			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 6, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19673

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of BRENDAN AIRWAYS, LLC d/b/a USA 3000 AIRLINES (USA 3000)
filed 11/15/04 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) the terminal point Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the
terminal point Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, (2) the terminal point
Baltimore, Maryland, and the terminal point Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, (3)
the terminal point Cleveland, Ohio, and the terminal point Puerto
Vallarta, Mexico, (4) the terminal point St. Louis, Missouri, and the
terminal point Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, (5) the terminal point Richmond,
Virginia, and the terminal point Cancun, Mexico, (6) the terminal point
Hartford, Connecticut, and the terminal point Cancun, Mexico, and (6)
the terminal point Buffalo, New York, and the terminal point Cancun,
Mexico.  USA 3000 proposes initially to operate these routes on a
seasonal basis, beginning on or about December 21, 2004.

The State of Maryland filed an answer in support of USA 3000 Airlines’
application.

Applicant rep:   Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst:  Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: December 6, 2004, through
December 6, 2006.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificate of public convenience and necessity

		XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

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

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin on December 21, 2004, USA 3000’s proposed start-up
date for the above-mentioned service.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.aspU.S. Carrier
Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004


41271 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations the issuance of Federal regulations that 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 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

Environment We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2   1, paragraph 32( g) of Commandant Instruction Manual M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. A `` Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.

Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a `` significant energy action'' under that Order because it is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation ( water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165   REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS  1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1226, 1231; 46 U. S. C. Chapter 701; 50 U. S. C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05   1( g), 6.04   1, 6.04   6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107   295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

 2. A new temporary § 165. T09   222 is added to read as follows:

§ 165. T09   222 Safety Zone; Lake Michigan, Chicago, Illinois.

( a) Location. The following is a safety zone: All waters of Lake Michigan bounded by the arc of a circle with a 700 foot radius with its center in approximate position 41 ° 52  15  N; 087 ° 36  44  W ( NAD 83). ( b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into the zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Chicago, or the designated Patrol Commander. ( c) Effective date. This section is effective from 11 p. m. July 14, 2003 until 1 a. m. on July 15, 2003.

Dated: June 25, 2003.

Raymond E. Seebald,

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Chicago. [ FR Doc. 03   17599 Filed 7   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910   15   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0103; FRL   7317   1]

Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerances Technical Correction AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of June 13, 2003, concerning the establishment of tolerances for combined residues of imidacloprid. This document is being issued to properly display the table in the regulatory text. DATES: This document is effective on July 11, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   3194; e mail address: brothers. shaja@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0103. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 05 Jul 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JYR1. SGM 11JYR1 41272 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. What Does this Correction Do? In a final rule published in the Federal Register of June 13, 2003 ( 68 FR 35303) ( FRL   7310   8) an amendment to § 180.472 inadvertently omitted the third column of the table ( Expiration/ Revocation date) in paragraph ( a). This correction is being published to show the table as it should have appeared with the newly added commodities.

III. Why is this Correction Issued as a Final Rule? Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA), 5 U. S. C. 553( b)( B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's technical correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because EPA is merely inserting language that was inadvertently omitted from the previously published final rule. EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U. S. C. 553( b)( B).

IV. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this Action? This final rule implements a technical correction to the CFR, and it does not otherwise impose or amend any requirements. As such, the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has determined that a technical correction is not a `` significant regulatory action'' subject to review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does this final rule contain any information collection requirements that require review and approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( PRA) ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). Since the Agency has made a `` good cause'' finding that this action is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute ( see Unit III.), this action is not subject to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States or on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the national government and the States or one or more Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal government and Indian tribes. As such, this action does not have any `` federalism implications'' as described in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), or any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Since this direct final rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' as defined by Executive Order 12866, it does not require OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action does not involve any technical standards that require the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). This action will not result in environmental justice related issues and does not, therefore, require special consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) or Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights ( 53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988). In issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform ( 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 8, 2003.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is corrected as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U. S. C. 321( q), 346( a) and 371.

 2. On page 35314, in FR Doc. 03   14880, in the third column, the table to § 180.472( a), as amended, is corrected by adding the third column ( Revocation/ Expiration date) and in the footnote, `` registration'' should read `` registrations'' to read as follows:

§ 180.472 Imidacloprid; tolerances for residues.

( a) * * *

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 05 Jul 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JYR1. SGM 11JYR1 41273 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Commodity Parts per million Revocation/ Expiration date Acerola 1.0 None * * * * * * *

Artichoke, globe 2.5 None Avocado 1.0 None Banana1 0.02 None * * * * * * *

Canistel 1.0 None * * * * * * *

Corn, pop, grain 0.05 None Corn, pop, stover 0.20 None * * * * * * *

Cranberry 0.05 None Currant 3.5 None * * * * * * *

Elderberry 3.5 None * * * * * * *

Feijoa 1.0 None * * * * * * *

Fruit, stone, group 12 3.0 None Gooseberry 3.5 None * * * * * * *

Guava 1.0 None * * * * * * *

Huckleberry 3.5 None Jaboticaba 1.0 None Juneberry 3.5 None * * * * * * *

Lingonberry 3.5 None Longan 3.0 None Lychee 3.0 None Mango 1.0 None * * * * * * *

Mustard, seed 0.05 None Okra 1.0 None Passionfruit 1.0 None Papaya 1.0 None * * * * * * *

