[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58129-58131]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23090]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0562]

Clean Water Act Class II: Proposed Administrative Settlement,
Penalty Assessment and Opportunity To Comment Regarding New Cingular
Wireless PCS, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has entered into a Consent Agreement with New Cingular
Wireless PCS, LLC to resolve violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA),
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and their implementing regulations.
    The Administrator is hereby providing public notice of this Consent
Agreement and proposed Final Order (CAFO), and providing an opportunity
for interested persons to comment on the CWA, EPCRA, and CAA portions
of this Consent Agreement, pursuant to CWA section 311(b)(6)(C), 33
U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C).

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0562, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OECA-2009-0562.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0562.
     Mail: Enforcement and Compliance Docket Information
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0562.
     Hand Delivery: Enforcement and Compliance Docket
Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2009-0562. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly

available docket materials are available either electronically at
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Enforcement and Compliance
Docket Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West,
Room B 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for
the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Calhoun, Special Litigation
and Projects Division (2248-A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)
564-6031; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background

    This settlement agreement is the result of an investigation by the
Special Litigation and Projects Division (SLPD) in the Office of Civil
Enforcement of AT&T Wireless (AWS) for potential EPCRA Section 311 and
312 reporting violations, CWA violations related to Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan requirements and CAA violations
related to the permitting of backup generators under State
Implementation Plan (SIP) rules. On October 26, 2004, AWS was purchased
by Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (CW). CW was subsequently renamed New
Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (NCW). The scope of this settlement
agreement is limited to legacy AWS-owned facilities that were subject
to SLPD's investigation from 2001 to 2003.
    Pursuant to the settlement agreement, NCW will pay a civil penalty
of $750,000, will expend an additional $625,000 for Supplemental
Environmental Projects and will conduct CAA and SPCC compliance audits
at legacy AWS sites. EPA and NCW negotiated an administrative Consent
Agreement in accordance with the Consolidated Rules of Practice, 40 CFR
22.13(b) (In Re: New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Docket Nos. CWA-HQ-
2009-8001, CAA-HQ-2009-8001, EPCRA-HQ-2009-8001). This Consent
Agreement is subject to public notice and comment under CWA section
311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C).

CWA

    NCW violated CWA section 311(j) and 40 CFR Part 112, because it
inadequately prepared and/or failed to prepare and implement SPCC plans
for the 14 facilities listed below between 2001 and 2008. As authorized
by CWA section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), EPA has assessed a
civil penalty for these violations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Site                              Address                        City                 State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Little Rock.......................  900 S. Shackleford Rd..........  Little Rock.............  AR
2. Signal Peak.......................  I-80 & Rattlesnake Rd..........  Soda Springs............  CA
3. Paauilo...........................  Kukaiau Ranch..................  Paauilo.................  HI
4. Urbandale.........................  4157 109th St..................  Urbandale...............  IA
5. Evansville........................  4510 O'Hara Dr.................  Evansville..............  IN
6. St. Rose..........................  160 James Dr...................  St. Rose................  LA
7. Southborough......................  155 Northborough Dr............  Southborough............  MA
8. Albany............................  2 Kross Key Dr.................  Albany..................  NY
9. New Hyde Park.....................  198 Armstrong Rd...............  New Hyde Park...........  NY
10. Oklahoma City....................  3201 Quail Springs Parkway.....  Oklahoma City...........  OK
11. Wilkes Barre.....................  485 Lasley Ave.................  Wilkes Barre............  PA
12. Allen............................  800 Venture Dr.................  Allen...................  TX
13. Austin...........................  4400 Staggerbrush Rd...........  Austin..................  TX
14. Milwaukee........................  5825 99th St...................  Milwaukee...............  WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under CWA section 311(b)(6)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A), based on
the time period in which the violations occurred, any owner, operator,
or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility
from which oil is discharged in violation of CWA section 311(b)(3), 33
U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to comply with any
regulations that have been issued under CWA section 311(j), 33 U.S.C.
1321(j), may be assessed an administrative civil penalty of up to
$157,500 by EPA for violations occurring after March 15, 2004, and up
to $137,500 for violations up to and including that date. Class II
proceedings under CWA section 311(b)(6) are conducted in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 22.
    The procedures by which the public may comment on a proposed Class
II penalty order, or participate in a CWA Class II penalty proceeding,
are set forth in 40 CFR 22.45. The deadline for submitting public
comment on this proposed final order is October 19, 2012. All comments
will be transferred to the Environmental Appeals Board (``EAB'') of EPA
for consideration. The powers and duties of the EAB are outlined in 40
CFR 22.4(a).
    Pursuant to CWA section 311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(C), EPA
will not issue an order in this proceeding prior to the close of the
public comment period.

EPCRA

    NCW also violated EPCRA section 311, 42 U.S.C. 11021, and the
regulations found at 40 CFR 370.21, when it failed to submit a Material
Safety Data Sheet (``MSDS'') for a hazardous chemical(s) or, in the
alternative, a list of such chemicals, at 51 facilities for varying
lengths of time between 2001 and 2003. EPA, as authorized by EPCRA
section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, has assessed a civil penalty for these
violations.
    NCW also violated EPCRA section 312, 42 U.S.C. 11022, and the
regulations found at 40 CFR Part 370.25, when it failed to prepare and
submit emergency and chemical inventory forms to the LEPC, the SERC
and/or the fire department with jurisdiction over 314 facilities listed
in Attachment A for varying lengths of time between 2001 and 2003. EPA,
as authorized by EPCRA section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, has assessed a
civil penalty for these violations. Attachment A to the proposed CAFO
lists the 325 EPCRA sites in violation of EPCRA sections 311 and 312.
    Under EPCRA section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, the Administrator may
issue an administrative order assessing a civil penalty against any
person who has violated applicable emergency planning or right to know
requirements, or any other requirement of EPCRA. Proceedings under
EPCRA section 325

are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22.

