EPA Permit Fee Incentive Program Rulemaking

State/EPA  Meeting # 3

August 22, 2006

Meeting Summary

Meeting Agenda

Review Meeting Minutes from July 26th

Discussion on Likely Parameters for Option Development

General Discussion and Questions

Identification of Next Steps

meeting Participants

NAME	AGENCY/AFFILIATION	EMAIL

Leonard Bechtel	EPA Office of Wastewater Management<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Gul Beg	EPA Office of Wastewater Management<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Laura Blake	The Cadmus Group, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
James Blizzard	EPA Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental Relations
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Elaine Brenner	EPA  OWM -  Water Permits Division<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Steve Brown	ECOS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
David Bullard	Georgia Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
William Creal	Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Linda Eichmiller	ASIWPCA<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Lena Ferris	EPA Office of Wastewater Management<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Bonnie Lovelace	Montana Department of Environmental Protection
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Chuck Corell	Iowa Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kristen Dunne	ECOS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Andrew Fisk	ME DEP<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Carolyn Gillette	The Cadmus Group, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Terry Griffith	EPA Region 8<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Ron Hammerschmidt	Kansas Department of Health and Environment
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Mel Langdon	Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Roger Larson	Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Karl Mueldener	Kansas Department of Health and Environment
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sharon Morgan	Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Bev Poston	Washington State Department of Ecology<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Duane Schuettpelz	Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Susan Sylvester	Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Mike Tate	Kansas Department of Health and Environment
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kyle Winter	Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Melissa Porterfield	Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Nizanna Bathersfield	EPA OWM – Water Permits Division
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Review Meeting Minutes from July 26th

Mr. Len Bechtel, Director of EPA Office of Wastewater Management’s
(OWM) Planning, Information, and Resources Management Staff (PIRMS),
asked the meeting participants for corrections or additions to meeting
summary #2 before its finalization in the formal record of this
rulemaking initiative.  One change was proposed, which was to correct
the spelling of a particular participant’s name.  Meeting participants
should e-mail Mr. Bechtel with any additional comments they may have on
the second meeting summary.  All meeting summaries will be included in
the docket when EPA publishes the draft NPDES Permit Fee Incentive Rule.

Discussion on Likely Parameters for Option Development

Mr. Bechtel provided an update on progress since the last meeting.  EPA
has spent a significant amount of time developing materials to inform
EPA management of items discussed during the first two meetings.  Mr.
Bechtel confirmed that he and his staff have received direction from EPA
management to proceed with developing the rule.  EPA still intends to
finalize the rule by December 31, 2006.  However, EPA realizes that
additional negotiations may need to take place as feedback is received
from OMB and through the comment period.  Any direction regarding a
deadline date that is provided by the appropriations committee, in the
final appropriation bill language, may also impact the timeline.

EPA anticipates a significant amount of discussion between OMB and the
Agency once OMB receives the draft rule.  EPA continues to feel strongly
about allowing at least 60 days for the open comment period for the
proposed rule.  When the proposed rule is released, EPA may also include
language in the Federal Register notice that summarizes the options that
EPA decided not to pursue and associated justifications.  EPA wants the
final option to be as practical as possible; input from states and the
regulated community is critical to achieving this.

Since the last meeting, ASIWPCA held its annual meeting (in New
Orleans), where the permit fee incentive program was discussed.  Mr. Ben
Grumbles, the Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Water, was a
featured speaker at the meeting.  In response to a question about the
permit fee incentive program, Mr. Grumbles commented that the outlook
for an increase in Section 106 Program funding, at least in the near
term, is not good.  Mr. Grumbles also recognized that many of the states
are experiencing similar budgetary problems.  Further, he recognized
that significant work remains in the area of water quality, and that
current resources need to be supplemented either by identifying program
efficiencies and/or new revenue sources.

Mr. Grumbles considers the permit fee incentive program to be one among
a number of actions that EPA will take in the next several years to
produce alternate funding mechanisms and encourage program efficiencies.
 Mr. Grumbles feels strongly about moving forward with the incentive
program because of the program’s potential to help at least some
states who are looking to establish permit fees or raise current fees;
he believes it to be EPA’s obligation to try to create an environment
in which states can be successful in creating permit fee programs.

At the ASIWPCA meeting, Mr. Grumbles also announced that Mr. Michael
Dean had been hired by the OW Immediate Office to help promote new ways
of approaching infrastructure financing and other services.  Mr. Dean
will be working closely with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water and the Office of Wastewater Management to develop options for
raising revenue and increasing efficiency.  The permit fee incentive
program should not be seen as an isolated requirement mandated by the
federal government.  Rather, it is the first among many steps EPA hopes
to take to help create an environment in which EPA and states have the
resources to execute water quality activities.