Persimmon 3.0 None * * * * * * *

Pulasan 3.0 None Rambutan 3.0 None Salal 3.5 None Sapodilla 1.0 None Sapote, black 1.0 None Sapote, mamey 1.0 None * * * * * * *

Spanish lime 3.0 None Star apple 1.0 None Starfruit 1.0 None Strawberry 0.50 None * * * * * * *

Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 4.0 None Commodity Parts per million Revocation/ Expiration date Vegetable, legume, except soybean, group 6 4.0 None Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet 0.40 None * * * * * * *

Watercress 3.5 None Wax jambu 1.0 None * * * * * * *

1 There are no U. S. registrations as of June 13, 2003 for use on banana.

* * * * *

[ FR Doc. 03   17674 Filed 7   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [ FRL   7526   2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of deletion of the Pepe Field Superfund Site ( Site) from the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The EPA Region II Office announces the deletion of the Pepe Field Superfund Site, located in Boonton, New Jersey from the National Priorities List ( NPL). The NPL is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ( NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate. EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Romona Pezzella, Remedial Project Manager; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region II, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor; New York, New York 10007   1866; ( 212) 637   4385; pezzella. romona@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Pepe Field Superfund Site, Boonton, New Jersey. A Notice of Intent To Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2003 ( 68 FR 23939). The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent To Delete was June 7, 2003. No comments were received, therefore, EPA has not prepared a Responsiveness Summary. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action. Section 300.425( e)( 3) of the NCP states that Fund financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: June 30, 2003.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II.

 For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300   [ AMENDED]

 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 9601   9657; 33 U. S. C. 1321( c)( 2); E. O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E. O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. [ Amended]

Appendix B   [ Amended]

 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry for the Pepe Field, Boonton, NJ Superfund Site. [ FR Doc. 03   17611 Filed 7   10   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 15: 05 Jul 10, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11JYR1. SGM 11JYR1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45738-45741]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1145]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific Sound Resources and Lockheed
Shipyard EPA Superfund Cleanup Sites, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent regulated
navigation area (RNA) on a portion of Elliott Bay in Seattle,
Washington. The RNA would protect the seabed in portions of the bay
that are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s
Pacific Sound Resources (PSR) and Lockheed Shipyard superfund cleanup
remediation efforts. This RNA would prohibit activities that would
disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging, trawling, spudding or
other activities that involve disrupting the integrity of the sediment
caps that cover the superfund sites. It will not affect transit or
navigation of the area.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 31, 2011. Requests for public meetings must
be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-1145 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of

Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail LTJG Ian Hanna, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Puget Sound, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-1145), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, click on the ``submit a comment''
box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Document
Type'' drop down menu select ``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-
1145'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click ``Search'' then click on the
balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\; by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If
you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2010-1145'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before September 15, 2011 using one of the four
methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The PSR superfund site, which is located on the north shore of West
Seattle within Elliott Bay, and northwest of the mouth of the Duwamish
river, was created by the EPA to cover the remains of the Wyckoff West
Seattle Wood Treating Facility. The wood treating facility, which was
in operation between 1909 and 1994, was mostly located on a pile-
supported facility extending into Elliott Bay. The area was added to
the federal Superfund National Priorities List in May 1994. Later that
year the entire wood treatment facility was demolished and
approximately 4000 cubic yards of highly contaminated soil and process
sludge were removed from the site. Construction of a subsurface
physical containment barrier was started in 1996 and completed in 1999.
The final sediment cap, completed in 2004, is approximately 58-acres
which includes approximately 1500 linear feet of shoreline, and
intertidal and subtidal areas to depth of about 300 feet.
    The Lockheed Shipyard Sediment Operable Unit consists of
contaminated near shore sediments within and adjacent to the Lockheed
Shipyard on Harbor Island. Harbor Island is located approximately one
mile southwest of the Central Business District of Seattle, in King
County, Washington, and lies at the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway on
the southern edge of Elliott Bay. The Lockheed Shipyard sediments are
located on the west side of Harbor Island and face the West Waterway of
the Duwamish Waterway. The final site does not protrude a significant
distance into the West Duwamish waterway. Lockheed Shipyards acquired
established shipbuilding operations in 1959 and the facility until
1986. In April 1997, Lockheed sold the upland property and its legal
rights to the submerged portions of the site to the Port of Seattle.
The remedy for the contaminated sediments included demolition of 3
piers, three shipways and one finger pier. The piers and shipways
primarily consist of timber superstructures supported by approximately
6000 piles. Contaminants found in sediments which were either dredged
or capped are arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, PAHs and PCBs. The
metal contaminants were associated with sand blast grit and paint
clips.
    Remedial actions for both of these sites as established by the EPA
include preventing use of large anchors on the cap. This rulemaking is
necessary to assist the EPA in that remedial action.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule is necessary to prevent disturbance of the PSR and
Lockheed Shipyard sediment caps. It does so by restricting anchoring,
dragging, trawling, spudding or other activities that involve
disrupting the integrity of the cap in an RNA around the sediment caps.
This RNA is similar to RNAs which protect other caps in the area.
Enforcement of this RNA will be managed by Coast Guard Sector Puget
Sound assets including Vessel Traffic Service Puget Sound through radar
and closed circuit television sensors. The Captain of the Port Puget
Sound may also be assisted by other government agencies in the
enforcement of this zone.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. This expectation is based
on the fact that the RNA established by the rule would encompass a
small area that should not impact commercial or recreational traffic,
and prohibited activities are not routine for the designated areas.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 rule would affect the following
entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators
of vessels intending to anchor, dredge, spud, lay cable or disturb the
seabed in any fashion when this rule is in effect. The RNA would not
have a significant economic impact on small entities due to its minimal
restrictive area and the opportunity for a waiver to be granted for any
legitimate use of the seabed.
    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.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact LTJG Ian Hanna, Waterways
Management, Sector Puget Sound, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    In preparation for this rulemaking, on October 8, 2010, Sector
Puget Sound conducted a tribal consultation with representatives from
the Suquamish and Muckleshoot tribes in accordance with Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.
The group noted that the sediment caps were in the usual and accustomed
(U&A) fishing grounds of both tribes. Their main concern was that this
RNA would prohibit them from exercising their U&A fishing. The Coast
Guard and EPA clarified that nothing in this rulemaking is intended to
conflict with these tribes' treaty fishing rights and they are not
restricted from any type of fishing in the described areas. As a result
of the consultation the Coast Guard added paragraph b.(3) to the
regulation.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant

energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy
Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have 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. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.
    This proposed rule involves no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. As a proposal to
establish a regulated navigation area, this rule meets the criteria
outlined in paragraph (34)(g). We seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.1336 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1336  Regulated Navigation Area; Pacific Sound Resources and
Lockheed Shipyard Superfund Sites, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following areas are regulated navigation
areas:
    (1) All waters inside an area beginning at a point on the shore at
47[deg]35'02.7'' N 122[deg]22'23.00'' W; thence north to
47[deg]35'26.00'' N 122[deg]22'23.00'' W; thence east to
47[deg]35'26.00'' N 122[deg]21'52.50'' W; thence south to
47[deg]35'10.80'' N 122[deg]21'52.50'' W; thence southwest to a point
on the shoreline at 47[deg]35'05.9'' N 122[deg]21'58.00'' W. [Datum:
NAD 1983].
    (2) All waters inside an area beginning at 47[deg]34'52.16'' N
122[deg]21'27.11'' W; thence to 47[deg]34'53.46'' N 122[deg]21'30.42''
W; thence to 47[deg]34'37.92'' N 122[deg]21'30.51'' W; thence to
47[deg]34'37.92'' N 122[deg]21'27.65'' W. [Datum: NAD 1983].
    (b) Regulations.
    (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from activities that
would disturb the seabed, such as anchoring, dragging, trawling,
spudding, or other activities that involve disrupting the integrity of
the sediment caps installed in the designated regulated navigation
area, pursuant to the remediation efforts of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and others in the Pacific Sound Resources and
Lockheed Shipyard EPA superfund sites. Vessels may otherwise transit or
navigate within this area without reservation.
    (2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
does not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated
with remediation efforts in the superfund sites, provided that the
Captain of the Port, Puget Sound (COTP), is given advance notice of
those activities by the EPA.
    (3) Nothing in this rulemaking is intended to conflict with treaty
fishing rights of the Muckleshoot and Suquamish tribes, and they are
not restricted from any type of fishing in the described area.
    (c) Waivers.
    (1) Upon written request stating the need and proposed conditions
of the waiver, and any proposed precautionary measures, the COTP may
authorize a waiver from this section if they determine that the
activity for which the waiver is sought can take place without undue
risk to the remediation efforts described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. The COTP will consult with EPA in making this determination
when necessary and practicable.

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
G.T. Blore,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-19320 Filed 7-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 13201-13202]
[DOCID:fr26mr09-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 19, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1137-002.
    Applicants: Lockhart Power Company.
    Description: Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis for
Market-Based Authority of Lockhart Power Company.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090318-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-844-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Submits an Amended
Interconnection and Operating Agreement with TPS McAdams, LLC.
    Filed Date: 03/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090318-0139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1332-000; ER06-169-000; ER08-1330-000; ER98-
3774-000.
    Applicants: Choctaw Gas Generation, LLC; SUEZ Energy Marketing NA,
Inc.; Hot Spring Power Company, LLC; Choctaw Generation LP.
    Description: Amendment to Updated Market Power Analysis of Choctaw
Gas Generation, LLC.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090318-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-552-002.
    Applicants: Goldfinch Capital Management, LP.
    Description: Goldfinch Capital Management, LP Submits Petition for
Acceptance of Initial Tariff and Waivers and Request Acceptance of FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 etc.
    Filed Date: 03/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090318-0140.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-582-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corp. on behalf of AEP
Operating Companies Submits an Amendment to the Eleventh Revised Repair
and Maintenance Agreement under ER09-582.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090319-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-683-001.
    Applicants: Alex Energy, LLC.
    Description: Alex Energy, LLC Submits its Application for a Finding
of Category 1 Seller States with Respect to the Southeast Region Filed
on 2/11/09 and Submits a Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff.
    Filed Date: 03/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090318-0141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-836-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Submits
Sixth Revised Sheet 486 which Superseding Fifth Revised Sheet 486 to
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2 Attachment J under ER09-836.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090319-0203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-857-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: NV Energy, Inc. Submits Notice of Cancellation of
Nevada Power Company Electric Rate Schedule No 24.
    Filed Date: 03/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090318-0135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-858-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light Fuel & Power Company.
    Description: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company submits
Original Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1,
Open Access Transmission Tariff, Effective 3/18/09.
    Filed Date: 03/17/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090318-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 7, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-860-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company Submits a Letter
Agreement with City of Victorville.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090319-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-861-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Submits First Revised Sheet 3706, Supersedes Original Sheet 3706 to
FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090319-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-862-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Submits First Revised Sheet 3730, Supersedes Original Sheet 3730 to
FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 03/18/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090319-0204.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6707 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10063-10064]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10624-026]