CAA

    NCW also violated regulations promulgated pursuant to the
California SIP involving the two facilities described in the paragraphs
below at varying lengths of time between 2001 and 2007. Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2), requires states to submit
implementation plans to implement, maintain, and enforce ambient air
quality standards. Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2), requires states to include in their implementation plans
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source covered by the plan. The California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) includes requirements from local governments. The California SIP,
including the requirements specific to the local governments, was
approved by EPA under section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410.
    The California air quality control districts' rules for the
jurisdictions set forth below include regulations that require
construction and/or operating permits for certain stationary sources of
air pollution. As detailed below, each of these provisions was
incorporated into the California SIP and is therefore federally
enforceable.
    In the State of California, NCW operates diesel fuel-powered
electric generators that are stationary sources within the meaning of
CAA section 302(z), 42 U.S.C. 7602(z).
    A. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)--The
California SIP includes a provision, Regulation 2, Rule 1 BAAQMD Rules,
stating that any person installing any equipment, the use of which may
cause the issuance of air contaminants, must first obtain authorization
for such construction and subsequent operation. This provision was
federally approved and became federally enforceable on January 26, 1999
(64 Fed. Reg. 3850). NCW owns or operates a facility (2 miles off Lynch
Road, Suisun, CA) in the BAAQMD that installed a pollution-emitting
diesel-powered electric generating unit without written authorization
from BAAQMD in violation of Regulation 2, Rule 1.
    B. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD)--The California SIP includes a provision, section 3.0 in
SJVUAPCD Rule 2010, stating that any person installing any equipment,
the use of which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, must first
obtain authorization for such construction and subsequent operation.
This provision was federally approved and became federally enforceable
on July 23, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 39,920). NCW owns or operates a facility
(6855 West Eight Mile Road, Stockton, CA) in the SJVUAPCD that
installed two pollution-emitting diesel-powered electric generating
units without written authorization from SJVUAPCD in violation of Rule
2010.
    NCW violated regulations promulgated pursuant to the California SIP
involving the two facilities described in the paragraphs above and is
therefore subject to federal enforcement under CAA section 110(a). EPA,
as authorized by CAA section 113(d), 42 U.S.C. 7413(d), has assessed a
civil penalty for these violations. Under CAA section 113(d), 42 U.S.C.
7413(d), the Administrator may issue an administrative order assessing
a civil penalty against any person who has violated an applicable
requirement of the CAA, including any rule, order, waiver, permit or
plan. Proceedings under CAA section 113(d) are conducted in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 22.
    EPA will not issue an order in this proceeding prior to the close
of the public comment period.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: September 10, 2012.
Bernadette Rappold,
Director, Special Litigation and Projects Division, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2012-23090 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR PHASE III § 316( B) REQUIREMENTS FOR COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM i TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. Identification of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization ( Abstract) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Need For and Use of the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( a) Non duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( a) Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( I) Data items, including record keeping requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ( II) Respondent activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ii 5( b) Collection Methodology and Information Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( d) Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Federal Register Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 LIST OF TABLES Table A1: Reviewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table A2: Duration of Questionnaire Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table A3: Total Estimated Bottom Line Burden and Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1 PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Willingness to Pay Survey: Phase III Cooling Water Intake Structures 1( b) Short Characterization ( Abstract)

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is in the process of developing new regulations to provide national performance standards for controlling impacts from cooling water intake structures ( CWIS) for Phase III facilities under section 316( b) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA). The facilities considered Phase III facilities under Clean Water Act section 316( b)

regulations include existing electrical generators with cooling water intake structures that are designed to withdraw 50 million gallons of water per day ( MGD) or less, as well as existing manufacturing and industrial facilities with cooling water intake structures, that withdraw water from rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, oceans, or other waters of the United States for cooling purposes. The regulation also establishes section 316( b) requirements for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities.

EPA has previously published final section 316( b) regulations that address new facilities ( Phase I) on December 18, 2001 ( 66 FR 65256) and existing large power producers ( Phase II) on July 9, 2004 ( 69 FR 41576). See 40 CFR Part 125, Subparts I and J, respectively.

As required under Executive Order 12866, EPA performs economic impact and cost/ benefit analyses of the section 316( b) regulation for Phase III facilities. Comprehensive,

appropriate estimates of total resource value include both use and non use values, such that the resulting total social benefit estimates may be compared to total social cost. " Non use values, like use values, have their basis in the theory of individual preferences and the measurement of welfare changes. According to theory, use and non use values are additive" ( Freeman, 1993). Therefore,

use values alone may understate total social values. Recent economic literature supports the 1For detail see " Phase II  Large Existing Electric Generating Plants Response to Public Comment," U. S. EPA, 2004. Available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ commentph2. htm 2 hypothesis that non use values are greater than zero. Moreover, when small per capita non use values are held by a substantial fraction of the population, they can be very large in the aggregate.

Developing comprehensive quantified benefit estimates for the section 316( b) regulation requires consideration of non use values because nearly all ( 96 percent) of impingement and entrainment losses at CWIS consist of either forage species, or non landed recreational and commercial species that do not have direct uses. Although individuals do not use these resources directly, they may nevertheless be affected by changes in the resource status or quality, such that they would be willing to pay to maintain these resources. It is generally accepted in economic literature that non use values may be substantial in some cases, and that failure to recognize such values may lead to improper inferences regarding policy benefits and costs. Many public comments on the proposed section 316( b) regulation for Phase II facilities and the Phase II Notice of Data Availability ( NODA) suggested that a properly designed and conducted stated preference,

or contingent valuation ( CV), survey would be the most appropriate and acceptable method to estimate non use benefits of the rule. 1 Stated preference survey methodology is the generally accepted means to estimate non use values. Stated preference surveys use carefully designed questions to elicit respondents' willingness to pay ( WTP) for particular ecological improvements,

based on their responses to either discrete choice or open ended questions regarding hypothetical resource improvements or programs. Such improvements may include increased protection of aquatic habitats or species with particular attributes.

To assess public policy significance or importance of the ecological gains from the section 316( b) regulation for Phase III facilities, EPA proposes to develop a stated preference study to measure non use benefits of reduced fish losses at CWIS due to the regulation. The study would focus on a broad range of aquatic species, including forage fish and a variety of fish species harvested by commercial and recreational fisherman. The estimated values of reducing impingement and entrainment losses of a variety of fish species are also of academic interest since past studies focused only on a few select fish species such as salmon and striped bass. The findings from this study would be pertinent to economists and policy makers studying changes in fish populations and aquatic habitat improvements. 3 To assist in the development of a stated preference survey, EPA requests approval from the Office of Management and Budget to conduct a series of focus groups. Such use of focus groups is well established, as is the capacity of focus groups to provide insight into motivations underlying respondents' stated willingness to pay ( WTP) values ( Mitchell and Carson 1989;

Desvousges et al. 1984; Desvousges and Smith 1988; Johnston et al. 1995). Focus groups are among the most significant qualitative research tools used in social sciences ( Bateman et al.

2002), and are considered by many stated preference practitioners to be a critical component of contingent valuation survey design ( Arrow et al. 1993; Johnston et al. 1995).

Focus groups are often described as " informal sessions in which a skilled moderator leads a group of individuals through a discussion of specific topics to discover their attitudes and opinions" ( Desvousges et al. 1984, p. 2 1, cited in Johnston et al. 1995 p. 56). Following standard practice, EPA will use focus groups to better understand the public's perceptions and attitude concerning fishery resources, to frame and define survey questions and to pretest draft survey questions. Focus groups will also be used, following advice of Mitchell and Carson ( 1989),

Desvousges et al. ( 1984), Johnston et al. ( 1995), to test for and eliminate or reduce potential biases that may be associated with stated preference methodology, and to ensure that both researchers and respondents share interpretations of survey language and scenarios.

