting discharge Annual Monitoring 3,024 87,696 101,606 189,302 NPDES Control Authority review of post baseline monitoring data 2,340 ( a) 74,131 ( b) 0 74,131 * There is no recurring respondent burden for the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory.

( a) Assumes 10 hrs/ site/ year for review x 234 potential remining sites = 2,340 hours/ yr.

( b) Using $ 31.68/ hour x 2,340 hrs/ yr. = $ 74,131.

6( b) Estimating Agency Burden EPA estimates its initial burden to be one hour per site and an annual labor burden of eight hours per site. Table 3 below summarizes the initial and recurring Agency burden.

Table 3. Initial and Recurring Agency Burden Subcategory Activity Hours/ Site No. of Sites Total Cost ( a)

Coal Remining at Abandoned Mine Lands Initial Burden 1 234 $ 7,413 Recurring Burden 8 234 $ 59,305/ year Western Alkaline Coal Mining with Sediment Control Initial Burden 1 46 $ 1,457 Recurring Burden 8 46 $ 11,658/ year ( a) = Assuming $ 31.68/ hour. Total cost is equal to the hours/ site x no. of sites x $/ hr.

6( c) Bottom Line Burden and Cost Table Table 4 presents the bottom line burden hours and costs for respondents and EPA. Table 4. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and EPA Category Total Labor Hours Total Costs Respondents ( Coal Remining)  Initial Burden 1,890 $ 314,538 Respondents ( Western Alkaline Coal Mining)  Initial Burden 0 0 Total 1,890 $ 314,538 Respondents ( Coal Remining)  Annual Burden 3,024/ year $ 189,302/ year Respondents ( Western Alkaline Coal Mining)  Annual Burden 0/ year $ 0/ year Total 3,024/ year $ 189,302/ year Respondents  NPDES Control Authority  Initial Burden 9,800 $ 310,464 Respondents  NPDES Control Authority  Annual Burden 2,340/ year $ 74,131/ year EPA  Initial Burden 280 $ 8,870 EPA  Annual Burden 2,240/ year $ 70,963/ year The initial burden for coal mining and remining sites under the rule is estimated at 1,890 hours and $ 314,538 for baseline determination monitoring at coal remining sites. The initial burden associated with preparation of a site's pollution abatement plan or sediment control plan is already covered by an applicable SMCRA ICR. The annual burden for coal mining and remining sites under the rule is estimated at 3,024 hours per year and $ 189,302 per year for annual monitoring at coal remining sites.

The initial burden for NPDES control authorities is estimated at 9,800 hours and $ 310,464 for review of SMCRA remining and reclamation plans ( which include BMPs) and preparation of the NPDES permit. The annual burden for NPDES control authorities is estimated at 2,340 hours per year and $ 74,131 per year for review of annual monitoring data at coal remining sites.

Monitoring costs apply to the Coal Remining Subcategory only. The average annual monitoring costs for all respondents under this ICR is $ 294,148 ($ 314,538/ 3 + $ 189,302).

6( d) Reasons for Changes in Burden Since this is a new information collection, there is no change in burden for this collection.

6( e) Burden Statement For the Coal Remining Subcategory, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 15.6 hours per respondent per year (( 1,890 hours/ 3 years + 3,024 hours/ year) / 234 coal remining sites). This estimate includes time for collecting and submitting baseline and annual monitoring results. For the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory, there is projected to be no additional public reporting burden.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to:

review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;

search data sources;

complete and review the collection of information; and

transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 134 (Monday, July 13, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41935-41937]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 162

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0899]
RIN 1625-AC04

Inland Waterways Navigation: St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie,
Michigan

