ES 1 September 19, 2005, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic chemicals in the United States. Under section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and to States on their release( s), transfer( s), and waste management activities for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report prevention, recycling, and other waste management information for these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI). 1 Since the inception of the TRI Program, EPA has implemented measures to reduce the reporting burden on the regulated universe of facilities, and make TRI reporting as user friendly as possible. These measures include compliance assistance activities, such as industry specific guidance and annual training workshops. EPA also reduced the time spent completing the required TRI forms by developing the Toxics Release Inventory   Made Easy ( TRI ME) software and adding the Form A certification. In July 2005, EPA finalized the TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule ( 70 FR 3991, July 12, 2005) that included general options for reducing the time, cost, and complexity of the reporting requirements imposed on facilities. ( EPA refers to this rulemaking as the " Phase 1" burden reduction rulemaking.)

EPA is proposing additional options for streamlining TRI reporting. The purpose of this proposed rule is to provide additional burden reduction options without compromising the quality of toxic chemical release data and of other waste management information. This additional set of burden reduction options will be referred to hereafter as the " Phase 2" burden reduction rulemaking.

ES. 1 CHANGES TO THE TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS As described above, EPA has implemented a number of burden reduction measures. To build upon these efforts, EPA conducted a TRI Stakeholder Dialogue between Fall 2002 and early 2004. During this dialogue, improvements to the TRI reporting process were identified and a number of burden reduction options associated with TRI reporting were explored. After reviewing these improvements and reporting options, EPA has decided to proceed with burden 1 The term EPCRA section 313 properly refers to only the statutory requirements, while the term TRI properly refers to the database where the information collected under section 313 and under section 6607 of the PPA is stored. However, the terms have often been used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute, the regulatory requirements, the reporting form, the database, and EPA's program to manage the data. In deference to common usage, the terms EPCRA section 313 and TRI are sometimes used interchangeably in this report where doing so will make the report simpler and easier to read. ES 2 September 19, 2005, reduction rulemakings in three phases: Phase 1) relatively simple, modifications to the reporting forms and Phase 2) new and expanded eligibility for Form A and Phase 3) alternate year reporting for all or some reporters. This economic analysis reflects the costs and impacts of the Phase 2 burden reduction rulemaking. EPA is proposing the following two options that it believes may reduce reporting burden for TRI facilities:

° New Eligibility for Form A: PBT Chemicals  allows a facility reporting on PBT chemicals, except dioxin and dioxin like compounds, with zero disposal or other releases to use Form A, provided they meet the 1,000,000 pound alternate reporting threshold and have 500 pounds or less of total other waste management quantities. 1 ( sections 8.2   8.8) ° Expanded Eligibility for Form A: Non PBT Chemicals  allows a facility reporting on Non PBT chemicals with an annual reportable amount ( sections 8.1   8.7) of 5,000 lbs or less to use Form A, provided they meet the 1,000,000 pound alternate reporting threshold. EPA is also taking comment on two alternate annual reportable amounts ( 1,000 lbs and 2,000 lbs) for this option.

ES. 2 ESTIMATED REPORTING ACTIVITY The proposed rule will affect only those forms ( and the facilities that file them) that meet the criteria associated with each option. EPA is proposing a combination of the two options. These options do not overlap as one applies only to Non PBT chemicals while the other applies only to PBT chemicals. Note that there may be new facilities filing to TRI for the first time that may experience burden reduction due to the proposed rule. Without information on their reportable chemicals and amounts, however, it is not possible to determine the option for which they would qualify and they are thus not accounted for in this analysis. Table ES 1 summarizes the number of affected facilities and forms when the options are combined.

TABLE ES 1 UNIVERSE OF AFFECTED FACILITIES AND FORMS BY OPTION New Eligibility for Form A: PBT Chemicals Option Expanded Eligibility for Form A: Non PBT Chemicals Optiona Combined Options Total Number of Affected Facilities 2,064 6,461 7,958 Total Number of Affected Forms 2,703 12,201 14,904 a The number of affected non PBT forms in this analysis does not include the non PBT Form Rs that are currently likely eligible for Form A based on an ARA of less than or equal to 500 pounds.