Mr. Grumbles has provided some direction on which permit fee incentive
options (discussed during the previous meeting) OWM should consider when
developing the draft rule.  EPA is currently refining the options based
on the parameters received from Mr. Grumbles.  For example, Mr. Grumbles
requested that the amount of funding in play for the incentive be
between 3% and 5% of the total Section 106 allocation, depending on the
final allocation.  Additionally, there will likely be a fairly high
threshold for the definition of “adequate” (in terms of adequate fee
programs), at least in the long-term.  EPA is still debating whether to
start with a low threshold and build up, but it is likely that the
threshold will be fairly high (i.e., permit fees collected will need to
be at least 50% of total permitting, compliance, and enforcement costs).

Mr. Grumbles is also very sympathetic to the notion of preserving the
base Section 106 program funding and understands the importance of
providing a stable source of revenue for state water quality programs.

EPA is currently using Mr. Grumbles’ guidance to prepare required
provisions in the rule and refine several of the options.  Mr. Grumbles
will select one final option for the proposed rule; however, the Federal
Register notice on the draft rule will likely include discussion of at
least one other option considered by OWM for comment purposes.

While progress is being made, EPA does anticipate some delay once the
draft rule language is delivered to OMB.  There is a possibility that
the December 31, 2006 target will not be met, but EPA is still moving
ahead with this as the intended deadline.  Mr. Bechtel and his staff
anticipate getting an options paper to Mr. Grumbles by next week.  After
receiving his feedback, the draft rule will undergo an internal review,
which will take several weeks, before delivery to OMB in mid-September.

Mr. Grumbles will be attending the upcoming ECOS meeting and will
address the permit fee rule at that meeting.  This is another
opportunity for states to share their perspective with him.

General Discussion and Questions

A state representative asked for clarification on the source of the 3-5%
that will be provided for the incentive.  Mr. Bechtel responded that the
3-5% represents funds that will be taken off of the total state Section
106 base allocation.  These incentive funds will then be made available
to states with “adequate” fee programs.  EPA is still determining
how the incentive funds would be allocated to eligible states.  Using
another source of funding (beyond STAG) and adding it to Section 106 (as
an incentive) is not an option.

Another state participant inquired about the possibility of using a
sliding scale for distributing the incentives, where states with X% of
their program supported by fees would be eligible for $X, states with Y%
of their program supported by fees would get additional dollars, etc.
EPA indicated that this is an additional option under consideration and
they are trying to determine the best way to create an incentive for
states in which over 50% of program costs are covered by fees.  One
option under consideration is to make each state eligible for up to 10
shares.  A state would receive 1 share if their fees cover 25% of total
costs; states with fees covering 50% of total costs would receive 2
additional shares; states covering 75% of costs would receive 3
additional shares; and states with 100% would receive 4 additional
shares (for a maximum of 10 shares).  The total shares of all states
would be divided into the total incentive pool and each share would be
worth a certain amount of money.  A state’s allotment would be
calculated by multiplying the number of shares they hold by the value of
one share.  Again, this is just one approach still under consideration,
and a final option selection has not been made.

A state participant also asked if this rule would result in a change in
the allocation formula, introducing the criteria of the amount of fee
money a state uses for their NPDES program.  EPA replied affirmatively
that the portion of the allocation that deals with point sources will
likely be modified.

ASIWPCA requested clarification about whether or not the formula itself
is being changed through this process.  EPA clarified that the rule will
propose that funds be taken from the total base allocation.  The current
formula will remain intact and will be run following the removal of the
incentive funds.

ASIWPCA also asked EPA to comment on rumors that the ICCs will no longer
be receiving Section 106 funding.  Mr. Bechtel responded that he could
neither confirm nor deny the rumor, as he had not heard of any
discussions related to cutting off Section 106 funding for ICCs.

A state representative inquired as to whether EPA is planning to
introduce similar programs that will affect Section 106 allocations.
Mr. Bechtel is not aware of any programs currently being planned, but as
EPA manages its programs with a greater focus on results, similar
actions may be executed across a number of functions.

A state representative asked EPA if they had received additional
clarification from OMB as to their intentions for Section 106 in
general.  Is the permit fee incentive program the first step in cutting
Section 106 funding all together?  Mr. Bechtel replied that OMB has
never indicated to EPA that they intend to eliminate Section 106
funding; rather, OMB’s intent is to create new revenue streams.