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to exempt vessels under 20 meters
(65 feet) in length operating in the St. Mary's River along Michigan's
eastern Upper Peninsula from certain speed rules. Exempting such
vessels from these rules is necessary because enforcement is
impractical and the rules impede the operations of public response
vessels. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 12, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0899 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LTJG Blake Bonifas, Waterways
Management, Ninth Coast Guard District, Cleveland, OH, telephone (216)
902-6066, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The inland navigation rules for the St. Marys River along
Michigan's eastern Upper Peninsula are prescribed by 33 CFR 162.117.
These rules include speed limits for stretches of the St. Marys River
demarcated by lights.
    U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) St. Mary's River
monitors and directs vessel traffic movement within the VTS St. Marys
River area through a Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS). This VTS
area overlaps the length of the St. Marys River governed by the speed
rules in Sec.  162.117(g). The VMRS requires users, generally including
commercial vessels of 20 meters or more, to report information,
including their position, course, and speed. These users report their
information through radio communications and Automatic Identification
System (AIS). Because VTS St. Marys River tracks speed for VMRS users,
it can and does enforce the speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g) on these
users.
    Many non-VMRS vessels transit the length of the St. Marys River
governed by the speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g). These vessels
generally include private vessels under 20 meters. As non-VMRS users,
these vessels are not required to report their speed to the VTS St.
Marys River. Additionally, unlike commercial vessels of 20 meters or
more, these vessels are not required to operate with AIS, the prevalent
means of reporting location, course, and speed to VTS St. Marys River.
Because the VTS St. Marys River cannot track these non-VMRS vessels, it
cannot, realistically, enforce the speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g) on
these vessels.
    The speed rules in Sec.  162.117(g) also impact the operational
effectiveness of public response vessels in the St. Marys River. These
vessels include small boats, generally under 20 meters, operated by the
U.S. Coast Guard and federal, Canadian, state, and local partners.
These small boats respond to pollution incidents, marine casualties,
and perform search and rescue and law enforcement operations throughout
the St. Marys River. These operations require public vessels to deploy
and be on-scene rapidly. The speed rules impede response times and
degrade operational effectiveness to the detriment of the boating
public and industry.
    Because the speed rules in 162.117(g) are not enforceable on non-
VMRS users and impact operational effectiveness of public response
boats, this rule proposes to exempt vessels under 20 meters (65 feet)
from these speed rules.
    This proposed exemption is not anticipated to impact the St. Marys
River VTS, VMRS, or its users. Additionally, it is not intended to
relieve vessels under 20 meters from the responsibility to boat safely
and exercise good seamanship. This proposed rule is issued under the
authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard is proposing to amend the speed rules in 33 CFR
162.117(g), because, as they are currently written, they are too broad
and unnecessarily restrict vessel operations. Specifically, this rule
proposes to exempt vessels under 20 meters (65 feet) from the speed
rules in 162.117(g). The regulatory text we are proposing appears at
the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that we
do not anticipate that it will adversely affect the economy, will not
interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of
any grant of loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or
policy issues. Rather, permitting vessels under 20 meters to operate
free of the speed rules in 33 CFR 162.117(g)

will lessen restrictions on the public and enable public vessels to
engage unimpeded in response operations.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed amendment will lessen navigation restrictions on
public entities, a large majority of recreational vessel owners and
private businesses who operate small commercial vessels.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves an
amendment to navigation regulations for speed limits within a waterway.
Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementing Procedures. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence
System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 162

    Navigation (water), Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 162 as follows:

PART 162--INLAND WATERWAYS NAVIGATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 162 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C 70034; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  162.117, revise paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  162.117   St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

* * * * *
    (g) Speed Rules. (1) The following speed limits indicate speed over
the ground. Vessels, other than those under 20 meters (65 feet) in
length, must adhere to the following speed limits.
* * * * *

    Dated: June 9, 2020.
D.L. Cottrell,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-14100 Filed 7-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 43511]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15258-000]