Note: In this analysis, all TRI data are summed at the facility chemical level.

Source: Frozen RY2002 TRI data.

1 Non PBTs are already qualified to certify on a Form A in lieu of completing a Form R if they meet applicable criteria. ES 3 September 19, 2005, ES. 3 BURDEN AND COST SAVINGS POTENTIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE As shown in Table ES 2 the total potential national burden savings estimated for the combined options is 164,432 hours for TRI reporters submitting first and subsequent year reports. First year TRI reporters have greater form calculation and completion burden than subsequent year TRI reporters because of a variety of factors including the absence of prior year calculations and lack of familiarity with chemical use and management at the reporting facility. Approximately 98 percent of all TRI reports are subsequent year reports. Table ES 2 also shows an estimated total national cost savings of $ 7,381,022 in the first and subsequent years when the options are combined. EPA notes that approximately 50 percent of non PBT chemical reports that currently appear to qualify for Form A under the 500 lb threshold are still reported on Form R. These may be facilities that exceed the 1,000,000 alternate production, processing or otherwise use threshold, or they may choose to report on Form R for some other reason ( eg, minimal burden reduction from use of Form A, desire to be seen as " good environmental stewards"). EPA assumes that, similarly, not all newly eligible facilities under today's proposed rule will choose to use Form A, and that the actual burden reduction and impacts of the rule will thus be less than the potential estimates presented below.

TABLE ES 2 ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST SAVINGS New Eligibility for Form A: PBT Chemicals Option Expanded Eligibility for Form A: Non PBT Chemicals Optiona Combined Options Number of Affected Facilities 2,064 6,461 7,958 Number of Affected Forms 2,703 12,201 14,904 Average Annual Burden Savings in the First and Subsequent Years of the Proposed Rule ( Hours)

Form Completion  non PBT chemicals N/ A 92,728 92,728 Form Completion  PBT chemicals 41,897 N/ A 41,897 Recordkeeping/ Mailing 5,406 24,402 29,808 Total 47,303 117,130 164,432 Average Annual Cost Savings in the First and Subsequent Years of the Proposed Rule Form Completion  non PBT chemicals N/ A $ 4,254,983 $ 4,254,983 Form Completion  PBT chemicals $ 1,917,146 N/ A $ 1,917,146 Recordkeeping/ Mailing $ 219,246 $ 989,648 $ 1,208,893 Total $ 2,136,392 $ 5,244,630 $ 7,381,022 a The number of affected non PBT forms in this analysis does not include the non PBT Form Rs that are currently likely eligible for Form A based on an ARA of less than or equal to 500 pounds.

The number of facilities cannot be summed across form types because some facilities filed both PBT and non PBT forms.

Source: Frozen RY2002 TRI data and Wage Rates from the U. S. Department of Labor ( see Chapter 2). ES 4 September 19, 2005, The estimate of total burden savings due to the proposed rule is developed by combining the estimated unit burden savings under each option with the number of potentially affected forms under each option. Unit burden savings are calculated by subtracting the unit reporting burden associated with filling out a Form A from the unit reporting burden associated with filing a Form R. In the analysis associated with the New Eligibility for Form A: PBT Chemicals Option, Form A calculations and report completion burden is assumed to be 17.6 hours for non PBT chemicals and 31.6 hours for PBT chemicals. The 17.6 hours is based on the current OMB approved burden estimate. Since there is no approved estimate for using Form A for PBT chemicals, the 17.6 hours was adjusted proportionately to the difference between the OMB approved burden estimates for Form R calculations and report completion for non PBT chemical and PBT chemicals ( i. e., 25.2 hours and 47.1 hours respectively). This resulted in a 64% adjustment of the current 17.6 hours for Form A for non PBT chemicals to 31.6 hours for Form A for PBT chemicals. Using this adjustment, the total national burden savings for this option would be 47,303 hours in the first and subsequent years as opposed to 85,145 hours in the first and subsequent years. The total national cost savings for this option would be $ 2.1 million in the first and subsequent years as opposed to $ 3.9 million in the first and subsequent years.

