	Information Collection Request
	for
  Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision (Proposed Rule)

	March 2015

	EPA ICR Number 2515.01
                          OMB Control Number 2040-NEW

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
	Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology
	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
	Washington, D.C. 20460

	CONTENTS

	Page

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	3
1.1 Title of the Information Collection	3
1.2 Short Characterization/Abstract	3

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	4
2.1 Need and Authority for the Collection	4
2.2 Practical Utility/Users of the Data	4

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER
	COLLECTION CRITERIA	5
3.1 Non-duplication	5
3.2 Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	5
3.3 Consultations	5
3.4 Effects of Less Frequent Collection	6
3.5 General Guidelines	6
3.6 Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions	6

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	6
4.1 Respondents/NAICS Codes	6
4.2 Information Requested	6
4.3 Respondent Activities	7

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	8
5.1 Agency Activities	8
5.2 Collection Methodology and Management	8
5.3 Small Entity Flexibility	8
5.4 Collection Schedule	8

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	9
6.1 Estimating Respondent Burden	9
6.2 Estimating Respondent Costs	9
6.3 Estimating Agency Burden and Cost	10
6.4 Reasons for Change in Burden	10
      6.5 Burden Statement	10

Attachment: Derivation of Burden Estimates	12

1. 	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1.1 	Title of the Information Collection

The title of this Information Collection Request (ICR) is Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision (Proposed Rule).

1.2 	Short Characterization/Abstract

      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, or the Agency) developed this ICR to evaluate how the proposed rule, Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision, would affect the paperwork burden on tribal applicants.
      The proposal would streamline how tribes apply for treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS) for the water quality standards (WQS) program and other Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory programs. EPA proposes to conclude definitively that section 518 includes an express delegation of authority by Congress to eligible Indian tribes to administer regulatory programs over their entire reservations. This reinterpretation would eliminate the need for applicant tribes to demonstrate inherent authority to regulate under the CWA, thus allowing tribes to implement the congressional delegation of authority unhindered by requirements not specified in the statute. The proposal would reduce the burden on applicant tribes and advance cooperative federalism by facilitating tribal involvement in the protection of reservation water quality as intended by Congress.
      Based on input from eight tribes with relevant TAS experience, EPA estimated the burden and costs for tribes to develop TAS applications. The results discussed in this ICR show that the proposed rule would reduce the burden by an estimated 583 staff hours for a typical tribe, or 27 percent, and reduce the cost for salaries and contractor support by an estimated $70,554 per tribe, or 39 percent.

      EPA's ICR analysis included all administrative costs associated with a TAS application even if some of the costs are not strictly information collection costs. EPA was unable to differentiate the information collection costs consistently and reliably from other administrative costs such as program development costs.

      The total estimated burden could overstate actual burden because (a) EPA assumed that all applications are first-time applications for CWA regulatory programs, and thus the tribes submitting them would be unable to rely on materials from previous applications for different regulatory programs; (b) EPA used a liberal estimate of the number of tribal applications to ensure that the ICR does not underestimate tribal burden; and (c) EPA used a simplifying steady-state assumption in estimating annualized costs.

	Because EPA has assumed that all tribal administrative costs and burden associated with the rule are information collection burden, EPA has not conducted a separate Economic Analysis.

2. 		NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2.1 	Need and Authority for the Collection

       In 1987, through the Water Quality Act (P. L. 100-4), Congress made substantial additions to the CWA. The Water Quality Act added section 518(e) which requires EPA to promulgate regulations specifying how Indian tribes would qualify to administer certain specified CWA programs. EPA published such regulations for CWA regulatory programs from 1991 through 1994 in 40 CFR sections 131.4(c), 131.8, 123.31-34, 223.60-62, and related sections.

      The CWA does not require tribes to administer these programs. However, tribes seeking to be authorized must apply for and be found eligible for TAS through the procedures described in the regulations. The information a tribe submits represents a collection of information that is necessary for EPA to fulfill the Agency's responsibilities under CWA section 518(e) in a reasonable and timely manner.

      The statute and regulations specify four criteria for an Indian tribe to qualify to administer a CWA regulatory program: (a) the tribe must be federally recognized, (b) the tribe must have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, (c) the program must pertain to water resources within the borders of an Indian reservation, and (d) the tribe must be reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the functions to be exercised consistent with the terms and purposes of the CWA and all applicable regulations.