Lock+TM Hydro Friends Fund XI, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 4, 2022, Lock+TM Hydro Friends Fund XI, LLC
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
the Lock and Dam No. 25 Hydropower Project to be located on the
Mississippi River and near the City of Winfield, Missouri in Lincoln
County, Missouri, and Calhoun County, Illinois. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) a 210-
foot-long by 40-foot-wide reinforced concrete headrace; (2) a 210-foot-
long by 40-foot-wide by 50-foot-high submersible reinforced concrete
powerhouse containing seven 10-megawatt (MW) turbines; (3) seven
submersible 10-MW generators rated at 6.9 kilovolts (kV) or 13 kV; (4)
50-foot-wide by 210-foot-long draft tubes; (5) 40-foot-wide by 210-
foot-long reinforced concrete tailrace; (6) a 25-foot by 50-foot
switchyard; (7) a 4.45-mile-long, 6.9-kV or 13-kV transmission line
connecting to an existing transmission system; and (8) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Lock and Dam No. 25
Hydropower would be 307,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne Krouse; Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XI,
LLC; 2901 4th Avenue South, #B 253, Birmingham, AL 35233; phone: (877)
556-6566 ext. 709.
    FERC Contact: Michael Davis; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15258-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15258) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 15, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15599 Filed 7-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 29198-29199]
[DOCID:fr19jn09-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2660-024]

Domtar Maine Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

June 15, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 2660-024.
    c. Date Filed: March 19, 2009.
    d. Applicant: Domtar Maine Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Forest City Project.
    f. Location: On Forest City Stream, a tributary of the St. Croix
River in Washington and Aroostock Counties, Maine and Canada.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Scott Beal, Domtar Maine Corporation, 144
Main Street, Baileyville, Maine 04694,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John Costello,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly

D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
ferconline.asp) under the ``e-filing'' link. For a simpler method of
submitting text only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.''
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The existing Forest City Project comprises an earth embankment
dam containing a gated timber spillway and two impoundments (East Grand
and North Lakes). There are no generating facilities located at the
project. Approximately one-quarter of the 544-foot-long dam (i.e.,
approximately 147 feet) is within the United States, the remaining
section of the dam is located in Canada. The United States (western)
section of the dam is an earth embankment measuring approximately 110-
feet-long with a maximum height of 12 feet. The center section of the
dam (i.e., that portion located in the river channel) contains a 55-
foot-wide gated timber crib spillway structure with three wooden gates
(gates 1 and 2 are located within the United States). The spillway is
approximately 33 feet wide with an elevation of 426.61 feet msl. A 5-
foot-wide vertical slot design fishway is located in Canada. The
eastern (Canadian) embankment is an earth structure approximately 397-
feet-long, 30-feet-long with a crest elevation of 437.27 feet msl. No
new construction is proposed.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14453 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 70439]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-346-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Global Energy, 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 November 25, 2011.
    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 Street 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 4, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29259 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


          List of Documents Included in Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0096
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone
Docket Index Table of Contents
A. U.S. EPA Guidance Documents, Policies, and Rulemakings
B. State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence
C. Additional Documents for Proposed Rulemaking
D. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Technical Support Document
E. Public Comments and Related Documents
F. Additional Documents Considered for Final Plan Action
G. Notice of Final Rulemaking, Plan Action