EPA plans to conduct 12 focus groups at different geographic locations in the United States. Specific focus group locations will be selected based on the locations of the majority of Phase III facilities. Following generally accepted practice ( e. g., Desvousges et al. 1984), EPA will recruit seven to nine individuals for each focus group. These individuals will be randomly selected by marketing research firms from panels of focus group participants maintained by each firm.

Participants will be asked to attend a focus group session and participate in a discussion of specific topics led by a moderator.

The total nation burden estimate for the focus group sessions is 256 hours. The burden estimate is based on the assumption that EPA will conduct 12 focus groups with seven to nine participants each. EPA assumes an average burden estimate per participant of 160 minutes. The total focus group participant cost is $ 4,534.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection 4 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The project is being undertaken pursuant to sections 104 of the Clean Water Act dealing with research. Section 104 of the Clean Water Act authorizes and directs the EPA administrator to conduct research into a number of subject areas related to water quality, water pollution, and water pollution prevention and abatement. This section also authorizes the EPA administrator to conduct research into methods of analyzing the costs and benefits of programs carried out under the Clean Water Act.

This research project is exploring how public values for fishery resources ( including use and non use values) are affected by fish losses from impingement and entrainment at CWIS.

Understanding total public values including non use values for fishery resources lost to impingement and entrainment is necessary to determine the full range of benefits associated with reductions in impingement and entrainment losses, and whether the benefits of government action to reduce impingement and entrainment losses at Phase III facilities are commensurate with the costs associated with such actions. Because non use values may be substantial in some cases,

failure to recognize such values may lead to improper inferences regarding policy benefits and costs. Although the findings from this study will primarily be used by EPA to improve estimates of the economic benefits of the section 316( b) regulation for Phase III facilities as required under Executive Order 12866, these findings are also expected to be useful to the state and local regulatory agencies dealing with fishery resources and fish habitat and the research community.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data EPA will use focus groups to assist in the design of stated preference surveys to measure total ( i. e., non use and use) benefits of the section 316( b) regulation for Phase III facilities,

following standard guidance in the stated preference literature ( Mitchell and Carson 1989).

Specifically, EPA will use focus groups to better understand the public's perceptions and attitude about fishery resources and to obtain insight into motivations underlying respondents' willingness to pay ( WTP) values. Information obtained during focus group sessions will be used to frame and define survey questions to ensure that the stated preference survey measures willingness to pay 2 Olsen, D., J. Richards, and R. D. Scott. 1991. " Existence and Sport Values for Doubling the Size of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Runs." Rivers. 2( 1): 44 56.

3 Cameron, T. A. and D. D. Huppert. 1989. OLS versus ML Estimation of Non market Resource Values with Payment Card Interval Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 17, 230 246.

5 values more appropriately. Focus groups will also be used to pretest draft survey questions, and to test for the presence of potential biases related to survey design. Input from focus groups will enable EPA to adjust the survey instrument to ameliorate or reduce the potential for such biases,

such that more valid estimates of WTP may be generated.

3. Non duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Non duplication EPA has not identified any previous studies that would allow estimation of the social benefits of nationwide changes in populations of fish species ( including forage, recreational, and commercial species) affected by the proposed 316( b) regulation. Although many previous studies have estimated the value of changes in catch rates or populations of select recreational and commercial species or changes in water quality that affect fish, no studies have specifically valued changes in forage fish populations. For example, Olsen et al ( 1991) 2 conducted a survey of Pacific Northwest residents, including both anglers and non anglers, to determine their willingness to pay ( WTP) for doubling the size of the Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. EPA's proposed survey approach differs from this study and others like it ( such as Cameron and Huppert,

19893) in that it would include respondents from various geographic regions in the United States and would provide values for a variety of forage, recreational, and commercial species, instead of valuing a few recreational species in one specific geographical area.

Some previous studies do provide values for changes in water quality that affect all fish species, including forage fish. However, the resulting values for water quality improvements from these studies also include values for changes in other factors such as water clarity, pollution levels, 4 Magat, Wesley A., J. Huber, K. W. Viscusi, and J. Bell. 2000. " An Iterative Choice Approach to Valuing Clean Lakes, Rivers, and Streams." Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 21( 1): 7 43.

5 Mitchell, Robert Cameron, and R. T. Carson. 1981. An Experiment in Determining Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements. Preliminary Draft of a report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington.

6 Whitehead, John C., and P. A. Groothuis. 1992. " Economic Benefits of Improved Water Quality: a Case Study of North Carolina's Tar Pamlico River." Rivers. 3: 170 178.

6 species diversity, etc. For example, Magat et al. ( 2000) 4 asked North Carolina and Colorado residents to value an increase in water quality under which fresh water in their states would become safer for swimming in, fish could be eaten safely, and the number and diversity of plants and aquatic organisms would increase. EPA's proposed survey approach differs from this study and other similar studies ( such as Mitchell and Carson, 19815; or Whitehead and Groothuis, 19926)

in that it will value only changes in fish populations, not changes in general water quality that affect a variety of ecological services provided by a water body.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), EPA published a notice in the Federal Register on [ ] announcing that the focus group methodology and script were available for comment. A copy of the Federal Register notice is attached at the end of this document.

3( c) Consultations EPA's Office of Water consulted with typical focus group participants while developing the focus group format and script. EPA recruited a total of eight individuals to participate in a preliminary focus group session. These individuals provided advice about the content and format of the focus group opening statement, introductory materials, the sequence and content of questions in the focus group script. The preliminary focus group session was also used to obtain more accurate burden estimates. 7 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The focus groups are a one time activity. Therefore, less frequent collection is not practical.

3( e) General Guidelines The focus groups will not violate any of the general guidelines described in EPA's ICR Handbook.

3( f) Confidentiality The focus groups will be recorded using audiotapes, which will later be transcribed.

However, individuals will not be identified on the transcripts. To insure that the focus groups include a representative and diverse sample of individuals, EPA will tabulate basic demographic information for participants, such as age, ethnicity, occupation, and income. However, no personal identifying information about participants, such as names, phone numbers, or addresses, will be included in the focus group transcripts. Prior to commencing any audio recordings, respondents would be informed of EPA's intentions to audiotape the focus group proceedings, and informed that all taped responses will be strictly anonymous and confidential.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No sensitive questions pertaining to private or personal information, such as sexual behavior or religious beliefs, will be asked during the focus groups. 8 4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents Following generally accepted practice ( e. g., Desvousges et al. 1984), EPA will recruit seven to nine individuals for each focus group. Focus group participants will be randomly selected by marketing research firms from panels of focus group participants maintained by each firm.