      The regulations cited above specify the information a tribe must submit in order for EPA to review and approve the tribe for TAS. The required information is summarized in section 4.2.

2.2 	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

      EPA uses the information supplied by an interested tribe to determine whether it qualifies to administer the CWA program which it seeks. EPA must assess the tribe's information to determine whether the tribe meets the requirements specified in section 518(e) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations listed in section 2.1 above.

	If these information collection activities were not carried out, interested and otherwise qualified tribes would be unable to administer CWA regulatory programs, such as WQS, water quality certifications, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program. This would not be consistent with the CWA or federal Indian policy.

3. 	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3.1 	Non-Duplication

      Under EPA's regulations, a tribe must be approved for TAS for each program it wishes to administer. To avoid requiring tribes to submit duplicate information, EPA's regulations specify that a tribe need only provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application. For example, in evaluating whether a tribe qualifies to administer WQS, EPA does not require a tribe to resubmit information from its previously-approved TAS application under section 106.

3.2 	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

      In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA is soliciting comments on this draft ICR for a 30-day period beginning concurrently with the 60-day comment period on the proposed rule, Revised Interpretation of Clean Water Act Tribal Provision. Before finalizing the rule, EPA will submit the revised ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

3.3 	Consultations

	In developing the proposed rule, EPA made a substantial effort to involve key stakeholders. In multiple meetings, EPA consulted and coordinated with tribes, states, and organizations representing tribes and states.

      To help develop the burden estimate for this ICR, EPA identified eight tribes with experience in applying for TAS for WQS that were willing to provide quantitative information about the resources they expended in the application process. The tribes and the year in which their TAS approval occurred are:

         * Hoopa Valley Tribe (CA) (1996)
         * Hualapai Indian Tribe (AZ) (2004)
         * Ute Mountain Ute (CO) (2005)
         * Navajo Nation (AZ, NM, UT) (2006)
         * Northern Cheyenne (MT) (2006)
         * Lac du Flambeau Band of Chippewa (WI) (2008)
         * Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation (WI) (2009)
         * Blackfeet Tribe (MT) (2012)
      The tribes provided the resource information in interviews conducted by EPA staff members in the respective regional offices.

3.4 	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      Application by Indian tribes to obtain TAS to administer a CWA regulatory program is a one-time collection of information per respondent, initiated voluntarily by interested tribes.

3.5 	General Guidelines

      EPA reviewed this ICR for compliance with OMB's information collection guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)(iv) and concluded it is in compliance.

3.6 	Confidentiality And Sensitive Questions

      Tribal program applications under this ICR will contain no confidential or sensitive information.

4. 	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4.1 	Respondents/NAICS Codes

      The following describes the universe of potential respondents. The number of annual respondents is estimated in section 6.

      Any federally recognized tribe with a reservation can apply to administer a regulatory program under the CWA. There are over 300 tribes with reservations. From 1991 through 2014, 63 tribes have submitted such an application, all of which are for the WQS program. Of these, EPA has approved TAS for WQS for 49 tribes; the remaining applications are in various stages of development.

      The respondents affected by this collection activity are in NAICS code 92411 "Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs."

4.2 	Information Requested

      EPA's regulations listed in section 2.1 specify the information a tribe must provide in its application to administer a CWA regulatory program. Specifically, an interested tribe must submit:

      (1) a statement that the tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior;

      (2) a descriptive statement demonstrating that the tribal governing body is currently carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined area;

      (3) a descriptive statement of the Indian tribe's authority to regulate water quality, including a map or legal description of the area over which the Indian tribe asserts
      authority; a statement by the tribe's legal counsel (or equivalent official) which describes the basis for the tribe's assertion of authority; a copy of documents that support the tribe's assertion of authority; and an identification of the surface waters for which the tribe proposes to administer the program;

      (4) a narrative statement describing the capability of the Indian tribe to administer an effective program; and

      (5) any additional documentation required by the Regional Administrator to support the application.

      An interested tribe typically needs to apply only once for a program. Where a tribe has previously qualified for TAS under another program, the tribe need only provide the required information which has not been submitted in a previous application.