ES. 4 BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE EPA believes that the changes addressed in this rulemaking will reduce reporting burden and save resources for regulated entities without compromising the usefulness of TRI information to the public.. Estimated savings are reported above. In addition, the rule will provide incentives to reduce or eliminate releases ( especially for PBT chemicals) and encourage source reduction. While EPA believes this benefit could be significant, EPA is not able to estimate quantitatively how much releases would be eliminated, or other waste management activities replaced by source reduction, due to lack of data.

ES. 5 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE ON REPORTING Under the New Eligibility for Form A: PBT Chemicals Option, only reports with zero pounds disposed or otherwise released would be eligible for Form A reporting . Therefore, no data will be not be reported on disposal or other releases. Information would not be reported , however, regarding the use( s) of the chemical ( i. e. was the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used), the maximum amount of the chemical on site at any time during the calendar year, and the production ratio. Additional information that would not be reported on Form R includes information on recycling small amounts of lead and lead compounds and mercury and mercury compounds and information on recycling, energy recovery, or treatment of PACs, including benzo( g, h, i) perylene, and other organic chemicals. For this information, however, the Form A serves as a range report of zero to 500 lbs. In total, less than 2 percent of Total Production Related Waste ( Table ES 3) would no longer be reported on Form R as a result of this option, even if all eligible facilities used Form A. Since it is unlikely that this will happen, the actual impacts will likely be even smaller. ES 5 September 19, 2005, TABLE ES 3 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL RELEASE AND TOTAL PRODUCTION RELATED WASTE POUNDS NOT REPORTED DUE TO NEW AND EXPANDED FORM A ELIGIBILITY Total Release Lbs Not Reported Percentage of All Total Release Lbs Total Production Related Waste Lbs Not Reported Percentage of Total Production Related Waste New Eligibility for Form A: PBT Chemicals Option 0 0% < 1,350,000 < 0.1%

Expanded Eligibility for Form A: Non PBT Chemicals Option 14,164,380 0.32% 25,369,199 0.10%

The Expanded Eligibility for Form A: Non PBT chemicals option extends the existing alternate reporting threshold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds. For forms qualifying under this option, specific release and other waste management information will no longer be reported on Form R as well as information regarding the use( s) of the chemical ( i. e. was the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used), the maximum amount of the chemical on site at any time during the calendar year, and the production ratio. To evaluate the extent of data that may no longer be reported on Form R , EPA examined the volume of total releases and total production related waste that are currently reported on Form Rs that would qualify for this option. In total, less than 0.5% of total releases and less than 0.2% of total production related waste may no longer be reported on Form R ( Table ES 3). At the chemical specific level, Table ES 4 shows that for the majority of chemicals ( 79%), less than 10% of their total releases may no longer be reported on Form R. For 7% of chemicals, between 50% and 99% of their releases pounds may no longer be reported on Form R and for 6% of chemicals, 100% of their release pounds may no longer be reported on Form R. Table ES 4 shows similar results for total production related waste. Specifically, for 93% of chemicals, less than 10% of their total production related waste may no longer be reported on Form R. For 6% of chemicals, 100% of their total production related waste pounds may no longer be reported on Form R. As can be seen from the table, those chemicals for which a large share of releases and/ or production related waste may not be reported on Form R are those with relatively few Form Rs and/ or relatively small quantities per form. EPA again emphasizes that Form A serves as a range report of 0 to 5,000 lbs for the release and production related waste information no longer reported on Form R. This is a wider range than for PBT chemicals because of the broader eligibility requirements.