Participants are eligible if they are 18 years of age or older; if they are not full time students; if they do not have occupations related to the environment, including water treatment and sewage, electric or nuclear power companies; and if they have not participated in a survey or focus group in the last six months. Each of the focus groups will include a mix of individuals with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, based on characteristics such as income, marital status, age, race, education,

occupation, and gender. Participants will be asked to attend a focus group session and participate in a discussion of specific topics led by a moderator. Participation in the focus group sessions is voluntary. Participants will have to expend time, effort, and travel to participate in the focus group sessions. Following standard practice in marketing research, participants will be compensated for their time and effort. The offered compensation would also help to avoid the self selection bias that otherwise may result. The proposed incentive fee is $ 50.00 per participant.

4( b) Information Requested ( I) Data items, including record keeping requirements Participant information typically maintained by marketing research firms:

NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY/ STATE/ ZIP:

PHONE:

DATE/ TIME OF INTERVIEW:

RECRUITER:

ASK TO SPEAK TO ______________ 9 The initial screener questionnaire used by the marketing research firms to recruit participants for the focus groups will have the following format:

( Introduction to respondent:) Hello, I'm _____________________, with Abt Associates, a national public policy research and consulting firm. We are conducting focus groups with people like you, for a research study on the views of Americans on environmental issues that affect water resources. Focus groups are small groups discussions led by a moderator. If you qualify, we will offer you $ 50.00 to participate in a focus group at our facility.

( If the respondent asks, this research is funded by the Water Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.)

I would like to ask you a few questions to see if you qualify. Let me assure you, this is NOT a sales call and the information is for research purposes only.

( SCHEDULE CALL BACK IF NECESSARY. GET FIRST AND LAST NAME AND DIRECT TELEPHONE NUMBER OF RESPONDENT.)

1. What is your age ( RECORD AGE) ______

If younger than 18: terminate.

2. Record Gender Male ............................................................. 1 Female ......................................................... 2 3. Have you participated in a focus group in the past 6 months? Yes ............................................................... 1 ( Terminate) No ................................................................ 2 ( Continue)

4. What is your occupation? RECORD OCCUPATION:_________________________

If occupation is related to the environment, including water treatment and sewage, electric or nuclear power companies, etc.: terminate. If full time student: terminate.

5. Do you currently own or rent your primary residence? Own ......................................................................................... 1 Rent ......................................................................................... 2 Don't know/ Refused ................................................................. 8 6. What is your marital status? Married .................................................................................... 1 Living as married ..................................................................... 2 Widowed .................................................................................. 3 Divorced/ Separated .................................................................. 4 Single ....................................................................................... 5 Refused .................................................................................... 8 10 7. Do you have any children, including any stepchildren and/ or adopted children? Yes ........................................................................................... 1 No ............................................................................................ 2 Don't know/ Refused ................................................................. 8 8. What level of education have you completed? Less than high school .............................................................................................................. 1 High school graduate, grade 12, or GED certificate ................................................................. 2 Some college or university work, but no four year degree ........................................................ 3 College or university graduate ( BA, BS or other four year degree received) ............................. 4 Post graduate or professional schooling after college, but no degree yet ( including work toward degree) ............................................................................................... 5 Master's degree or higher completed ( M. D., J. D., Ph. D., Ed. D., Sc. D.) ................................... 6 REFUSED ............................................................................................................................... 7 9. What is your race or ethnicity? ( Circle all categories that respondent mentions.) American Indian or Alaska Native ............................. 1 Asian ( Specify_______________) ............................. 2 Black or African American ........................................ 3 Hispanic or Latino ( Specify_____________) .............. 4 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander .................. 5 Caucasian ................................................................... 6 Other ( Specify_______________) .............................. 7 REFUSED .................................................................. 8 10. What is your annual combined household income? Up to $ 20,000/ year ..................................................... 1 $ 21,000$ 40,000 ........................................................ 2 $ 41,000$ 75,000 ........................................................ 3 More than $ 75,000 ..................................................... 4 REFUSED .................................................................. 8 IF THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OF A GROUP, PLEASE THANK RESPONDENT AND TERMINATE THE CALL. PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

" Thank you very much for your time. It appears that you do not qualify for our group discussion ."

IF THE RESPONDENT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A GROUP, PLEASE INVITE THEM TO PARTICIPATE.

I would like to invite you to participate in a small group discussion with other people like yourself to help us better understand the way Americans think about environmental problems that affect water resources. The discussion will last for about 90 minutes and will be audio taped ( if respondent asks why say: this is standard procedure and it's for the researchers note taking purposes only.) You will be asked to sign a consent form when you arrive at the facility. The discussion will be held on ( GIVE DATE AND TIME).

Will you be able to attend? 11 Yes ..... 1 ( GIVE DIRECTIONS TO FACILITY)

No ...... 2 Thank you again for agreeing to participate. The session will begin promptly at 6: 00 PM so please be there at least 15 minutes early to sign the consent form. If you are not there on time you will not be invited into the group. We look forward to your participation.

Individuals who attend the focus groups will be asked to discuss their knowledge and opinions about freshwater and marine fish resources. The moderator of the focus group will read and ask participants questions from the example script provided below. To maximize the research value of the focus group sessions for stated preference survey design, EPA will proceed iteratively. The version of the focus group script provided below will undergo several modifications based on findings from initial focus groups. The goal of subsequent modifications is to develop and refine survey questions to ensure greater clarity of survey questions and, as a result, validity of the survey responses. Modifications will also be tested in terms of their ability to eliminate or reduce biases that may occur in surveys that have undergone insufficient testing and development ( Mitchell and Carson 1989). Based on the planned iterative modification of focus group and draft survey questions, the structure of subsequent draft survey instruments will depend on how people respond to surveys and questions in previous focus groups.

Focus Group Script [ Terms in bold may change depending on the terms mentioned by participants in the discussion.] 1. Introduction Welcome! Thanks for coming out. I very much appreciate you joining us this evening for a focus group. Focus groups are small group discussions led by a moderator. My name is _________, and I am from ___________. I will moderate this focus group session. The reason that we have invited you to participate in a focus group is because we are in the middle of a large scale research project looking at how people view different resources. Focus groups are small group discussions led by a moderator. Today, we will be talking about fish and fish habitat, but I don't want to be too specific, because I want to hear what you want to say, instead of having you listen to me. Eventually, we will be designing a survey to try to figure out how we can better manage these resources to suit people and how to deal better with these resources as a society. However, before we can even get to the point where we design this survey, we need to listen to people like you and learn how you think about these resources and if they matter or don't matter to you. That can help us to figure out what questions we should ask. I very strongly believe that if you ask a confusing question, you are going to get an answer that doesn't mean very much. And so that is why we are here. At the end of this discussion, I will be perfectly happy to answer any questions you may have. However, at this point I don't want to give out too much information because the purpose of this focus group is to learn from you. I don't know if any of you have ever done anything like this before, but I view this as an informal discussion where there is no right or wrong answer. Even if I say something that seems a little bit weird or is different than how others view things, it is ok. I will learn from you. It is important that we all respect each other and give everyone a chance to talk. This session will go between one and one and a half hours, depending on how the discussion goes. 12 We are going to audiotape this discussion to help us remember what was said. Your names will not go on the tape, and there is no one videotaping. Before I start, does anyone have any questions? [ If no one has questions, begin discussion.]