French Paper Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With The Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing
and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 10624-026.
    c. Date Filed: February 27, 2019.
    d. Applicant: French Paper Company.
    e. Name of Project: French Paper Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The French Paper Project is located on the St. Joseph
River in the City of Niles, Michigan. The project does not occupy
federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Shane Fenske, President, French Paper
Company, 100 French Street, Niles, MI 49120; phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jay Summers, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The French Paper Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) An 80 acre reservoir with a storage capacity of 510
acre-feet at a water surface elevation of 653.75 feet mean sea level;
(2) a 321-foot-long, 13-foot-high concrete spillway structure, topped
by 2.3-foot-high flashboards; (3) a 100-foot-wide, 600-foot-long intake
channel; (4) a 115-foot-wide, 55-foot-long, 56-foot-high powerhouse,
with an operating head of 14 feet; (5) trash racks at the entrance to
the intake channel and at the entrance to the powerhouse; (6) two
vertical shaft propeller turbines each coupled to a 400-kilowatt (kW)
generator, one vertical shaft propeller turbine coupled to a 300-kW
generator, and one vertical shaft Francis turbine coupled to a 200-kW
generator, for a total installed capacity of 1.3 megawatts; (7) a 6-
foot-wide, 220-foot-long reinforced concrete fish ladder; (8) a 480-
volt to 12-kilovolt (kV) transformer located adjacent to the
powerhouse, which is connected to Indiana Michigan Power Company's 3-
phase, 12-kV overhead transmission line; and (9) appurtenant
facilities.
    The French Paper Project is operated in a run-of-river mode with an
estimated annual energy production of approximately 8,442.8 megawatt
hours. The French Paper Company proposes to continue to operate the
project in a run-of-river mode and does not propose any new
construction or modifications to the project.
    l. 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 website 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>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection
and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for  June 2019.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary    August 2019.
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Environmental           January 2020.
 Assessment (EA).
Comments on EA..........................  February 2020.
Modified terms and conditions...........  April 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: March 11, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05051 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                           Economic Analysis for the
                     Public Notification Requirements for
     Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) discharges within the Great Lakes Basin

                                     Draft
                               December 1, 2016

                                 Prepared for
                 United States Environmental Protection Agency
                        Office of Wastewater Management
                         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                             Washington, DC 20460

                        EPA Contract Number EP-C-11-009
                        EPA Work Assignment Number 5-05

Contents
1	Introduction	1
2	Executive Order 13132: Federalism	1
2.1	Methods	2
2.1.1	Cost Data	2
2.1.2	Revenue Data	3
2.1.3	Federalism 1% Test	4
2.2	Results	5
3	Small Entity Screening Analysis	5
3.1	Qualitative analysis	6
3.2	Quantitative analysis	7
4	Key Findings	8
5	Uncertainties and Limitations	8
6	References	8
Appendix 1. Cash Flows	A-1

 Introduction
This document (the Economic Analysis or EA) provides analytical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed rule Public Notification requirements for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) discharges within the Great Lakes Basin (hereafter referred to as the proposed rule). The intention of the proposed rule is to establish public notification requirements for CSOs to the Great Lakes, as required by Section 425 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (Section 425).
EPA conducted an economic analysis (EA) to fulfill the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 13132 on Federalism and Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business and Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).

EO 13132 emphasizes consultation with State and local ("S/L") governments and more sensitivity to their concerns. The EO also specifies a process for agencies to follow as they develop and implement actions that affect S/L governments. EPA's Guidance (2008) on Executive Order 13132, "Federalism", identifies various triggers for determining Federalism implications.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.) requires Federal agencies to review their proposed rules and regulations to determine if they will have "a significant economic impact on a substantial number" of small entities. Since its enactment in 1980, the RFA has required every federal agency to prepare regulatory flexibility analyses for any rule for which the agency is required to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule "will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." Enacted in 1996, the SBREFA requires formal procedures and analyses for rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency refers to the RFA as amended by SBREFA simply as the RFA, but there are other SBREFA provisions as well.

The economic analysis seeks to determine whether the rulemaking has any federalism implications, to fulfil the requirements of EO 13132 or whether the rulemaking presents a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities according to the federal guidance for RFA compliance.