Extending the alternate reporting threshold will also affect the distribution of TRI reporting at the community level. EPA evaluated the impact of this option on local communities using a postal zip code analysis. As shown in Table ES 5, if the alternate reporting threshold is extended to 5,000 lbs, 45% of all zip codes with Form R reports would have at least one Form R eligible for Form A reporting and 7% of zip codes would have all current Form Rs eligible for Form A reporting. As can also be seen from the table, those zip codes where all Form Rs would be eligible tend to have only a small number of Form Rs to start. ES 6 September 19, 2005, TABLE ES 4 PERCENT OF CHEMICALS WITHIN VARIOUS RANGES OF RELEASES AND PRODUCTION RELATED WASTE THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR FORM A REPORTING Percent of Pounds Eligible for Form A Reporting Total Releases ( Section 8.1) Total Production Related Waste ( Sections 8.1 8.7)

100% of pounds 6% 6%

99  50% of pounds 7% 0%

49  10% of pounds 9% 4%

9  > 0% of pounds 44% 58%

0% of pounds 35% 31%

TABLE ES 5 ZIP CODES ELIGIBLE FOR FORM A REPORTING Number of Zip Codes Percent of Total Zip Codes Containing Form Rs Average Number of Form Rs per Zip Code Zip codes with at least one Form R newly eligible for Form A 4,063 45% 9.1 Zip codes with all form R's newly eligible for Form A 665 7%

Note: Based on the RY2002 Frozen TRI data, there are 8,960 five digit zip codes with TRI Form R data.

Source: Frozen RY2002 TRI data.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3068-3069]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00222]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79738; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change Allowing the Exchange To Trade Pursuant to Unlisted Trading
Privileges for Any NMS Stock Listed on Another National Securities
Exchange; Establishing Rules for the Trading Pursuant to UTP of
Exchange-Traded Products; and Adopting New Equity Trading Rules
Relating to Trading Halts of Securities Traded Pursuant to UTP on the
Pillar Platform

January 4, 2017.
    On November 17, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to (1) allow the
Exchange to trade pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') for
any NMS Stock listed on another national securities exchange; (2)
establish rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of exchange-traded
products; and (3) adopt new equity trading rules relating to trading
halts of securities traded pursuant to UTP on the Pillar platform. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on December 1, 2016.\3\ The Commission has received no comments on the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79400 (Nov. 25,
2016), 81 FR 86750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ 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 January 15, 2017. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period

within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
March 1, 2017, as the date by which the Commission should either
approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00222 Filed 1-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


BOSC Ecological Research Subcommittee Teleconference February 17, 2005 3: 00   5: 30 EST Agenda Welcome ( 10 min)  Introduction of Subcommittee Members Dr. Michael Clegg, Chair  Purpose of Program Review Dr. Herb Windom, Vice Chair Ecological Subcommittee Overview of FACA: The Big Picture ( 10 min) Greg Susanke ( ORD)

 What it is, Why it is, and Role of Subcommittee DFO, Ecological Subcommittee  FACA Rules and Procedures ( do's and don'ts)

EPA/ ORD Programmatic Issue ( 10 min) Jennifer Robbins ( ORD)  OMB PART Review Review of Subcommittee Charge Questions ( 5 min) Dr. Michael Clegg Overview of ORD and Ecological Research Program ( 60 min) Dr. Kevin Summers ( ORD) National Program Director for Ecological Research Explanation of Background Material ( 10 min) Dr. Kevin Summers ( ORD)

 Familiarize Subcommittee with Contents Subcommittee Organization ( 15 min) Dr. Michael Clegg and  Subcommittee to discuss expertise/ interests relevant Dr. Herb Windom to program research areas/ long term goals  Determine leads/ workgroups for each Long Term Goal Questions and Discussion ( 10 min) Subcommittee and ORD Public Comment ( 10 min)

Administrative Procedures ( 10 min) Greg Susanke ( ORD)