2. Discussion topics What comes to mind when I ask you about fish that live in saltwater and freshwater in this country ( name local water body or region)? [ May want follow up with more focused geography  such as local waters, state waters, and national waters. Otherwise, the question is too vague an invites unfocused speculation.]

How do fish in ( name geographical region) affect you and/ or your family, if at all? [ Again, follow up with a more narrow geographic focus if needed]

What are the relationships that you see between fish and your local environment, if any?

What types of fish were you thinking about as you answered our previous questions? Are these fish found in your local community or environment?

Are some kinds of fish more important to you than others? Why are these fish more important to you?

Is it important to you that they are in your immediate area, in your state, or elsewhere in the United States?

When you hear the term " fish habitat" what kinds of things do you think about? What does it mean to you?

What do you think about coastal waters or freshwater bodies? Are you telling me about places in your local area, state, and/ or the country?

In your experience are there different types of fresh water habitats for fish, or are they all similar? In your experience are there different types of salt water habitats for fish, or are they all similar?

For the fish that you told me were important to you earlier, what habitat/ s do they live in?

When you think about fish and fish habitat, do you consider them to be a local issue, or a national issue? Does it matter to you what happens to fish in other areas of the country?

What different kinds of benefits do freshwater ( coastal) habitats provide to you personally? Why are they important? Does it matter to you what different types of fish or shellfish live in these habitats?

Do you derive any personal benefits from your use of fish? Could you describe them to me?

Tell me about your personal experiences with   or perceptions of the current health/ quality of fish populations/ resources? 13 In your experience, what causes or factors affect the health/ quality of fish?

Have you heard about any notable changes in your local fish or fish habitat in recent years? What do you think is responsible for those changes?

Have you experienced or are you familiar with any particular threats to fish and fish habitat in your area? In other areas?

The numbers of fish in the environment have been found to go up and down according to natural events. Does it matter if those natural changes in the numbers of fish are somehow changed by man made events? Have you heard of times when this has happened? Does it matter to you what kinds of fish are affected?

Would it matter to you if you heard that some human activity had killed a large number of fish, even if scientists are unsure whether it would have any long term effect on fish populations? Compared to other important environmental issues that affect your community, how would you rate changes in fish populations, in terms of importance to you personally?

If you had to vote for a referendum on a program that would reduce fish mortality or losses of fish associated with man made actions, what additional information would you want to know?

Do you think you would vote for a referendum on a regulatory program that would increase the number of sport or commercial fish? What if that program would increase the costs of living faced by your household, through such thing as increased electricity bills? Would you still vote for the program knowing most of those fish protected would never be caught by anyone?

Why would you vote for ( or against) such a program?

Why would you spend your money to protect fish?

It is difficult to predict the impact of reducing fish losses on fish populations or ecological health. If you were told it is not possible to predict the impact of the program on fish populations or health, how would that affect your decision?

EPA notes that not all discussion topics would be covered in one focus group session due to time constrains. In subsequent focus groups, the moderator would also offer some sample valuation questions to focus group participants. The focus group participants will be debriefed after completing responses to the sample survey questions.

( II) Respondent activities We expect individuals to engage in the following activities during their participation in the focus groups: 14

Respond to phone recruitment from the marketing research firm.

Travel to and from the focus group location.

Review and sign a consent form.

Participate in focus group discussion and answer draft survey questions.

A typical participant will be recruited by phone to participate in the focus group ( about 10 minutes). On the day of the focus group, the participant will travel to the focus group facility ( about 30 to 60 minutes round trip). Before the focus group session, the participant will review and sign a consent form ( 15 minutes). During the focus group session, the participant will participate in discussion and answer draft survey questions ( 90 minutes).

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities These focus groups are being conducted by Abt Associates Inc. and are funded by EPA contract No. 68 C99 239, which provides funds for the purpose of analyzing the economic benefits of the proposed rule for Phase III facilities subject to the section 316( b) regulation. EPA would use information obtained from the focus groups to design and pre test a survey that can be used to estimate the social value of changes in impingement and entrainment losses and populations of forage, recreational, and commercial species of fish.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Information Management The target population for the focus groups is members of households of the United States who are 18 years of age or older, who are not full time students, whose occupation is not related to the environment, including water treatment and sewage, electric or nuclear power companies,

and who have not participated in a survey or focus group in the last six months. EPA, with 15 assistance from the marketing research firms, will take measures to recruit individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

As a means of recording information provided by focus group participants, the focus groups will be audiotaped and then transcribed. Individuals will not be identified in the transcripts.

EPA will use the information to aid in designing questions for its stated preference survey.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility This survey will be administered to individuals ( not businesses) who will be compensated for their time and effort. This section is not applicable.

5( d) Collection Schedule The focus group schedule will be as follows:

Table A2: Duration of Focus Group Activities Activity Duration of Each Activity ( in days) Total Elapsed Time Period for Project Following OMB Approval ( in days)

Per Focus Group Focus Group Participants Recruited 7 per group 7 Focus Group Session 1 per group 7 Total per Group 8 per group 8 Total for 12 Focus Groups Total for 12 Focus Groups 96 96 Preparation of Focus Group Report 10 106 6. Estimating Respondent Burden and Cost of Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden 7 U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. " Employer costs for Employee Compensation: March 2004". Press release. June 24, 2004. http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release/ pdf/ ecec. pdf.

16 The focus groups will require subjects to expend time on several activities. The total national burden estimate for all focus group activities is 256 hours. A typical focus group participant will spend 10 minutes responding to the phone recruiting process; 30 to 60 minutes traveling to and from the focus group facility; 15 minutes reviewing and signing a consent form;

and 90 minutes participating in discussion and answering draft survey questions, for a total of 160 minutes ( 2.66 hours) on average. EPA's burden estimates are based on average duration of similar activities in the past focus groups. Based on the assumption that there would be 12 focus groups with an average of eight participants each, the total national burden estimate for all participants is 256 hours. This burden estimate reflects a one time expenditure in a single year.