 Executive Order 13132: Federalism
EPA's Guidance (2008) on Executive Order 13132, "Federalism", identifies the following trigger for determining Federalism implications:
      "...[I]f the impact of your rule on small governments is likely to equal or exceed 1 percent of their revenues, then as a policy matter, EPA will conclude the rule also has Federalism implications..."
This is referred to hereafter as the "1% test." The default definition of small government is a government of a city, county, town, village, school district or special district which serves a population of less than 50,000. This is the same definition used by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA), and similar to the definition of small government in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
EPA (2008) recommends using an aggregate test for the 1% test, which involves applying total annualized costs as a percent of total revenues for the local governments that must conform to the rule. The EPA guidance also encourages consideration of how the impacts are distributed and how the rule will affect individual entities. While most impacts could be insignificant, a minority may experience significant impacts.
2.1	Methods
EPA compiled and reviewed the list of Great Lakes CSO communities that would be subject to the proposed rule. There are 182 Great Lakes CSO communities (covered by 190 NPDES permits). EPA included in this analysis the CSO communities discharging to Chicago's Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). The CSOs and public notification requirements for these 36 communities are managed by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC). Out of the 182 CSOs, 150 were identified as small entities (defined as a governmental jurisdiction for a population of fewer than 50,000 people). Within the small communities, 32 discharge to TARP.
Each CSO was matched to a location in the 2015 Census estimated population data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Census location names were matched to either the name of the Great Lakes CSO permittee operator or the name of the city where the CSO discharge is located.
2.1.1	Cost Data
The cost estimates were based on a breakdown of anticipated activities required by the rule and the estimated burden and cost of each. These costs estimates were derived based on the burden and cost estimates presented in the ICR ("Supporting Statement Information Collection Request: Notification Requirements for CSOs in the Great Lakes Basin" - OMB Control No. 2040-NEW, EPA ICR No. 2562.01). The Economic Analysis assumes that costs will be borne by Great Lakes CSO communities in the form of one-time implementation activities that will occur within one to two years, once per year activities including an annual notice, and ongoing activities that will occur during and after CSO discharges. This proposed rule requires Great Lakes CSO communities to develop a public notification plan and provide an annual notice that includes CSO discharge data. The proposed rule also requires states to ensure that public notification provisions are included in NPDES permits and review public notification plans.
The three population ranges used for the cost estimates were "very small": 0-10,000 (to identify the smallest CSOs), "small": 10,000-50,000 (to correspond to small entity definition in EA), and large: greater than 50,000. The implementation activities for Great Lakes CSO communities are divided into the following categories:
 Installation of CSO outfall signs
 Development of a method for collecting data
 Development of alert system (website, text/email alerts)
      Includes public outreach
 Develop and submit public notification plan
 Consultation with local public health department
 Contact with municipalities and other potentially affected public entities

The recurring activities for Great Lakes CSO communities are divided into the following categories:
 Inspect and maintain signs
 Initial and supplemental notification through Public Alerts
 Initial and supplemental notification of  potentially affected public entities
 Maintenance/management of alert system
 Prepare and release Annual Notice
 Recordkeeping

The Implementation activities for State Agencies are further divided into the following categories:
 State Agency review of public notification plan

The Annual activities for State Agencies are divided further into the following categories:
 State Agency review of Annual Notice
 State Agency revision of CSO NPDES permit conditions (first five years)

The burden hours and cost were calculated by estimating the annual burden, labor cost, and other costs per respondent or state for each activity. The number of Great Lakes CSO communities or State Agencies that will need to conduct each of the activities per year as a result of this regulation were estimated and used to calculate the yearly burden hours and costs.
Not all Great Lakes CSO communities will need to conduct all the activities in response to these new requirements, and not all activities occur during all years. TARP communities received a reduced burden due to cost leveraging provide by the existing notification system.
The total yearly burden hours and costs are summed and averaged to compute the bottom line average annual burden hours and costs (For detailed year-by-year burden and costs for each activity see Appendix A Tables A.1 and A.2 of the ICR).
2.1.2	Revenue Data
Revenue for each small entity was determined from one of three data sources, in the following order of preference:
 Financial data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the specific government entity.
 Revenue data from internet resources.
 Estimated general revenue value using linear regression of available Census data.

Out of the 150 small entity Great Lakes CSO communities, census revenue data was available for 65 Great Lakes CSO communities. For the remaining CSOs, revenue data from other internet resources was applied if available. Then, a linear regression of available census data was used to estimate the remaining revenues. The three revenue data sources are described below.

Financial Data from the U.S. Census Bureau for the Specific Government Entity
The U.S. Census Bureau conducts annual surveys on state and local governments, and collects data on revenue, expenditure, debt and assets. The most current state and local finance information available on the U.S. Census Bureau website was for 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

The raw financial data for individual government entities is provided as item codes, where each item code represents a financial category (e.g., property taxes, general sales taxes, etc.)(U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Descriptions, definitions, and additional information for item codes are available in the 2006 Government Finance and Employment Classification Manual (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).

As defined in the "Methodology for Summary Tabulation  -  State and Local Finance" table (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), the general revenue for each government entity was calculated as the sum of the following item codes:

      B01, B21, B22, B30, B42, B46, B50, B59, B79, B80, B89, B91, B92, B93, B94, C21, C30, C42, C46, C50, C79, C80, C89, C91, C92, C93, C94, D21, D30, D42, D46, D50, D79, D80, D89, D91, D92, D93, D94, T01, T09, T10, T11, T12, T13, T14, T15, T16, T19, T20, T21, T22, T23, T24, T25, T27, T28, T29, T40, T41, T50, T51, T53, T99, A01, A03, A09, A10, A12, A16, A18, A21, A36, A44, A45, A50, A56, A59, A60, A61, A80, A81, A87, A89, U01, U11, U20, U21, U30, U40, U41, U50, U95, U99

Revenue Data from Internet Resources
Revenue data for several small entities in Indiana, Michigan, New York and Ohio were found at state and community websites (AccessMyGov.com, 2016)(Ohio State Auditor, 2014)( State of Indiana, 2016)(State of Michigan, 2016)(State of New York, 2016).