 Receipts, Time Sheets, etc.  Logistics for Face to Face Mtg


[Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6619]
[DOCID:fr10fe09-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1267-085]

Greenwood County, SC; Notice of Application and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

February 3, 2009.
    a. Type of Application: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters.
    b. Project Number: Project No. 1267-085.
    c. Date Filed: December 3, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Greenwood County, South Carolina.
    e. Name of Project: Buzzard's Roost Hydroelectric Project (FERC No.
1267).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Saluda River in
Greenwood, Laurens and Newberry Counties, South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Charles M. Watson Jr., County Attorney,
County of Greenwood, 600 Monument St., Suite 102, Greenwood, SC 29646,
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Brian Romanek at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: March 2, 2009.
    k. Description of Application: Greenwood County, licensee for the
Buzzard's Roost Project, has filed an application seeking authorization
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a permit to
Crystal Bay II Homeowners Association to construct additional boat
docking facilities at an existing marina. The marina has boat docking
facilities that accommodate 11 boats and would be expanded to
accommodate 26 boats. Also, a courtesy dock would be constructed
adjacent to the existing boat launching ramp. This marina would service
the residential community known as ``Crystal Bay'' on Lake Greenwood in
Laurens County, South Carolina.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field (P-1267) to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (P-1267-085). All documents (original and eight
copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each
representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions 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 at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2693 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 119)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34870-34872]
[DOCID:fr19jn08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0475]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones: Fireworks Displays in the Captain of the Port Puget
Sound Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing safety zones on the
waters of the Puget Sound located in the Captain of the Port Puget
Sound Zone during fireworks displays. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life during these displays. Entry into,
transit through, mooring, or anchoring within these zones is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his
designated representatives.

DATES: This regulation is effective from June 7, 2008 through July 6,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0475 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard Sector Seattle, 1519
Alaskan Way South, Seattle, WA 98134, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Petty Officer Stephen Knappe, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Seattle, Waterways Management Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. Publishing an NPRM would be
contrary to public interest since immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels and spectators gathering in the vicinity
of the various fireworks launching barges and displays. If normal
notice and comment procedures were followed, this rule would not become
effective until after the dates of the events.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the U.S. Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register is necessary to
ensure safety of the vessels and spectators gathering in the vicinity
of the various fireworks launching barges and displays on the dates and
times this rule will be in effect.

Background and Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones to
allow for safe fireworks displays. All events occur within the Captain
of the Port, Puget Sound, WA, Area of Responsibility (AOR). These
events may result in a number of vessels congregating near fireworks
launching barges and sites. The safety zones are needed to protect
watercraft and their occupants from safety hazards associated with
fireworks displays. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound may be assisted
by other federal and local agencies in the enforcement of these safety
zones.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule will control the movement of all vessels and persons in a
regulated area surrounding the fireworks events indicated in this
Temporary Final Rule. The safety zones do not extend on land.
    The U.S. Coast Guard through this action intends to promote the
safety of personnel, fireworks launching barges and sites. Entry into
these zones by all vessels or persons will be prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port may be
assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies as needed.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The U.S. Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This temporary rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit a portion of the Puget Sound while this rule is
enforced. These safety zones will not have significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
This temporary rule will be in effect for no more than 2.5 hours when
vessel traffic volume is low. Traffic will be allowed to pass through
these zones with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his
designated representatives, and if safe to do so.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule
will affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast
Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a
categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this temporary rule is categorically excluded, under figure
2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation because it establishes a safety zone. A final
``Environmental Check List'' and a final ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' will be available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. A temporary section USCG-2008-0475 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-034  Safety Zones: Fireworks displays in the Captain of
the Port, Puget Sound.

    (a) Safety Zones. The following areas are designated safety zones:

(1) Bay Liner Reunion, Roche Harbor, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Roche Harbor extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 48[deg]36'40'' N 123[deg]09'34'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 7, 2008.