EPA does not anticipate any capital or operation and maintenance costs for respondents.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wage for private sector workers in the United States is $ 17.71 ( 2004$). 7 Assuming an average burden estimate of 2.66 hours per participant and an average hourly wage of $ 17.71, the total cost per participant will be $ 47.23.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs This project is being undertaken by Abt Associates Inc. with funding of $ 70,000 from EPA's contract No. 68 C99 239, which provides funds for the purpose of analyzing the economic benefits of the proposed rule for Phase III facilities subject to the section 316 ( b) regulation. Abt Associates Inc. staff are expected to spend 520 hours conducting focus groups and designing and pre testing draft survey questions that can be used to estimate the social value of changes populations of forage, recreational, and commercial species of fish. In addition to the effort expended by Abt Associates Inc., EPA staff are expected to spend 200 hours managing and reviewing this project. The cost of this EPA staff time is $ 6,035. Thus, total agency and 17 contractor burden is 720 hours, with a total cost of $ 76,035.

6( d) Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs EPA expects the total cost for focus group participants to be $ 4,534 ( 2004$), based on a total burden estimate of 256 hours and an hourly wage of $ 17.71.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The following table presents EPA's estimate of the total bottom line burden and costs of the focus group information collection:

Table A3: Total Estimated Bottom Line Burden and Cost Summary Affected Individuals Total Burden Total Cost ( 2004$)

Focus Group Participants 256 hours $ 4,534 EPA staff 200 hours $ 6,035 EPA's contractora 520 hours $ 70,000 Total Costs 976 hours $ 80,569 a The total cost listed for EPA's contractor includes the incentive fee for focus group participants. This fee is $ 50 per participant, so the total cost of this fee for 12 focus groups with seven to nine participants each is $ 4,800.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The focus groups are a one time data collection activity.

6( g) Burden Statement EPA estimates that the public reporting and record keeping burden associated with the focus groups will average 2.66 hours per respondent ( i. e., a total of 256 hours of burden divided among 96 focus group participants). Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 18 expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,

processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

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. OW 2004 0020, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 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 ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET 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 Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OW 2004 0020 and OMB control number ( 2040 XXXX) in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement The primary purpose of the focus groups is to collect qualitative information that will 19 enable EPA to design a survey to elicit respondents' values for changes in impingement and entrainment losses and changes in populations of forage, recreational, and commercial species of fish. Thus, this section of the supporting statement is not necessary.


[Federal Register: March 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14550-14551]
[DOCID:fr31mr09-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2008-0827; FRL-8788-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Contractor Cumulative Claim and
Reconciliation (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 0246.10, OMB Control Number
2030-0016

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 30,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OARM-2008-0827, to (1) EPA Online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information Docket, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Blanding, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Acquisition Management, Mail Code 3802R,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On November 13, 2008 (73 FR 67152), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OARM-2008-0827, which is available for public viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Office of Environmental Information Docket is
(202) 566-1752.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0246.10, OMB Control No. 2030-0016.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: At the completion of a cost reimbursement contract,
contractors will report final costs incurred, including direct labor,
materials, supplies, equipment, other direct charges, subcontracting,
consultant fees, indirect costs, and fixed fee. Contractors will report
this information on EPA Form 1900-10. EPA will use this information to
reconcile the contractor's costs. Establishment of the final costs and
fixed fee is necessary to close out the contract. Responses to the
information collection are mandatory for those contractors completing
work under a cost reimbursement contract, and are required to receive
final payment. Information submitted is protected from public release
in accordance with the Agency's confidentiality regulation, 40 CFR
2.201 et seq.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 240
minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; 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.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: All contractors who have completed
an EPA cost reimbursement type contract will be required to submit EPA
Form 1900-10.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.
    Frequency of Response: At contract completion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 80.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $8,491 which includes $0 annual
capital/startup costs, $240 annual O&M costs, and $8,251 annual labor
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: In the last OMB clearance, respondent
burden hours were estimated at 32 hours per year. The current estimate
is 80 hours per year for an overall increase of 48 hours. The increase
in burden from the previous approval is a result of the increased time
needed, by the respondents', per action due to the complexity of some
of the contracts to be closed out and the timeliness of consulted
subcontractors, which often increases the amount of time needed to
gather the required information.

    Dated: March 25, 2009.
John Moses,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E9-7191 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79368-79371]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31923]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76652; File No. SR-NSCC-2015-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Provide Mechanism
for Sub-Account Settlement With Respect to the Alternative Investment
Product Services

December 15, 2015.
    On October 30, 2015, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2015-007 pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to amend NSCC's Rules and Procedures
(``Rules'') \3\ to allow certain users of NSCC's Alternative Investment
Product Services (``AIP'') to settle at the sub-account level and to
make related technical changes and corrections to the Rules, as more
fully described below. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 10, 2015.\4\ The Commission
did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For
the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76348 (November 4,
2015), 80 FR 69728 (November 10, 2015) (SR-NSCC-2015-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The following is a description of the proposed rule change, as
provided by NSCC:
    Background. In 2008, the Commission approved NSCC's proposed rule
change to establish AIP, a non-guaranteed processing platform for
alternative investment products such as hedge funds, funds of hedge
funds, commodities pools, managed futures,