Calculated General Revenue Value Using Linear Regression of Available Census Data
Data from the U.S. Census of Governments was used to derive the revenue for small governmental jurisdictions which could not be found from other sources. As described earlier, general revenue was calculated as the sum of select item codes.

A regression analysis was performed using population and calculated general revenue ("Type of Government" either "Township", "City" or "County"). The initial regression analysis utilized data for all available local governments (n = 3811) and resulted in a regression equation (linear with set intercept) with an R[2] of 0.3485. The regression equation was "y = 1629.4x" with y as general revenue in dollars and x as population.

The analysis was refined by performing separate regressions for Ohio (n=158) and Illinois (n=151) where the remaining small entities without revenue data were located.  The regression analyses utilized data for all available local governments with a population less than 50,000. The resulting regression equations were "y = 1390x (R[2]=0.525)" for Ohio and y = 1160.6x (R[2] = 0.1773) for Illinois.

2.1.3	Federalism 1% Test
The annual cost and revenue projections were discounted at rates to reflect a range of potential economic conditions in the future. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) currently reports a real rate of return of 1.5 percent for projects greater than 30 years. In the past, EPA has used discount rates of 3 and 7 percent which were determined to be appropriate for this EA. Present value (PV) estimates were determined using these rates.
The time period for the rule is "in perpetuity". The annual cost and revenue streams were discounted across an infinite time period, and summed to estimate total present values.
An annuity formula was used to calculate the annualized values. Then the annualized costs were divided by the annualized revenue to calculate the final metric: percent of revenue as compliance cost. When the result is less than 1 percent, then the rule does not have Federalism implications.

2.2	Results
Appendix 1 provides the cash flow used to calculate the annualized cost and revenue values. Table 1 presents the results of the 1% test. The test was conducted using four estimates of revenue data: the average, minimum, and maximum per capita revenue from the data and estimates based on the regression of revenue on population for using available data in states with affected small entities. The results were well below 1% for all four revenue estimate methods. EPA concludes that the impact of the rule is very unlikely to reach or exceed 1% of small local government revenue, and, therefore, the rule does not have federalism implications.
Table 1. Results of 1% Test (2016 dollars)
Discount Rate
                                      3%
                                      7%
Annualized Cost for all 150 small CSO communities[1]
                                                                       $163,000

                                                                       $185,000
Annualized Total Revenue
                                                                 $3,038,723,000

                                                                 $3,156,732,000

Percent Revenue
                                                                         0.005%
                                                                         0.006%
[1]The average annualized costs are about $1,500 for a small CSO community and about $1,200 for a very small CSO community.
3	Small Entity Screening Analysis
As part of this Economic Analysis, a quantitative analysis was performed to: determine which small entities are subject to the rule's requirements; select appropriate measures for determining economic impacts on these small entities and estimate those impacts; determine whether the rule may be certified as not having a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE); and document the screening analysis and include the appropriate RFA statements in the preamble. A qualitative analysis was also conducted.
According to EPA's Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: RFA (2006), it is preferable to start with a relatively simple methodology and add more complexity as needed. In Table 1 of the guidance, the preferred metric for small governmental jurisdictions is the revenue test, which is defined as annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual government revenues. Thus the revenue test was used for the quantitative analysis. The data from the 1 percent test was used for the revenue test. Discount rates were applied consistent with the 1 percent test. From this analysis, the following information can be determined: the magnitude of economic impact that may be experienced by regulated small entities; total number of regulated small entities that may experience the economic impact; and percentage of regulated small entities that may experience the economic impact.
3.1	Qualitative analysis
The qualitative screening analysis addressed the following questions suggested in the guidance:
 Will small entities incur the same initial compliance costs - such as for buying and installing equipment, establishing new procedures, and/or record keeping - as large entities, or are initial costs likely to be proportionate to the size of the company?
 Will initial compliance costs be high enough that entities will need to obtain financing and, if so, do small entities have the same access to financing as large entities?
 Will small entities have to obtain access to professional or administrative services that large entities might maintain in-house?
For question #1, EPA reviewed the individual expenses and assessed whether costs would differ between small and large entities. Many of the required activities related to the number of CSOs in each community. Therefore, the costs would only be disproportionate if certain smaller communities had a disproportionate number of CSOs compared to other communities.
Table 2 reports the number of outfalls by entity size. Generally, the number of outfalls are proportional to entity size.
Table 2. Count of CSO Outfalls by Entity Size1
Entity Size
                                    Average
                                      Min
                                      Max
Very Small
                                                                              4
                                                                              1
                                                                             17
Small
                                                                              9
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
Large
                                                                             25
                                                                              1
                                                                            126
[1]For 23 small entities (small and very small), data on number of outfalls was not available. Their populations ranged from about 1,000 to 40,000.
Several of the implementation activities are not proportionate to the number of CSOs, and these activities include the development of an alert system (website, text/email alerts) and notification plan. Public outreach as well as communication with the potentially affected public entities may also present greater costs in proportion to revenue for small compared to large CSOs. The recurring activities that could also present slightly higher proportionate costs are maintenance/management of an alert system and preparation of the Annual Notice.
The majority of the expenses are expected to be proportional to the number of CSOs. A relatively equitable burden is expected across different entity sizes.
For Question #2, this analysis found that non-TARP cost estimates for very small non-TARP CSO communities range from approximately $1200 to $1300. These relatively low costs would not require financing and could be covered within most current municipal budgets with advanced notice and planning. The smallest non-TARP population among the affected entities is 580. Based on the average estimated costs, the proposed rule would result in an annualized cost per person of about $2.20 to $2.50 or an annualized cost per household of about $5.60 to $6.20 (assuming an average household size of 2.5 persons). A local government would not need financing for an incremental change in budget of this small magnitude.