4.3 	Respondent Activities

      Respondent activities include:

          *          Reading the regulatory requirements and EPA guidance, obtaining any necessary background understanding, obtaining clarifications from EPA.
          *          Assembling information required for the application, including federal recognition documentation; descriptions of form and functions of tribal government; documentation of the tribe's authority to carry out functions; maps and legal description of the tribal reservation; identification of surface waters to be regulated; description of the tribe's previous management experience; descriptions of existing tribal environmental or public health programs; identification of tribal entities that exercise the tribe's executive, legislative, and judicial functions; and a description of the tribal agency that will assume responsibility for the program.
          *          Developing any of the above materials that do not already exist, or revising existing materials for inclusion in the application.
          *          Generating any needed data, including conducting water quality monitoring, and conducting scientific analyses of the data, to assist as necessary with the application.
          *          Analyzing the assembled information, and analyzing any issues identified by the tribe or EPA.
          *          Developing a statement by the tribal legal counsel discussing the legal basis for the tribe's assertion of authority.
          *          Developing a description of the technical and administrative capabilities of the staff to administer the program.
          *          Developing, if necessary, a plan that describes how the tribe will acquire needed expertise, and how the tribe will obtain the funds required to develop needed expertise.
          *          Assembling and writing the application and transmittal documents.
          *          Meeting with EPA as needed to discuss plans, progress and any issues in developing the application.
          *          Responding to comments from EPA or others.
          *          Transmitting the draft and final application to EPA.
          *          Establishing a permanent file of the TAS application that can be referenced when amending the application or applying for other EPA programs at a later date.
      These activities are generally carried out by tribal staff members, with support in some instances from contractors and consultants hired by the tribe.

5. 	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5.1 	Agency Activities

      After a tribe submits an application to administer a CWA regulatory program, EPA reviews the application and uses the submitted information to determine whether the tribe meets the criteria under CWA section 518(e) and EPA's regulations to administer the program. Under the regulations, EPA also provides an opportunity for appropriate governmental entities and the public to comment on the application. EPA considers any comments received when it makes a decision concerning the tribe's TAS eligibility.

5.2 	Collection Methodology and Management

      An interested tribe submits its application in hardcopy and/or electronic form to the EPA regional office. EPA has delegated to Regions the responsibility to review and approve tribal TAS eligibility; however, EPA headquarters must concur on the first application for each program submitted to each Region. Regional office staff members work closely with the tribes in this process. EPA headquarters staff members provide support to the regional offices in the reviews.

5.3 	Small Entity Flexibility

      The reporting requirements discussed in this ICR do not place a burden on any small entities.

5.4 	Collection Schedule

      There are no scheduling requirements for Indian tribes to apply for authorization to administer CWA regulatory programs.

6. 	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6.1 	Estimating Respondent Burden

	In order to develop the burden estimates in this section, EPA assembled and evaluated information collected from eight tribes with experience in developing TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs, as described in section 3.3. EPA's methodology and results are described in detail in Appendix A, Derivation of Burden Estimates.

      Pre-rule tribal burden: EPA estimates that a typical tribe expends 2,190 staff hours and $90,000 on contractor costs to develop a TAS application. Based on the past ten years, there have been approximately 4 new tribal TAS applications for CWA regulatory programs per year. Thus the pre-rule baseline burden comprises (4 tribes) * (2,190 hours/application) = 8,760 staff hours, and (4 tribes) * ($90,000/application) = $360,000 in contractor costs.

	Post-rule tribal burden: EPA estimates that a typical tribe would expend 1,607 staff hours and $43,920 on contract costs to develop a TAS application if the proposed rule were finalized. Further, EPA estimates that an average of 6 tribes would apply for TAS to administer CWA regulatory programs per year, a 50% increase that is expected to continue for the first few years. Thus the post-rule burden would comprise (6 tribes) * (1,607 hours/application) = 9,642 staff hours and (6 tribes) * ($43,920/application) = $263,520 in contractor costs. The pace of applications could increase as tribes become more familiar with the new post-rule process.

6.2 	Estimating Respondent Costs

      EPA estimated tribal employee costs using an average annual salary of $54,570, which is equivalent to the salary of a GS-9, Step 10 federal employee. At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $26.24. Overhead cost for federal and state employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $15.74 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of $41.98.

      Pre-rule annual tribal costs: Cost per application = (2,190 hours/application) * ($41.98/hour) + $90,000 contractor costs = $181,936. Total annual cost = (4 tribes) * ($181,936/application) = $727,744.

      Post-rule annual tribal costs: Cost per application = (1,607 hours/application) * ($41.98/hour) + $43,920 contractor costs = $111,382. Total annual cost = (6 tribes) * ($111,382/application) = $668,292.