(2) Poulsbo 3rd of July Fireworks Display, Liberty Bay, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Liberty Bay extending out to a 500'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]44'56'' N 122[deg]39'11'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 3, 2008.

(3) Deer Harbor Annual Fireworks Display, Deer Harbor, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Deer Harbor extending out to a 500'
radius from the launch site at 48[deg]37'10'' N 123[deg]00'15'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 3, 2008.

(4) Boston Harbor Fireworks Display, Boston Harbor, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Dana Passage extending out to a 300'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]08'31'' N 122[deg]54'20'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 3, 2008.

(5) Friday Harbor Independence, Friday Harbor, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Friday Harbor extending out to a 700'
radius from the launch site at 48[deg]32'36'' N 123[deg]00'28'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(6) Steilacoom Annual 4th of July Fireworks, Steilacoom, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Steilacoom Bay extending out to a 1,300'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]10'24'' N 122[deg]36'12'' W.

    (ii) Effective time and date. 8 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(7) Port Orchard 4th of July Fireworks, Port Orchard, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Port Orchard extending out to a 1,000'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]32'53'' N 122[deg]37'55'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(8) Yarrow Point Community 4th, Yarrow Point, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Lake Washington extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]39'45'' N 122[deg]13'30'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(9) Port Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Port Angeles Bay, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Port Angeles Bay extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 48[deg]07'02'' N 123[deg]24'58'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(10) Lake Forest Park 4th of July, Bothell, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Lake Washington extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]45'07'' N 122[deg]16'22'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(11) Three Tree Point Community, Three Tree Point, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Puget Sound extending out to a 500'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]27'01'' N 122[deg]23'09'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(12) City of Renton, Renton, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Lake Washington extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]29'59'' N 122[deg]11'51'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(13) Port Townsend Sunrise Rotary, Port Townsend, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Port Townsend extending out to a 500'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]44'56'' N 122[deg]39'11'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(14) Vashon Island 4th of July, Quartermaster Harbor, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Quartermaster Harbor extending out to a
1,300' radius from the launch site at 47[deg]24'00'' N 122[deg]27'00''
W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(15) Sheridan Beach Community Club, Lake Forest, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Lake Washington extending out to a 300'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]44'47'' N 122[deg]16'55'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(16) City of Kenmore 4th of July, Kenmore, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Lake Washington extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]45'43'' N 122[deg]15'50'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(17) Fireworks Display, Henderson Bay, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Henderson Bay extending out to a 700'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]21'48'' N 122[deg]38'22'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(18) Kingston Fireworks Display, Kingston, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Appletree Cove extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]47'33'' N 122[deg]29'55'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(19) Des Moines 4th of July, Des Moines, WA

    (i) Location. All water of East Passage extending out to a 500'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]24'10'' N 122[deg]20'05'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(20) Kirkland 4th of July, Kirkland, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Lake Washington extending out to a 700'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]40'26'' N 122[deg]12'56'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(21) 4th of July Display, Port Ludlow, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Port Ludlow extending out to a 500'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]55'14'' N 122[deg]41'11'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(22) Grapeview Patriotic Event, Grapeview, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Case Inlet extending out to a 800'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]19'17'' N 122[deg]50'08'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(23) 4th of July, Roche Harbor, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Roche Harbor extending out to a 400'
radius from the launch site at 48[deg]36'40'' N 123[deg]09'34'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(24) Orcas Island Fireworks Display, Orcas, WA

    (i) Location. All water of East Sound extending out to a 700'
radius from the launch site at 48[deg]41'20'' N 122[deg]54'28'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2008.

(25) Langlies Old Fashioned Independence, Indianola, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Admiral Inlet extending out to a 500'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]44'49'' N 122[deg]31'32'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 5, 2008.