For Question #3, the activities necessary to comply with the proposed rule require administrative or professional services that a typical local government of any population should have available in-house. Most of the activities require word processing, electronic or paper communication, and basic web applications  -  any local government is likely to have to these skills internally. The installation and maintenance of signs could be handled by a typical local government maintenance crew.  The activity that is most likely to require external professional services is the reporting of discharge volume information for the initial notifications and the annual notice.  NPDES permits for CSO discharges in the Great Lakes basin currently require the reporting of CSO volumes in discharge monitoring reports (DMRs).  Typically, Great Lakes CSO communities use a combination of monitoring and modelling to estimate CSO volume.  EPA anticipates that most small CSO communities will use volume information developed for DMR reporting to comply with public notification requirements.  If the NPDES authority requires additional volume estimates for public notification for some communities, those communities who would rely on external contractors are probably already using contractors for similar work, and the additional monitoring, modeling, or other estimation methods would represent a small increase in their external work assignments.
Most small governments have at least one professional on staff who is knowledgeable about water quality. The smallest communities may need to hire outside of their own staff to cover these needs. To account for this, communities in the very small population range were assigned costs for contractor services with the cost equal to the assumed burden hours multiplied by a labor rate equal to 150 percent of the community labor rate (see the ICR for more details).
3.2	Quantitative analysis
The cost impact ratios for small governmental jurisdictions were estimated by dividing the total annualized compliance cost for that entity by the annual revenue of the local government. Based on this calculation, at a 3% discount rate, all 150 of the small local governments affected by the proposed rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 3). Similarly, at a 7% discount rate, all 150 of the small local governments affected by the proposed rule are expected to incur a cost impact of less than 1% of annual revenue (Table 3). Cost impacts of less than 1% are considered to be minimal, and no further action is required.

Table 3. Quantitative Screening Analysis

                         Cost-Impact Ratio Percentage
                         Small Local Government Count
                         % of Small Local Governments
                                    >3%
                                       0
                                       0
                                     1-3%
                                       0
                                       0
                                    <1%
                                      150
                                     100%
                                     Total
                                      150
                                     100%

4	Key Findings
The economic analysis determined that the rulemaking does not have any federalism implications, fulfilling the requirements of EO 13132. The percentage of total annualized revenue represented by total annualized cost for small CSO communities was less than 0.01%. The screening analysis also determined that the rulemaking does not present a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities according to the federal guidance for RFA compliance. The screening analysis showed that the rule would produce a Cost-Impact Ratio of less than <1% for all affected small entities.
 5	Uncertainties and Limitations
The cost estimates were based on available data for number of CSO outfalls and assumptions regarding the frequency that CSO communities would need to conduct required activities. The assumptions were developed to represent typical local government operations and were tailored to the three population categories of very small (<10,000), small (<50,000), and larger. While the assumptions were developed to account for major differences between the size categories, the accuracy of the analysis is limited to representing a typical local government within each size category. None of the assumptions are expected to exactly reflect an individual local government, and some variability is expected.
The revenue estimates were based on data available through internet sources as described above. For the local governments where revenue data were not available, use of a regression to estimate their revenue introduces additional uncertainty. The regression provides an estimate of the average estimated annual revenue for a local government with a given population. The actual revenues could vary widely. In the available revenue dataset for OH entities used for the regression, the very small entities (<10,000) ranged in annual revenue from about $400,000 to $31 million with a mean and standard deviation of $10 and $6 million respectively.
The cost and revenue estimates do not account for changes in values over time. The analysis assumes that the proportion of costs to revenue will remain constant in perpetuity. While some variation in the costs and revenue is expected over time and across entities, this variation is not expected to affect the conclusions of the analysis. As the local governments grow in population and build more infrastructure, the costs for monitoring and public notification are expected to become a smaller fraction of the total revenue. Since this change was not accounted for in the analysis, the results provide a conservative estimate of the rule's impact on CSO communities.

6	References
AccessMyGov.com. 2016. Municipal Directory. https://accessmygov.com/MunicipalDirectory
Ohio State Auditor. 2014. Village of Dunkirk, Hardin County, Regular Audit for the Year Ended December 31, 2013, Single Audit for the Year Ended December 31, 2012. http://villageofdunkirk.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/12-13_AUDIT.2683615.pdf
State of Indiana. 2016. Indiana Gateway for Government Units, Fiscal Health Indicators. https://gateway.ifionline.org/public/FISCAL/download.aspx
State of Michigan Department of Treasury. 2016. Data Summary Report. https://f65.mitreasury.msu.edu/Reports/DataSummaryReport.aspx
State of New York. 2016. Financial Data for Local Governments. New York State Office of the State Comptroller. https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/datanstat/findata/index_choice.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Government Finance and Employment Classification Manual. http://www2.census.gov/govs/pubs/classification/2006_classification_manual.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Methodology for Summary Tabulation  -  State and Local Finance. http://www2.census.gov/govs/local/methodology_for_summary_tabulations_2013.xls
U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016. https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html.  Accessed October 9, 2016
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. EPA's Action Development Process Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act. Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/guidance-regflexact.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. EPA's Action Development Process. Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism. http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/111908rb1.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Report to Congress: Combined Sewer Overflows into the Great Lakes Basin. EPA 833-R-16-0060. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/gls_cso_report_to_congress_-_4-12-2016.pdf