6.3 	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

      Annual burden and costs to the federal government are detailed below. EPA employee costs were estimated assuming a GS-12 Step 1 federal employee earning $60,877 per year. At 2,080 labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $29.27. Overhead costs for federal employees are expected to be 60 percent, or $17.56 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of $46.83.

      Pre-rule Agency burden: EPA estimates that reviewing a typical application requires approximately 348 staff hours from regional and headquarters offices. The pre-rule Agency burden is (348 hours/application) * ($46.83/hour) = $16,297 per application reviewed. Thus the total pre-rule Agency burden is (4 tribes) * (348 hours/application) = 1,392 staff hours or (4 tribes) * ($16,297/application) = $65,188.

      Post-rule Agency burden: If the proposed rule were to be finalized, EPA estimates that the pre-application staff burden would reduce by 41% to 205 staff hours or (205 staff hours) * ($46.83/hour) = $9,600 per application reviewed. Thus the total post-rule Agency burden would be (6 tribes) * (205 hours/application) = 1,230 staff hours or (6 tribes) * ($9,600/application) = $57,600.

      There are no Capital Expenses and no O&M costs associated with this ICR.

6.4 	Reasons for Change in Burden

      The programmatic changes associated with the proposed rule would result in a reduction in total burden and cost to tribes and EPA for developing and processing TAS applications.

6.5 	Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1,607 hours plus $43,920 in contract support per response for a typical applicant tribe.

      Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

      To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available online for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. Use http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the 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 docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID (EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0461) and OMB Control Number (2040-NEW) in any correspondence.

                                                                     ATTACHMENT

                        Derivation of Burden Estimates

      Methodology

      In order to evaluate the burden under this proposed rule, EPA obtained quantitative resource information from the eight tribes listed in section 3.3 that have experience in applying for TAS for the WQS program. From interviews with tribal staff members, EPA obtained tribal estimates of the staff hours and contractor funds the tribes actually expended in preparing their TAS applications, and an estimate of the portion of this burden that would be eliminated under the proposed rule.

      Utility and Limitations

      The estimates based on tribal input reflect the best available information. EPA selected the tribes because of their knowledge of the TAS process and willingness to participate. The staff members interviewed were either direct participants or observers at the time the applications were developed. They were knowledgeable about how their tribes demonstrated inherent authority and were able to discern how the level of effort would have differed if such a demonstration had not been required.

      The information obtained from the tribes has certain limitations. First, some of the information could lack precision and accuracy because it depends largely on personal recollections of events from 3 to 20 years ago, depending on the tribe.

	Second, this analysis included all administrative costs associated with TAS applications even if some of the costs are not strictly information collection costs. EPA was unable to differentiate the information collection costs  -  that is, "reporting and recordkeeping" as these terms are defined and used under the Paperwork Reduction Act  -  consistently and reliably from other administrative costs, such as program development costs, program implementation costs, and management oversight. The estimates of burden in this document, therefore, likely overstate the actual ICR burden by an unknown amount, but provide a reasonable estimate of the total administrative costs. Because of the interview process used, EPA has confidence that the tribes' estimates of the relative proportion of work that the proposed rule would eliminate are fairly accurate.

      Finally, the sample of eight tribes is small relative to the number of tribes with approved TAS for the WQS program (49) from which they were drawn, or the number of tribes with reservations (over 300). As a result, there is inherent variability in the data.

      Assumptions for estimates

      This analysis assumes that all post-rule applications would be first-time applications for a CWA regulatory program, thus the tribes would be unable to rely on materials from previous applications for different regulatory programs. Therefore, to the extent that some tribes that have applied previously for one CWA regulatory program seek a subsequent approval for a different regulatory program, the post-rule estimates of burden in this document will likely overstate the actual burden.

      ICR burdens are stated as annualized burdens. In the analysis below, EPA has used a steady-state assumption to simplify the calculations of annual burden. Specifically, the analysis assumes that the rates of new tribal applications for CWA regulatory programs are steady at the same number from one year to the next. This assumption enables EPA to assume that the entire burden for a tribe occurs within the first year when calculating annual burden rates, even though in reality all applications by the eight participating tribes have required multiple years. This is because in a steady-state situation, assuming all burden occurs within one year is mathematically equivalent to a two-year application process with one-half of the burden occurring in each year, or a three-year process with one-third burden each year. To the extent that the rate of applications rises from year to year (thereby deviating from steady state) and any tribal applications take more than one year, the post-rule estimates of burden in this document will likely overstate the actual burden.

