[Federal Register: August 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 52790-52792]
[DOCID:fr27au10-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62754; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
NASDAQ Options Market Fees and Rebates

August 20, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 18, 2010, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Exchange Rule 7050 governing
pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM''),
NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing standardized equity and
index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to: modify pricing for both
Penny Pilot \3\ Options and All Other Options with respect to the fees
for removing liquidity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Penny Pilot was established in March 2008 and in October
2009 was expanded and extended through December 31, 2010. See
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57579 (March 28, 2008), 73 FR
18587 (April 4, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-026) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness establishing Penny Pilot); 60874 (October
23, 2009), 74 FR 56682 (November 2, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-091)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness expanding and
extending Penny Pilot); 60965 (November 9, 2009), 74 FR 59292
(November 17, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-097) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot);
61455 (February 1, 2010), 75 FR 6239 (February 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-
2010-013) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness adding
seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot); and 62029 (May 4, 2010), 75 FR
25895 (May 10, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-053) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness adding seventy-five classes to Penny Pilot).
See also Exchange Rule Chapter VI, Section 5.
    \4\ An order that removes liquidity is one that is entered into
NOM and that executes against an order resting on the NOM book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing,
the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative for
transactions on September 1, 2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new text is in italics and deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

7050. NASDAQ Options Market

    The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution
and routing services of the NASDAQ Options Market for all securities.
(1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the NASDAQ Options Market

                                                Fees and Rebates
                                             [Per executed contract]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Non-NOM market    NOM market
                                                     Customer          Firm            maker           maker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Pilot Options:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity.....................           $0.32           $0.10           $0.25           $0.30
    Fee for Removing Liquidity..................         0.4[0]3            0.45            0.45            0.45
NDX and MNX:
    Rebate to Add Liquidity.....................            0.10            0.10            0.10            0.20
    Fee for Removing Liquidity..................            0.50            0.50            0.50            0.40
All Other Options:
    Fee for Adding Liquidity....................            0.00            0.45            0.45            0.30
    Fee for Removing Liquidity..................         0.4[0]3            0.45            0.45            0.45
    Rebate to Add Liquidity.....................            0.20            0.00            0.00            0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to modify Rule 7050 governing the fees assessed
for options orders entered into NOM. Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing
to modify pricing for both Penny Pilot Options and All Other Options
with respect to the fees for removing liquidity. Currently, NASDAQ
distinguishes between options that are included in the Penny Pilot and
those that are not.

Penny Options--Removing Liquidity

    The Exchange assesses a fee to members removing liquidity through
NOM in options included in the Penny Pilot and charges a fee of $0.40
per executed contract to Customers for removing such liquidity and a
fee of $0.45 per executed contract to members in the capacity of firm,
NOM Market Maker and Non-NOM Market Maker for removing liquidity. The
Exchange proposes to amend these fees for removing liquidity and assess
a Customer $.43 per contract instead of $0.40 per contract.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Firm, NOM Market Maker and Non-NOM Market Maker would
continue to be assessed $0.45 per contract for removing liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-Penny Options--Removing Liquidity

    The Exchange assesses fees to members removing liquidity through
NOM in non-Penny Options (All Other Options) and charges a fee of $0.40
per executed contract to members removing liquidity in the capacity of
Customer and a fee of $0.45 per executed contract to members removing
liquidity in the capacity of Firm, NOM Market Maker and Non-NOM Market
Maker. The Exchange proposes to amend these fees for removing liquidity
and assess a Customer $.43 per contract instead of $0.40.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Firm NOM Market Makers and Non-NOM Market Makers would
continue to be assessed $.045 per contract for removing liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing,
the Exchange has designated these changes to be operative for
transactions on September 1, 2010.