and real estate investment trusts.\5\ AIP facilitates, among other
things, processing activities such as subscriptions and redemptions,
distributions, position reporting, and account maintenance relating to
alternative investment products and settles related payments (``AIP
Payments'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57813 (May 12, 2008), 73
FR 28539 (May 16, 2008) (SR-NSCC-2007-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Settlement of AIP Payments is done on a prefunded basis. On each
date for which settlement will occur (``Settlement Date''), an AIP
participant (``AIP Member'') that is in a debit position for such day
must satisfy its full debit balance before NSCC will settle any contra-
side credit positions with respect to such AIP Member. NSCC simply
passes AIP Payments from one AIP Member to the contra-side AIP Member
without netting and without guaranteeing payment, and settlement of AIP
Payments is segregated from all other money settlement at NSCC.
    Participation in AIP is governed by Rule 53 of NSCC's Rules. A
party seeking to be an AIP Member is required to enter into a separate
AIP membership agreement with NSCC, even if it is otherwise a
participant of other NSCC services.
    AIP Members are divided into two categories--``AIP Manufacturers''
and ``AIP Distributors''. AIP Manufacturers act on behalf of, or under
authority of, the sponsor, general partner, or other party responsible
for the creation or manufacturing of an eligible alternative investment
product (``Eligible AIP Product''). AIP Manufacturers are generally the
fund entities themselves (``Funds''). AIP Distributors act on behalf
of, or under authority of, a customer or other investor in an Eligible
AIP Product. AIP Distributors are generally the broker/dealers whose
clients invest in Eligible AIP Products.
    Fund Administrators. Within the alternative investments industry,
there are parties on the creation/manufacturing side of transactions
known as ``fund administrators''. Fund administrators are not the Funds
themselves, but rather, agents for the Funds. Where a Fund engages a
fund administrator to act on the Fund's behalf, it is typically the
fund administrator that handles all of the transaction processing for
that Fund.
    Within AIP, a fund administrator is a party engaged under contract
to provide administrative services with respect to one or more Eligible
AIP Products and is eligible to be an AIP Member as an AIP Manufacturer
(``AIP Fund Administrator''). In general, AIP Fund Administrators
process AIP transactions with respect to their various Fund clients by
creating separate sub-accounts within AIP, each of which is
attributable to a specific Fund client. In this structure, the Fund
client generally would not be an AIP Member.
    Under the current AIP Rules, AIP Fund Administrators are
responsible for all activities related to their sub-accounts. These
activities include, for example, submitting, reviewing, and confirming
order instructions, reviewing and confirming settlement statements, and
making AIP Payments. With respect to making AIP Payments, the Rules
provide that on Settlement Date all sub-account obligations roll up to
the AIP Fund Administrator's primary AIP account. These obligations are
then presented to the AIP Fund Administrator's settlement bank for
gross debit settlement and gross credit settlement.
    Because AIP Fund Administrators are responsible for settlement of
AIP Payments, an AIP Fund Administrator in a debit position on
Settlement Date must assure that each applicable Fund client has timely
delivered payment to such AIP Fund Administrator's settlement bank. To
the extent that a single Fund client fails to deliver its payment on
Settlement Date (and the AIP Fund Administrator is not otherwise able
to cover such Fund's shortfall), NSCC is required to reverse all of the
AIP Fund Administrator's contra-side credit positions for the day,
including the contra-side credit positions attributable to Funds that
actually did pay.
    In recent months, NSCC has learned from several fund administrators
interested in becoming AIP Members that the responsibility to make AIP
Payments at NSCC is a responsibility that fund administrators generally
do not undertake outside of AIP. In the current processing environment
outside of AIP, fund administrators perform all transaction processing
functions for their Funds, but they generally do not control money
settlement.
    As explained by certain fund administrators to NSCC, the current
AIP Payment structure as applied to AIP Fund Administrators has slowed
adoption of AIP by the fund administrator community.
    Proposed Rule Change. To address this matter, NSCC has proposed to
permit AIP Fund Administrators, at their discretion, to create sub-
accounts that settle separately from their primary AIP accounts, as
well as from their other AIP sub-accounts, (``AIP Settling Sub-
Accounts'').
    An AIP Fund Administrator choosing to create an AIP Settling Sub-
Account will designate to NSCC the applicable Fund client with
responsibility for settlement of AIP Payments with respect to such AIP
Settling Sub-Account. Such designated Fund will not be an AIP Member
(``AIP Non-Member Fund''). Each such AIP Non-Member Fund will enter
into a standard agreement pursuant to which an NSCC-approved AIP
Settling Bank will perform settlement services directly for the AIP
Non-Member Fund (``Appointment of AIP Settling Bank and AIP Settling
Bank Agreement'').
    Under the proposal, AIP Fund Administrators will remain responsible
for all activities with respect to their AIP Settling Sub-Accounts,
except that AIP Fund Administrators will not be responsible for
settling AIP Payments. For example, AIP Fund Administrators will remain
responsible for order processing applicable to their AIP Settling Sub-
Accounts, including submitting, reviewing, and confirming order
instructions. In addition, AIP Fund Administrators will be responsible
for informing their AIP Non-Member Funds of their respective daily AIP
Payment obligations. All reporting, liability, and indemnification
obligations to NSCC under NSCC's Rules will remain with the AIP Fund
Administrator.
    As is the case today, settlement of all AIP Payments will be done
on a prefunded basis. NSCC will not net or guarantee any AIP Payments
with respect to AIP Settling Sub-Accounts, and all settlement of AIP
Payments (including those of AIP Non-Member Funds) will continue to be
segregated from all other money settlement at NSCC.
    Prior to NSCC approving any AIP Settling Sub-Account, NSCC will
require the applicable AIP Fund Administrator to enter into
documentation and/or agreements, or otherwise procure documentation
and/or agreements, in such form as required by NSCC from time to time,
which will contain:
     The AIP Fund Administrator's acknowledgement and agreement
that it will be responsible for all matters, activities, liabilities,
and obligations applicable to AIP Members under the Rules with respect
to such AIP Settling Sub-Account, except for settlement of AIP
Payments;
     the AIP Fund Administrator's agreement to indemnify NSCC
for any loss, liability, or expense sustained by NSCC in connection
with, arising from, or related to such AIP Settling Sub-Account,
including with respect to the

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (``FATCA''); \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 26 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the AIP Fund Administrator's agreement that it will be
responsible for (A) all charges incurred and payments due under Rule 26
(Bills Rendered) for the processing of AIP Settling Sub-Account
transactions through AIP and (B) any other charges that may be incurred
with respect to such AIP Settling Sub-Account under Rule 24 (Charges
for Services Rendered);
     the AIP Fund Administrator's designation of the AIP Non-
Member Fund with responsibility for making AIP Payments with respect to
such AIP Settling Sub-Account;
     the AIP Non-Member Fund's consent and approval with
respect to such designation;
     the AIP Fund Administrator's agreement of its obligation
to notify NSCC of changes in condition to the AIP Non-Member Fund that
would otherwise require notice to NSCC under Rule 2B (Ongoing
Membership Requirements and Monitoring) or Rule 20 (Insolvency);
     the AIP Fund Administrator's agreement of its obligation
to notify the applicable AIP Non-Member Fund of such AIP Non-Member
Fund's daily AIP Payment balance; and
     the AIP Non-Member Fund's appointment of an AIP Settling
Bank, and such AIP Settling Bank's agreement to act as AIP Settling
Bank for such AIP Non-Member Fund.
    In addition, the applicable AIP Fund Administrator will need to
obtain from the applicable AIP Non-Member Fund tax documentation in
such form as required by NSCC from time to time, and with respect to
any AIP Non-Member Fund that is treated as a non-U.S. entity for U.S.
federal income tax purposes, the AIP Fund Administrator will need to
provide NSCC with an executed FATCA certification from such AIP Non-
Member Fund in the form approved by NSCC.
    On a going-forward basis with respect to FATCA, AIP Fund
Administrators will need to obtain from their AIP Non-Member Funds
periodic tax documentation, including FATCA certifications to the
extent applicable, and provide such documentation to NSCC. Failure to
provide such tax documentation, including FATCA certifications, in the
manner and timeframes set forth by NSCC from time to time will result
in revocation of NSCC's approval, in NSCC's sole and absolute
discretion, of such AIP Settling Sub-Account.
    Under the proposal, AIP Fund Administrators will be required to
indemnify NSCC for any loss, liability, or expense sustained by NSCC in
connection with, arising from, or related to FATCA in respect of their
AIP Settling Sub-Accounts. The FATCA-related provisions in this
proposed rule change are substantially similar to the current
provisions in the Rules governing how NSCC monitors and treats its non-
U.S. members with respect to FATCA.
    In connection with this proposal, NSCC will amend the following
Rules:

 Rule 1. Definitions

     The following new defined terms will be created: ``AIP
Fund Administrator'', ``AIP Non-Member Fund'', and ``AIP Settling Sub-
Account'', each of which will be defined or further described in Rule
53 (Alternative Investment Product Services and Members).
     The defined term ``AIP Settling Bank'' will be amended to:
Provide that AIP Settling Banks undertake to perform settlement
services for AIP Members, as well as for AIP Non-Member Funds; and
correct an incorrect Rule citation within the defined term.