 EPA Policy, Guidance, Rulemaking Documents, and Correspondence
   Note: Federal Register notices published 1994 and after are readily available online at www.federalregister.gov. Links to individual notices published after 1994 are included in this index below. Electronic copies of notices published prior to 1994 are included in this docket.
 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (September 13, 2013).
 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final Rule. 80 Fed. Reg. 65292 (October 26, 2015).
 Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel (OGC), "Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of Section 128," March 2, 1978.
 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, "Guidance for State Implementation Plan Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards," August 15, 2006.
 Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards," September 25, 2009.
 Overarching Technical Support Document for EPA's Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2.) U.S. EPA, Region 9 (September 2014).
 Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline; Final rule. 70 FR 71611 (November 29, 2005).
 Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5); Final rule. 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008).
 Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule. 75 FR 82535 (December 30, 2010).
 Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Stationary Sources; New Source Review; Final rule. 83 FR 23372 (May 21, 2018).
 Approval of Air Plans; California; Multiple Districts; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Final rule. 80 FR 69880 (November 12, 2015).
 Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Eastern Kern, Imperial, Placer, and Yolo-Solano; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Final rule. 77 FR 73316 (December 10, 2012).
 Approval, Disapproval, and Limited Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits; Final rule; 80 FR 15899 (March 26, 2015).
 Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; Final rule; 76 FR 43183 (July 20, 2011).
 Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Final rule; 77 FR 65305 (October 26, 2012).
 Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Final rule; 82 FR 13243 (March 10, 2017).
 Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); Final rule; 81 FR 18766 (April 1, 2016).
 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport; Final rule; 76 FR 34608 (June 14, 2011).
 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision: Six Administrative Chapters. 45 FR 53136 (August 11, 1980).
 Conflict of Interest Technical Support Document for EPA's Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) U.S. EPA, Region 9 (September 2014).
B. State Plans, Rules, Support Documents, Reports, and Correspondence
          California's Infrastructure SIP Submittals:
 Letter dated October 1, 2018, from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with California's 2018 Infrastructure SIP.
 Letter dated June 16, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with Ozone Emergency Episode Plans for Amador County, San Luis Obispo County, Northern Sierra, Tuolumne County, Mariposa County, and Calaveras County and Exemption Request for Lake County.
          California's 2018 Annual Network Plan Submissions:
 BAAQMD Air Monitoring Network Plan, July 1, 2019.
 CARB Annual Network Plan- Covering Monitoring Operations in 25 California Air Districts, July 2019.
 Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Monitoring Plan, March 22, 2019.
 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 2019 Annual Monitoring Network Plan, June 30, 2019.
 North Coast Annual Network Plan for Ambient Air Monitoring, July 1, 2019.
 Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District 2019 Annual Monitoring Network Plan, October 10, 2019.
 County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, July 12, 2019.
 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2019 Air Monitoring Network Plan, July 8, 2019.
 2019 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, June 2019.
 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan, July 1, 2019.
 South Coast Air Quality Management District Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, July 1, 2019.
 EPA Region IX's Approval Letters for 2018 Annual Network Plan Submissions
 Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ranyee Chiang, Director of Meteorology and Measurements, Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
 Letter dated November 26, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Ravi Ramalingam, Chief, Consumer Products and Air Quality Assessment Branch, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, California Air Resources Board.
 Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Phillip Kiddoo, Air Pollution Control Officer, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
 Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
 Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Brian Wilson, Air Pollution Control Officer, North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District.
 Letter dated March 3, 2020, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Alberto Ayala, Air Pollution Control Officer, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
 Letter dated November 7, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Bill Brick, Chief, Monitoring and Technical Services, San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
 Letter dated November 6, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Jon Klassen, Director of Strategies and Incentives, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
 Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Karl Tupper, Air Quality Specialist- Monitoring Division, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.
 Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Joel S. Cordes, Air Monitoring Supervisor, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
 Letter dated October 29, 2019, from Gwen Yoshimura, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, EPA Region IX, to Matt Miyasoto, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, South Coast Air Quality Management District.
 Letter dated September 25, 2019, from Dora K. Drexler, Manager, Engineering & Compliance Division, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
 Letter dated September 17, 2019, from Jim McHargue, Air Pollution Control Officer, Amador Air District, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
 Letter dated August 23, 2019, from Eric Sergienko, Director, Mariposa County Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
 Letter dated August 27, 2019, from Gretchen Bennitt, Executive Director, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
 Letter dated September 27, 2019, from Joseph Tona, County of Tehama Air Pollution Control District, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
 Letter dated November 4, 2019, from Kelle Schroeder, Air Pollution Control Officer, County of Tuolumne, to Gerardo Rios, Chief, Air Permits Office, EPA Region IX.
 Email dated March 21[st], 2019 from Matthew Densberger to Panah Stauffer. Subject: California iSIP Conflict of Interest Provisions.
 Chapter 25, Intergovernmental Relations, Revision to State of California Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards.  Adopted by the California Air Resources Board, October 26, 1978.