(26) Olele Point Patriotic Celebration, Port Ludlow, WA

    (i) Location. All water of Admiral Inlet extending out to a 800'
radius from the launch site at 47[deg]58'22'' N 122[deg]41'18'' W.
    (ii) Effective time and date. 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 5, 2008.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no vessel may enter, transit, moor, or anchor
within these safety zones, except for vessels authorized by the Captain
of the Port or his designated representatives.
    (c) Enforcement Period. This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June
7, 2008 until 8 a.m. on July 6, 2008 unless cancelled sooner by the
Captain of the Port.

    Dated: June 5, 2008.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
 [FR Doc. E8-13835 Filed 6-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


MEMORANDUM
FROM:		Richard LaShier, Workgroup Chair
TO:		Rulemaking Docket
Date:		July 18, 2013
Subject: 	Clarification of State Positions on Manifest Data Disclosure
There have been numerous surveys and data collections over several years, all aimed at identifying state practices respecting their management of Hazardous Waste Report and Hazardous Waste Manifest data.  More recent surveys and questions have been asked more pointedly about states' practices respecting the allowance, or not, of CBI claims with respect to manifests and manifest data collected by states that operate manifest tracking programs.  This issue became prominent after the February 2008 NODA requested comment on whether CBI claims should be allowed for either individual manifests or for aggregate collections/queries of manifest data.  Because the previous surveys involved different points in time, and sometimes differing contexts (e.g., Site ID Questionnaire in 2004 vs. Manifest specific questions in 2007-08, comments on NODAs, workgroup input), and we have had to obtain clarification from some states about their previous responses , I believed it useful to develop this summary indicating  our best assessment of where the various states align themselves on the issue of allowing CBI claims for manifests and manifest data.
1.  Michigan's January 2007 Survey of ASTSWMO Members
   * These states indicated that manifest data would not or probably would not be treated as CBI under states' public information laws:
         o NY, OR, FL, MI, WA, CT, ID
   * These states indicated that manifests could perhaps be treated as CBI until the claim is determined:
         o Ohio, SC
2.  Ohio EPA's August 2004 Site Identification Questionnaire
   * This questionnaire included a question (p. 22) to States on whether they allowed CBI claims on the Hazardous Waste Report.  We assume that States which would not allow CBI claims for HW Report data would also not allow CBI claims for the similar waste data on the HW manifest.
   * The following 20 States or territories responded to the questionnaire by indicating that they would not allow CBI claims in relation to their HW Reports:
         o AL, VA, UT, AR, NM, NH, OK, NV, ID, NC, NJ, MI, PA, MD, CA, MT, ND, IL, GU
   * 12 States indicated they might recognize CBI claims for waste descriptions or other trade secret data.  Two states (NY, CT) that answered "yes" to this survey on general HW Report practices stated that it would not recognize CBI claims for manifest data.
   * 9 States stated that they had had no recent experience with CBI claims being made with respect to the HW Report, and 7 States did not respond to the question.
3.  State work group participants
   * During the development of the e-Manifest Final Rule, these states indicated that they do not recognize CBI claims in processing requests for manifests or manifest data:
         o CA, FL, MD, MI, PA, NJ, NY
4.  E-Mail Contacts with States in July 2013
   * We contacted MA, MN, RI, and VT during week of July 15[th] to see if we could determine their position on CBI treatment of manifests.
   * Only MN and MA responded to date (July 19)
         o MN confirmed that it treats all manifest data as public information -  no CBI claims
         o MA notified us that if CBI claim asserted (none recently), it would process the claim under its trade secret laws and withhold if confidentiality claim substantiated
CONCLUSION:
   * Combining the information from the above sources, we believe that these 25 states' practices or policies would preclude the recognition of CBI claims with respect to manifest data:
         o AL, AR, CA, CT, FL, GU, ID, IL, MD, MI, MN, MT, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, UT, VA, WA
         o By extrapolating from data (2007 BR) showing tons of HW received in these states, we believe that these states account for > 50% of the HW manifests circulated in the U.S.