Appendix 1. Cash Flows

Discount Rate
                                                                             7%

Period
                                                                  In perpetuity

                                                                         Year 1
                                                                         Year 2
                                                                    Years 3+[1]
One-time costs
Present Value
                                                                       $416,000
                                                                        $20,000
                                                                             $0
Recurring costs
Present Value
                                                                       $103,000
                                                                       $136,000
                                                                     $1,967,000
Total costs by year
Present Value
                                                                       $519,000
                                                                       $156,000
                                                                     $1,967,000

Costs, Total Present Value (PV)
                                                                     $2,642,000

Recurring revenue
Present Value
                                                                 $2,950,217,000
                                                                 $2,757,212,000
                                                                $39,388,743,000

Revenue, Total PV
                                                                $45,096,171,000

Annualized Total Costs
                                                                       $185,000

Annualized Total Revenue
                                                                 $3,156,732,000

Percent of Revenue Represented by Costs
                                                                         0.006%

[1]Values represent total present value from Year 3 in perpetuity.

Discount Rate
                                                                             3%

Period
In perpetuity

                                                                              1
                                                                              2
                                                                    Years 3+[1]
One-time costs
PV
                                                                       $416,000
                                                                        $21,000
                                                                             $0
Recurring costs
PV
                                                                       $103,000
                                                                       $141,000
                                                                     $4,769,000
Total costs by year
PV
                                                                       $519,000
                                                                       $162,000
                                                                     $4,769,000

Costs, Total PV
                                                                     $5,449,000

Recurring revenue
PV
                                                                 $2,950,217,000
                                                                 $2,864,288,000
                                                                $95,476,272,000

Revenue, Total PV
                                                               $101,290,777,000

Annualized Total Costs
                                                                       $163,000

Annualized Total Revenue
                                                                 $3,038,723,000

Percent of Revenue Represented by Costs
                                                                         0.005%

[1]Values represent total PV from Year 3 in perpetuity.


[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28085-28086]
[DOCID:fr19my10-114]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62094; File No. SR-OCC-2010-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Clearing Options
on the CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index

May 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,\1\ notice is hereby given that on April 26, 2010, The Options
Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by OCC. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would allow OCC to add an interpretation
following the introduction in Article XVII of OCC's By-Laws to clarify
that OCC will clear and treat as securities options any option
contracts on the CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC 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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to make clear that
options on the CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index, which is an index that
measures the implied volatility of options on the SPDR Gold Trust,
which is an exchange-traded fund designed to reflect the performance of
gold bullion. To accomplish this purpose, OCC is proposing to add an
interpretation following the introduction in Article XVII of OCC's By-
Laws, clarifying that OCC will clear and treat as securities options
any option contracts on the CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index.\2\ On May
30, 2008, the Commission approved rule filing SR-OCC-2008-07, which
added a similar interpretation with respect to the treatment and
clearing of options on shares of the SPDR Gold Trust.\3\ On December 4,
2008, the Commission approved rule filings SR-OCC-2008-13 and SR-OCC-
2008-14, which extended similar treatment to options on iShares[supreg]
COMEX Gold Shares and iShares[supreg] Silver Shares.\4\ On February 25,
2010, the Commission approved rule filing SR-OCC-2009-20, which
extended similar treatment to options and security futures on ETFS
Physical Swiss

Gold Shares and ETFS Physical Silver Shares.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The specific language of the proposed interpretation can be
found on OCC's Web site at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/
proposed_changes/proposed_changes.jspU.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57895, 73 FR 32066 (June
5, 2008).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59054, 73 FR 75159 (Dec.
10, 2008). These filings also provided that futures on the exchange-
traded funds in question would be cleared and treated as security
futures.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61591, 75 FR 9979 (Mar.
4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its capacity as a ``derivatives clearing organization''
registered as such with the CFTC, OCC is filing this proposed rule
change for prior approval by the CFTC pursuant to provisions of the
Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') in order to foreclose any potential
liability under the CEA based on an argument that the clearing by OCC
of such options as securities options constitutes a violation of the
CEA.
    OCC states that the proposed interpretation of OCC's By-Laws is
consistent with the purposes and requirements of Section 17A of the Act
\6\ because it is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance
and settlement of transactions in securities options, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and
settlement of such transactions, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of such transactions, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. It does so by reducing the
likelihood of a dispute as to OCC's treatment of options based on the
CBOE Gold ETF Volatility Index. The proposed rule change is not
inconsistent with the By-Laws and Rules of OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    OCC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. OCC will notify the Commission of any written
comments it receives.

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

    Within thirty-five days of the date of publication of this notice
in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the
Commission may designate up to ninety days of such date if it finds
such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so
finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-OCC-2010-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-OCC-2010-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C 552, will be available for 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at OCC's principal office and on OCC's Web site
at http://www.theocc.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/
proposed_changes.jspU. 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 submission should refer to File No. SR-
OCC-2010-07 and should be submitted on or before June 9, 2010.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11940 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P