 Additional Documents for Proposed Rulemaking
          U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in Montana Environmental Information Center v. EPA, No. 16-71933 (Aug. 30, 2018).
D. Appendices
      D-1	EPA, Region IX, Spreadsheet of Nonattainment Areas in California Air Districts.
      D-2	EPA, Region IX, Spreadsheet of California Minor NSR Programs
      D-3	EPA, Region IX, Spreadsheet of Air Quality Control Regions with Maximum 1-hour Ozone Values Over 100ppb for 2015-2017.
E. Public Comments and Related Documents
[Reserved]
F. Additional Documents Considered for Final Plan Action
[Reserved]
G.	Notice of Final Rulemaking, Plan Action
[Reserved]


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8775-8776]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03174]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71509; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Fee for Qualification Examination
Waiver Requests

February 7, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 3, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or
``CBOE'') proposes to establish a fee for qualification examination
waiver requests. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    CBOE Rule 3.6A, Interpretation and Policy .05, authorizes the
Exchange, in exceptional cases and where good cause is shown, to waive
qualification examinations and accept other standards as evidence of an
applicant's qualification for registration. This authority is to be
exercised in exceptional cases and where good cause is shown by the
applicant. The rule further states that advanced age or physical
infirmity, will not individually of themselves constitute sufficient
grounds to waive a qualification examination. Experience in fields
ancillary to the securities business may constitute sufficient grounds
to waive a qualification examination.
    The Exchange has entered into a regulatory services agreement
(``RSA'') with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') pursuant to which FINRA will process qualification
examination waiver requests on behalf of the Exchange (``Waiver
Requests'').\3\ Under the RSA, CBOE Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'')
and persons associated with CBOE TPHs seeking a waiver of a
qualification examination will submit a Waiver Request to FINRA.\4\
FINRA will process all Waiver Requests submitted by CBOE TPHs and their
associated persons, whether the Waiver Request is for a FINRA
examination or a non-FINRA examination (e.g., the Series 56
examination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CBOE Rule 15.9(b) authorizes the Exchange to enter into
agreements with another self-regulatory organization to provide
regulatory services to the Exchange to assist the Exchange in
discharging its obligations under Section 6 and Section 19(g) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    \4\ Currently, Waiver Requests must be submitted to FINRA
through the FINRA Firm Gateway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA will review each Waiver Request based on guidelines approved
by the Exchange and provide the Exchange with a recommendation
regarding the disposition of the Waiver Request. The Exchange will make
the final decision regarding whether or not to grant or deny a Waiver
Request.\5\ FINRA will maintain files and records made, collected or
otherwise created by FINRA in the course of performing services under
the RSA. Such files and records shall include, but not be limited to,
FINRA Waiver Request disposition recommendations and the basis for its