ECOS requested that the meeting minutes reflect that ECOS’
participation in these calls does not reflect ECOS’ endorsement of the
results of the calls.  Mr. Bechtel noted that he appreciated all
participants’ involvement and input; EPA hopes that the decisions the
Agency makes are better informed due to this input, even though they may
not necessarily reflect all input received.

A state participant asked whether EPA would still be considering the
incentive rule if the authorizing language for the rule went away or
never existed.  Mr. Bechtel indicated that he thinks it’s likely that
EPA would still consider such a program since it was a recommendation in
the PART review and it has the support of the Assistant Administrator.
Mr. Grumbles views this as a tool for helping states to establish
adequate permit fee programs.  ASIWPCA replied that this assumption
still must be validated in the real world.

A state participant complimented EPA’s effort to put together
background information and data.  Mr. Bechtel mentioned the importance
of all the meeting participants, especially in making EPA aware of the
potentially adverse impacts of this rulemaking on states.

ASIWPCA asked about the possibility of being able to suggest another
option during the comment period for the proposed rulemaking.  Ms. Lena
Ferris mentioned that the rule will include the preferred
recommendation, as well as options that were considered but not selected
(and reasons why they were not selected).  Based on comments received on
the draft rule during the formal comment period, EPA may select another
option or a modified version of it.  If an entirely new option is
presented in a public comment, the Agency would consider it; however,
they would have to re-propose the rule again before it could be
finalized.

A state representative expressed concerns that the proposed
“incentive” is more like a penalty.  A 3-5% increase in the overall
Section 106 allocation that is allotted to states with adequate permit
free programs would be considered an incentive (as opposed to taking
3-5% off of the current base).

EPA predicts that any increases in future Section 106 funding will not
be for general programs, but will be directed to a specific activity,
such as permitting, monitoring, CAFOs, etc.  The Agency’s move towards
“managing for results” and allocating funding to specific tasks,
such as the monitoring set-aside, is intended to demonstrate measurable
results and progress.  EPA believes that this will strengthen their
requests for future increases in Section 106 (or other) funding.

ECOS requested to be on record as opposing the set-asides, which ECOS
considers to be unilateral EPA actions that are not done in consultation
with EPA’s partners.  ECOS understands that EPA’s priorities may lie
in demonstrating results to Congress, but would prefer that EPA
negotiate these actions with its State partners.

A state representative inquired about whether the core program elements
will be identified in the Federal Register notice.  EPA responded that
it will include a list of the minimum activities that are defined under
permitting, enforcement, and compliance.  EPA is not going to put strict
restrictions on the use of permit fee revenue.  There may be some
language in the rule that prohibits states from replacing their own
appropriations (for water quality programs) with the collected fees.

A state representative asked whether EPA had conducted an economical
analysis of the different options and the costs to EPA of administering
the programs, and whether EPA compared the different options with regard
to the expected change in behavior on the part of the states and the
legislatures once they are required to raise permit fees.  Mr. Bechtel
responded that EPA had not done so.   EPA indicated that the timeframe
under which they are operating allowed only limited analyses.  The state
representative expressed concern that this rulemaking could result in
unintended consequences, such as cuts in state funding to water
programs.

A state representative mentioned the possibility of states choosing to
return NPDES programs back to EPA if this rule becomes too burdensome or
Section 106 budgets are cut (as even a 3-5% cut could result in a loss
of 1-2 FTEs).  Has consideration been given to the potential cost to EPA
of having to assume responsibility for additional NPDES permit programs?

A state representative suggested that EPA give serious consideration to
offering non-monetary incentives, especially for states that already
have an adequate fee program.  These states could potentially lose
Section 106 funding (i.e., from the overall 3-5% cut from the total),
but may receive nothing in return.  This bolsters the case for offering
more than just monetary incentives (e.g., elimination of certain
reporting requirements).  For example, the 305(b) reports are a major
burden on the states.  An attractive offer could be to offer states an
opportunity to submit their 305(b) reports every 4 years instead of
every 2 years.  This would also free up state resources for other, more
pressing priorities.

Identification of Next Steps

Mr. Bechtel expressed his appreciation to all meeting participants for
the input they have provided.  While some participants may not have
agreed on all issues discussed or proposed, EPA’s decisions will
benefit greatly from these discussions.