      Estimates of total pre-rule burden

       Table 1 shows the estimates provided by the tribes for the work done to prepare TAS applications, including providing additional information EPA requested in the course of the application process. Based on this information, EPA estimates that the pre-rule burden for a typical tribe would be 2,190 burden hours and $90,000 of contractor support. EPA used a median rather than an average for these estimates to reflect the non-normal distribution of values.

      Table 1: Per-tribe burden estimates, pre-rule
                                     Tribe
                                  Staff hours
                              Contractor support
                                       A
	1,295
	$90,000
                                       B
	1,611
	$102,000
                                       C
	1,640
	$10,000
                                       D
	2,190
	$8,100
                                       E
	3,605
	$96,300
                                       F
	9,736
	$90,000
                                       G
	12,298
	$2,700
                                       H
	20,800
	$270,000
Median*
	2,190
	$90,000
      *Excluding Tribe H, considered an outlier because of unique processes used in developing its TAS application.

      EPA data for the past 10 years show that between 1 and 5 tribes have been applying for TAS for a CWA regulatory program each year, with a 75[th] percentile of 4.0. EPA chose to use the 75[th] percentile value to ensure the ICR does not underestimate the total burden to tribes. Therefore, EPA's estimate of the pre-rule rate of new applications submitted is 4 tribes per year, resulting in a total pre-rule burden estimate of (4 tribes) * (2,190 hours/application) = 8,760 total burden hours and (4 tribes) * ($90,000) = $360,000 contractor support costs.

      Estimates of total post-rule burden

      Table 2 shows the estimates provided by the tribes for the percentage of the work done to prepare TAS applications that would be eliminated by the proposed rule. Based on this information, EPA estimates that the effect of the proposed rule would be to reduce tribal staff hours to prepare TAS application by an average of 26.6%, and to reduce contractor support costs by an average of 51.2%.

	Table 2: Percentage of burden eliminated by the proposed rule
                                     Tribe
                               % of Staff hours
                            % of Contractor support
                                       A
	5.5%
	33.3%
                                       B
	33.3%
	29.4%
                                       C
	15.9%
	32.5%
                                       D
	14.7%
	37.1%
                                       E
	11.5%
	44.1%
                                       F
	15.6%
	33.3%
                                       G
	50.0%
	100.0%
                                       H
	66.7%
	100.0%
Average
	26.6%
	51.2%

	Table 3 shows the estimated post-rule burden per tribe, developed by applying the average percentage reductions in Table 2 to the typical tribal pre-rule burden estimates in Table 1. From this information, EPA estimates the proposed rule would eliminate 583 staff burden hours, or 27 percent, and $46,080 contractor support costs, or 51 percent, for the typical tribe applying for TAS for a CWA regulatory program.

	Table 3: Estimated post-rule burden per tribe

                                  Staff hours
                              Contractor support
(a) Pre-rule burden estimates (from Table 1)
	2,190
	$90,000
(b) Percentage eliminated by the proposed rule (from Table 2)
	26.6%
	51.2%
(c) Amount eliminated by the proposed rule, (a)*(b)
	583
	$46,080
(d) Post rule burden, (a)  -  (c)
	1,607
	$43,920

	Also from Table 3, EPA estimates that the post-rule burden to develop TAS applications would be 1,607 staff hours and $43,920 contractor support costs for a typical tribe. Because the lower per-tribe burden could encourage more tribes to apply for TAS than in the past, EPA estimates that in the first three years the proposed rule could increase the rate of new applications from the pre-rule rate of 4 per year to a post-rule rate of approximately 6 per year. Based on these factors, EPA estimates that the total annual post-rule burden for the next few years would comprise (6 tribes) * (1,607 hours) = 9,642 staff hours and (6 tribes) * ($43,920/application) = $263,520 in contractor costs. After that time, EPA expects the pace of applications could increase as tribes become more familiar with the post-rule process.


[Federal Register: June 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 110)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32661-32663]
[DOCID:fr09jn10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0435]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Hydroplane Exhibition, Detroit River,
Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a temporary special local
regulation on the Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan from June 18, 2010
to June 20, 2010. This special local regulation is intended to restrict
vessels from portions of the Detroit River during the Hydroplane
Exhibition. This special local regulation is necessary to protect
spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with powerboat
races.