 Rule 2. Members and Limited Members

    The description of ``AIP Settling Bank Only Member'' as a type of
NSCC Limited Member will be amended to provide that AIP Settling Bank
Only Members undertake to perform settlement services with respect to
AIP on behalf of AIP Members, as well as AIP Non-Member Funds.

 Rule 53. Alternative Investment Product Services and Members

    The Rule will be amended to: Permit AIP Fund Administrators to
create AIP Settling Sub-Accounts and address the agreements and
documents that NSCC will require prior to approving any such AIP
Settling Sub-Account; describe the tax and FATCA-related requirements
in connection with creating and maintaining such AIP Settling Sub-
Accounts; describe the settlement process with respect to AIP Settling
Sub-Accounts; state that NSCC will not notify any AIP Non-Member Fund
of any debit or credit balance and identify that it is the AIP Fund
Administrator's obligation to notify each such AIP Non-Member Fund of
its applicable debit or credit balance; state that NSCC will not
guarantee AIP Payments to any AIP Non-Member Fund; specify that NSCC
will not be liable for the acts, delays, omissions, bankruptcy, or
insolvency of any AIP Non-Member Fund unless the Corporation was
grossly negligent, engaged in willful misconduct, or in violation of
federal securities laws for which there is a private right of action;
and address applicable technical changes in connection with the
foregoing.

 Rule 55. Settling Banks and AIP Settling Banks

    The Rule will be amended to provide that AIP Settling Banks may
undertake to: Perform settlement services on behalf of AIP Non-Member
Funds; describe the settlement process with respect to AIP Settling
Sub-Accounts; and make certain technical corrections.

 Rule 58. Limitation on Liability

    The Rule will be amended to specify that NSCC will not be liable
for the acts, delays, omissions, bankruptcy, or insolvency of any AIP
Non-Member Fund unless the Corporation was grossly negligent, engaged
in willful misconduct, or in violation of federal securities laws for
which there is a private right of action; and make clear that NSCC will
not be responsible for the completeness or accuracy of any AIP data
received from or transmitted to an AIP Member (including an AIP Fund
Administrator with respect to any AIP Settling Sub-Account thereof),
nor for any errors, omissions, or delays which may occur in the
transmission of such AIP data to or from an AIP Member (including an
AIP Fund Administrator with respect to any AIP Settling Sub-Account
thereof).

 Addendum D (Statement of Policy; Envelope Settlement Service,
Mutual Fund Services, Insurance and Retirement Processing Services and
other Services Offered by the Corporation)

    The Rule will be amended to make clear that settlement with respect
to AIP Settling Sub-Accounts is not guaranteed and that NSCC will
reverse any credit previously given to any AIP Member (including any
AIP Settling Sub-Account) that is the contra-side to an AIP Member
(including a contra-side AIP Settling Sub-Account) whose payment was
not received by NSCC.

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \7\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to

such organization. The Commission believes the proposal is consistent
with section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \8\ and Rule 17Ad-22(d)(12),\9\ as
described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistency with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act. Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that the rules of
a clearing agency be designed (i) to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, and (ii) to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a national system for the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\10\ As described
above, under NSCC's current Rules regarding AIP, settlement of AIP
Payments is the responsibility of AIP Members, including AIP Fund
Administrators. However, NSCC has learned from fund administrators
interested in becoming AIP Members that fund administrators generally
do not control money settlement for their Fund clients. This disconnect
has impeded the adoption of AIP by the fund administrator community. To
address this issue, NSCC will now allow AIP Fund Administrators to
establish AIP sub-accounts and permit AIP Payments to settle at the
sub-account level. Doing so will redirect responsibility for settlement
of AIP Payments from AIP Fund Administrators to the AIP Fund
Administrator's designated Fund clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In allowing settlement at the sub-account level, NSCC (i) will be
fostering cooperation and coordination with fund administrators and
Funds that are involved in the processing of alternative investment
securities transactions, and (ii) will be removing an impediment to the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of alternative investment
securities transactions at the sub-account level. As such, the
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistency with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(12). Rule 17Ad-22(d)(12) under the
Act requires a central counterparty, such as NSCC, to ``establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to . . . [e]nsure that final settlement occurs no
later than the end of the settlement day . . . .'' \12\ As described
above, under the current Rules regarding AIP, if just one of an AIP
Fund Administrators' designated Fund clients fails to make its AIP
Payment on Settlement Date, and the AIP Fund Administrator does not
cover the shortfall, NSCC is required to reverse all of the AIP Fund
Administrator's contra-side credit positions, including the contra-side
credit positions of Funds that did pay. With this proposed rule change,
AIP Fund Administrators can create AIP sub-accounts that settle
separately from their primary AIP accounts, as well as from other AIP
sub-accounts. Allowing AIP settlement at the sub-account level will
enable funded AIP sub-accounts to settle no later than the end of the
settlement day, while unfunded sub-accounts can be reversed,
separately. As such, the Commission believes that the proposal is
consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(12).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(12).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of section 17A of the Act \14\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2015-007 be, and hereby is,
approved.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31923 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 14268]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1187-000]

Eagle's View Partners, Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Eagle's View Partners, Ltd.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 17, 2018.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 28, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06700 Filed 4-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 10063]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1241-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Sage Solar II
LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sage Solar II LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 1, 2019.
    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 12, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05060 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4366-4367]
[DOCID:fr27ja10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 1

January 5, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-286-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC submits Original
Sheet 14S, First Revised Sheet 283 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume 1, to be effective 1/1/10.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0239.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-287-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.
    Description: Wyoming Interstate Co, Ltd submits Twenty-Sixth
Revised Sheet No. 4C et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
No. 2.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20100104-0146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-289-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits an
amendment to an existing Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreement.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20100104-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-290-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits First Revised
Sheet No. 11D to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 12/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20100104-0145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 12, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1555 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P