EPA will keep all meeting participants informed about the process, as
soon as EPA has dates to work with, so that all participants are
prepared to review and respond to the draft rule and inform other
states.  EPA believes that the input received during the comment period
for this rule will be critical to the implementation of the final rule.

At this time, there are no definite plans for another meeting.  As EPA
begins moving forward with the rule, EPA may request an ad hoc meeting
for additional input.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


 [Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 166)] [ Notices]                [Page 50320] [DOCID:fr26au08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP03-33-004]

  Wyckoff Gas Storage Company LLC.; Notice of Application

August 19, 2008.

    On August 14, 2008, Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC (``Wyckoff''),

Two Warren Place, 6120 Yale Avenue, Suite 700, Tulsa, OK 74136-4216,

pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and

parts 157 of the Commission's regulations, filed an abbreviated

application to amend its certificates of public convenience and

necessity issued on October 6, 2003 (105 FERC ] 61,027), and amended on

April 11, 2006 (115 FERC ] 61,207) and June 29, 2006 (115 FERC ]

62,324) to (1) Convert two observation wells to injection/withdrawal

(I/W) wells; (2) complete two previously approved I/W wells into the

Onondaga reef zone rather that into the Oriskany sandstone zone as

previously authorized; (3) convert two previously authorized I/W wells

to observation wells; (4) abandon certain previously approved lateral

piping that has not yet been installed and will no longer be needed for

the project; and (5) extend the time limit for the construction and

installation of certain of the project facilities by an additional

three years. This filing is available for review at the Commission in

the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site

at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to

access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for

TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to T.W.

Cook, Wyckoff Gas Storage Company, LLC, Two Warren Place, 6120 Yale

Avenue, Suite 700, Tulsa, OK 74136,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,

within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:

complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the

Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule

for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other

milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of

the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this

proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for

this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for

Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of

the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the

subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days

of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of

this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by

becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or

before the below listed comment date, file with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a

motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the

Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or

385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person

obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by

the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all

documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must

submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a

copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only

parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders

in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have

comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with

the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and

two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.

The Commission will consider these comments in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will

not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's

rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project

provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly

involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of

this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments

to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be

placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive

copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings

associated with the Commission's environmental review process.

Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed

documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will

not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by

the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents

issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court

review of the Commission's final order.

    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed

electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR

385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site

under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages

electronic filings.

    Comment Date: September 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-19693 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 20685]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08907]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80524; File No. SR-FICC-2017-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Implement the Capped Contingency Liquidity
Facility in the Government Securities Division Rulebook

April 25, 2017.
    On March 1, 2017, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-002 (``Proposed Rule Change'')
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to implement a Capped
Contingency Liquidity Facility in FICC's Government Securities Division
Rulebook.\3\ The Proposed Rule Change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 20, 2017.\4\ To date, the Commission has
received one comment letter to the Proposed Rule Change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On March 1, 2017, FICC also filed this Proposed Rule Change
as advance notice SR-FICC-2017-802 (``Advance Notice'') with the
Commission pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment,
Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C.
5465(e)(1), and Rule 19b-4(n)(1)(i) of the Act, 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(n)(1)(i). Notice of filing of the Advance Notice was published for
comment in the Federal Register on March 15, 2017. Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80191 (March 9, 2017), 82 FR 13876 (March
15, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-802). The Commission extended the review
period of the Advance Notice from April 30, 2017 to June 29, 2017.
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80520 (April 25, 2017) (SR-FICC-
2017-802). The proposal in the Proposed Rule Change and the Advance
Notice shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required
with respect to the proposal are completed.
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80234 (March 14, 2017),
82 FR 14401 (March 20, 2017) (SR-FICC-2017-002).
    \5\ See letter from Robert E. Pooler, Chief Financial Officer,
Ronin Capital LLC, dated April 10, 2017, to Robert W. Errett, Deputy
Secretary, Commission, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ficc-2017-002/ficc2017002.htm. Since the proposal contained in the
Proposed Rule Change was also filed as an Advance Notice, Release
No. 80191, supra note 3, the Commission is considering all public
comments received on the proposal regardless of whether the comments
are submitted to the Proposed Rule Change or the Advance Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this Proposed Rule Change
is May 4, 2017. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide the Commission with sufficient time to consider
the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that it is appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to take action on the
Proposed Rule Change. Accordingly, the
    Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\7\ designates
June 18, 2017 as the date by which the Commission shall either approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove
proposed rule change SR-FICC-2017-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-08907 Filed 5-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P