DATES: This regulation is effective from 3 p.m. on June 18, 2010, to 5
p.m. on June 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0435 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0435 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the 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, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail CDR Joseph Snowden, Prevention
Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the permit application for the
Hydroplane Exhibition event was not received by the Coast Guard in time
to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date.
Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring
the safety of vessels during the race, and immediate action is
necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property. The Coast
Guard has not received any complaints or negative comments previously
with regard to events of this type and duration.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of vessels
during the construction, and immediate action is necessary to prevent
possible loss of life and property. The Coast Guard has not received
any complaints or negative comments previously with regard to events of
this type and duration.

Background and Purpose

    This temporary special local regulation is necessary to ensure the
safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a
powerboat race. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that
powerboat races in close proximity to watercraft and waterfront
structures pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The
likely combination of large numbers of recreational vessels, powerboats
traveling at high speeds, and large numbers of spectators in close
proximity to powerboats on the water pose a significant risk of serious
injuries or fatalities. Establishing a special local regulation around
the location of the race course will help ensure the safety of persons
and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary special local regulation is necessary to ensure the
safety of spectators and vessels during the Hydroplane Exhibition
scheduled to take place during the Detroit River Days Festival. The
Hydroplane Exhibition will occur between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on a daily
basis on from June 18, 2010 to June 20, 2010. This regulation is
effective from 3 p.m. on June 18, 2010, to 5 p.m. on June 20, 2010 and
will be enforced daily between 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. during the effective
period.
    The area of the special local regulation will encompass all waters
of the Detroit River, between Detroit, MI and Belle Isle, within an
area bound on the east by a by a point on land at position 42[deg]20.1'
N; 083[deg]1.1' W extending to the international border located at
position 42[deg]19.9' N; 083[deg]1.0' W and a line running along the
international border to position 42[deg]19.5' N; 083[deg]2.2' W and to
a point on land at position 42[deg]19.7' N; 083[deg]2.4' W. All
geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 [NAD 83].
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port Sector Detroit or designated on scene patrol
personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the special
local regulation area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative. The Captain
of the Port or his designated on scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 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. It is not ``significant'' under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures
of DHS is unnecessary.
    This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will
be restricted from the area of the special local regulation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Detroit River near Detroit, MI
between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. from June 18, 2010 to June 20, 2010.
    This special local regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: This rule will only be in effect for 2 hours a day during the
effective dates that this rule will be enforced. The Coast Guard will
give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the
regulation is in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls 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 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 rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

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

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

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.

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(h) of the Instruction, because it involves the
establishment of a special local regulation for a marine event in which
an environmental analysis was conducted as part of the permit process
for the marine event. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and Recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  100.T09-0435 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T09-0435  Special Local Regulation; Hydroplane Exhibition;
Detroit River; Detroit, MI.

    (a) Location. The following is a temporary special local regulation
area: All waters of the Detroit River, between Detroit, MI. and Belle
Isle, within an area bound on the east by a point on land at position
42[deg]20.1' N.; 083[deg]01.1' W. extending to the international border
located at position 42[deg]19.9' N.; 083[deg]01.0' W. and a line
running along the international border to position 42[deg]19.5' N.;
083[deg]02.2' W. and to a point on land at position 42[deg]19.7' N.;
083[deg]02.4' W. (DATUM: NAD 83.)
    (b) Effective Period. This regulation is effective from 3 p.m. on
June 18, 2010 to 5 p.m. on June 20, 2010. This regulation will be
enforced daily from 3 p.m. until 5 p.m. from June 18, 2010, to June 20,
2010.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  100.35 of
this part, entry into, and transiting or anchoring within this special
local regulation area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Sector Detroit, or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This special local regulation area is closed to all vessel
traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Sector
Detroit to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the
Captain of the Port Sector Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard
or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
special local regulation area shall contact the Captain of the Port
Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to
do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
special local regulation area must comply with all directions given to
them by the Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 24, 2010.
E.J. Marohn,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2010-13806 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78450-78451]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0186]