recommendations,\6\ CBOE decisions and the basis for its decisions,\7\
and letters sent to requesting CBOE TPHs communicating CBOE's
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notwithstanding the RSA, the Exchange shall retain ultimate
legal responsibility for, and control of, its self-regulatory
responsibilities.
    \6\ The recommendation provided to CBOE will include a detailed
explanation and justification as to whether to grant or deny the
Waiver Request, and in those cases where the recommendation is to
grant a waiver, the reasoning shall support why FINRA believes it is
an exceptional case and that good cause has been shown to warrant
the granting of the Waiver Request.
    \7\ CBOE will notify FINRA in writing of its final decision
regarding whether to grant or deny a Waiver Request, including any
additional information regarding such decision.
    The Commission expects CBOE to document in writing its rationale
for any decision when CBOE determines not to follow FINRA's
recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will pay a fee to FINRA under the RSA for each Waiver
Request of a non-FINRA examination (e.g., the Series 56 examination)
processed by FINRA. The Exchange proposes to charge CBOE TPHs a fee of
$200 for each Waiver Request of a non-FINRA examination processed by
FINRA. The proposed fee would help the Exchange recoup its costs under
the RSA.
    The proposed fee would be effective on February 3, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange believes
the proposed fee is reasonable because it would help the Exchange
recoup its costs in engaging FINRA to process Waiver Requests of non-
FINRA examinations by CBOE TPHs and their associated persons. The
Exchange believes the proposed fee is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply equally to all CBOE TPHs who
submit Waiver Requests of non-FINRA examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ Id. [sic]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed fee will impose an unnecessary burden on intramarket
competition because it would apply equally to all CBOE TPHs who submit
Waiver Requests of non-FINRA examinations. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed fee will impose an unnecessary burden on
intermarket competition because the fee would only apply to CBOE TPHs.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-010 and should be
submitted on or before March 6, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03174 Filed 2-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 52326-52327]
[DOCID:fr05se06-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0384; FRL-8216-9]

Human Studies Review Board (HSRB); Notification of a Public
Teleconference To Review Its Draft Report from the June 27-30, 2006
HSRB Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) announces a public
teleconference meeting to discuss its draft HSRB report from the June
27-30, 2006 HSRB meeting.

DATES: The teleconference will be held on September 26, 2006, from 1-4
p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Location: The meeting will take place via telephone only.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO at least 10
business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, so that appropriate arrangements can be
made.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the
public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to
consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning
submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit
I.D. of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to
obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the
telephone conference, request a current draft copy of the Board's
report or who wish further information may contact Maria Szilagyi,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA, Office of the Science Advisor,
(8105), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; or via telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning
the EPA HSRB can be on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0384, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov:
 Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Public Reading Room,
Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-ORD-
2006-0384. Deliveries are only accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2006-0384. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

I. Public Meeting

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies
on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are 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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal
Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/

DC, Public Reading Room, Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202)
566-1752.
    The June 27-30, 2006 HSRB meeting draft report is now available.
You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other
related documents that might be available electronically, from the
regulations.gov Web site and the HSRB Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.
 For questions on document availability or if you

do not have access to the Internet, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

C. 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. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    5. 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.

D. How May I Participate in this Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0384 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be
accepted up to September 19, 2006. To the extent that time permits,
interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the
Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each
individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is
strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via e-mail) to the
DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon,
eastern time, September 19, 2006, in order to be included on the
meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and
HSRB DFO to review the meeting agenda to provide an appropriate public
comment period. The request should identify the name of the individual
making the presentation and the organization (if any) the individual
will represent. Oral comments before the HSRB are limited to 5 minutes
per individual or organization. Please note that this includes all
individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of an
organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral
comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not
our intent to permit organizations to expand these time limitations by
having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their
behalf. If additional time is available, there may be flexibility in
time for public comments.
    2. Written comments. Although you may submit written comments at
any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and
consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should
submit your comments at least 5 business days prior to the beginning of
this teleconference. If you submit comments after this date, those
comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should
recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider
those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit
written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such
comments no later than noon, Eastern Time, September 19, 2006. You
should submit your comments using the instructions in Unit 1.C. of this
notice. In addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting
comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments
to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no
limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

E. Background

    The EPA Human Studies Review Board will be reviewing its draft
report from the June 27-30, 2006 HSRB meeting. Background on the June
27-30, 2006 HSRB meeting can be found at Federal Register 71 108, 32536
(June 6, 2006) and at the HSRB Web site http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/

Finally, the Board may discuss planning for future HSRB meetings.

    Dated: August 30, 2006.
William H. Farland,
Acting EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. E6-14644 Filed 9-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P