Hours of Service: Clym Environmental; Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that Clym Environmental Services LLC (Clym)
has requested an exemption from the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations
to allow its drivers up to 14 hours of drive time within the work shift
or, in the alternative, up to 12 hours. Clym indicates that, due to the
nature of its operations, complying with the 11-hour driving time limit
in the HOS regulations places a strain on the company's drivers and its
overall operating costs. Clym asserts that the exemption would allow
additional flexibility while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
FMCSA requests public comment on the applicant's request for exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 15, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2023-0186 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
(FMCSA-2023-0186) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit the ground
level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue

SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its exemption process. DOT
posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice DOT/ALL-14 FDMS, which can be reviewed under the ``Department
Wide System of Records Notices'' at https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/privacy-act-system-records-notices/DOT-ALL. The
comments are posted without edit and are searchable by the name of the
submitter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards, FMCSA;<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected]. If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2023-0186), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number ``FMCSA-2023-0186'' in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose
the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button, and type your
comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you
are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third
party and then submit. 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. FMCSA
will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency must
publish its decision in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(b)) with
the reasons for denying or granting the application and, if granted,
the name of the person or class of persons receiving the exemption and
the regulatory provision from which the exemption is granted. The
notice must specify the effective period and explain the terms and
conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.300(b)).

III. Applicant's Request

    Clym is a regulated medical waste pickup, transportation, and
destruction company. Clym seeks an exemption from the requirement in 49
CFR 395.3(a)(3)(i) that a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operator may
drive a maximum of 11 hours within a 14-hour period before taking the
required 10 consecutive hours off duty or the equivalent. Clym has
specifically requested an exemption to extend the allotted driving time
to 14 hours or, in the alternative, to extend the drive time to a
maximum of 12 hours within the 14-hour period.
    Clym makes this HOS exemption request for three contingencies: (1)
when CDL A drivers are taking time off or calling off for illness or
injury, in which case a relief driver is needed to transport the waste
along the supply chain; (2) when there is an unexpected increase in
material and a trailer needs to be moved sooner than scheduled; and (3)
when there is an upcoming issue with local and state health codes for
the storage of regulated medical waste. If granted, the exemption would
apply only to drivers operating on the long-haul route between Clym's
office in New Castle, PA and its ozone destruction plant in Greenfield,
IN. It would not apply to any drivers operating on the company's local
routes.
    Clym predicts a minimal impact on safety, as the exemption sought
would allow its drivers to have more than the one mandatory 30-minute
break after 8 consecutive hours of driving. Clym's internal policy
provides a one-hour company lunch break and strongly encourages its
drivers to take as many breaks as necessary. Clym further states that
the round trip from the Greenfield office to the ozone destruction
plant and back takes about 11 hours to complete without traffic, and it
considers the run to be ``very easy'' as its commercial vehicles
typically operate at approximately half of the 80,000-pound legal
limit. Finally, Clym states that it takes safety very seriously because
it transports regulated medical waste.
    A copy of Clym's application for exemption is available for review
in the docket for this notice.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on Clym Environmental Services
LLC's application for an exemption from the requirement in 49 CFR
395.3(a)(3)(i) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce for a maximum of
11 hours of driving before taking 10 consecutive hours off duty or the
equivalent. All comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice will be
considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the
location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments
received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public
docket and will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to
late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket,
relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing
date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket
for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-25111 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 23913-23914]
[DOCID:fr25ap06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 13, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER06-18-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits its proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and
Energy Markets Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: April 4, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0474.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-740-001.
    Applicants: Indeck Energy Services of Silver Springs.
    Description: Indeck-Energy Services of Silver Springs, Inc submits
its amended market based rate schedule.
    Filed Date: April 3, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-830-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
    Description: Public Service Electric & Gas Co et al submit a
request for waivers of affiliate standards and authorization for sales.
    Filed Date: April 3, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-832-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Co submits proposed changes to its
FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 11 for sales of capacity and
energy within the MidAmerican Control Area.
    Filed Date: April 3, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-833-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to Schedule
2 of its OATT to reflect the allocation of the reactive power revenue
requirements of Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
    Filed Date: April 3, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-835-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Co.
    Description: Nevada Power Co et al submits its Fourth Revised Sheet
10A et al to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1 pursuant to
Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Part 35 of FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: April 4, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-836-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits its Transmission
Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment Filing.
    Filed Date: April 4, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060413-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-837-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Co's Notice of Cancellation of
its FERC Electric Rate Schedule 219.

    Filed Date: April 4, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060412-0482.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 25, 2006.
    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6158 Filed 4-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P