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which NASDAQ operates or controls. The Exchange believes the proposed
amendments to the fees for removing liquidity are equitable and
reasonable because they are within the range of fees assessed by other
exchanges employing similar pricing schemes. Specifically, NYSE Arca,
Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') assesses a customer electronic fee for taking
liquidity of $0.45 for electronic executions in penny pilot issues and
foreign currency options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ See NYSE Arca's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ is one of eight options market [sic] in the national market
system for standardized options. It is a mature, robust market that is
highly competitive with highly sophisticated and knowledge [sic]
participants. Joining NASDAQ and electing to trade options is entirely
voluntary. Under these circumstances, NASDAQ's fees must be
competitive, fair and just in order for NASDAQ to attract order flow,
execute orders, and grow as a market. NASDAQ thus believes that its
fees are equitable, fair and reasonable and consistent with the
Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-105 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2010-105. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro/shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASDAQ-
2010-105 and should be submitted on or before September 17, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21307 Filed 8-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77780-77782]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30718]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0168]

[4910-EX-P]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 38 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 24, 2013. The exemptions
expire on December 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On October 23, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (78 FR 63302). That notice listed 38 applicants' case
histories. The 38 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 38 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:

    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing
requirement red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).

    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 38
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including complete loss of vision, retinal detachment,
vascular occlusion, Coat's disease, central vein occlusion,
anisometropic amblyopia, amblyopia, strabismic amblyopia, prosthetic
eye, glaucoma, hemorrhage, nearsightedness, maculopathy, aphakia,
corneal scar, branch retinal vein occlusion, ocular toxoplasmosis,
macular hole, central serous retinopathy, macular scar, chorioretinal
scar, traumatic cataract, Commotio Retinae, and ocular histoplasmosis.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed.
Twenty-five of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The thirteen individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 3 to 40 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the

applicants' possession of valid commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or
non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers
to knowledge and skills tests designed to evaluate their qualifications
to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 38 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 2 to 40
years. In the past 3 years, one of the drivers was involved in a crash
and three were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 23, 2013
notice (78 FR 63302).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 38 applicants, one of the drivers was involved in a crash and three
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 38 applicants listed in the notice of October
23, 2013 (78 FR 63302).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 38 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for

retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
discussed below.
    Pam Johnson is in favor of granting Darryl Johnson an exemption.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 38 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Ernest J. Bachman (PA), A. Wayne Barker (OK), Edgar G. Baxter
(FL), Jason W. Bowers (OR), Scott Brady (FL), Ronald A. Cleaver, Jr.
(SC), Eric V. DeFrancesco (PA), Matthew A. Eck (PA), David E. Ferris
(PA), George M. Hapchuk (PA), James L. Hawthorne (TX), Johnny D. Ivey
(NC), Darryl H. Johnson (WV), David Jones (FL), Thomas L. Kitchen (VA),
Wayne C. Knighton (NV), Brandon C. Koopman (NE), David G. Lamborn (ND),
Robert A. Marks (WV), Stephen R. Marshall (MS), Edgar H. Meraz (NM),
Ralph Reno (NJ), Glennis R. Reynolds (KY), Joseph B. Saladino (FL),
Carlos M. Saravia (MD), Glen M. Schulz (IA), Steve W. Scott (SC),
Eugene D. Self, Jr. (NC), Darren B. Shields (NV), Roye T. Skelton (MS),
Robert D. Smienski (OH), Justin T. Swires (WY), Robert Thomas (PA),
Clifford B. Thompson, Jr. (SC), Donald L. Urmston (OH), Steven M. Veloz
(CA), Stephen H. Ward (MO), Janusz K. Wis (IL) from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

     Issued on: December 16, 2013.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-30718 Filed 12-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27520-27523]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0083]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fincantieri Blasting Project; Menominee River,
Menominee, MI and Marinette, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Menominee River in Marinette, WI within 1,000
feet of a blasting area. This action is necessary to provide for the
safety of life on these navigable waters during the daily blasting at
the southern bank of the Menominee River near the Fincantieri Marinette
Marine facility. This rulemaking will restrict usage by persons and
vessels within the safety zone. At no time during the effective period
may a vessel or person pass between the construction barges and
southern bank of Menominee River. Also during the entire effective
period, all vessels and persons are prohibited from transiting the
safety zone at speeds that would create a wake. Additionally, during
blasting operations, lasting approximately 15 minutes each evening, no
vessel or persons may enter the safety zone. These restrictions would
apply to all vessels and persons during the effective period unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 21, 2021
through November 30, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from May 10, 2021 until May 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0083 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Petty Officer Jeromy Sherrill, Sector Lake Michigan
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 414-747-
7148, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On February 26, 2021, Roen Salvage Company notified the Coast Guard
that it will be conducting daily blasting operations beginning April 1,
2021 to November 30, 2021, for an approximate 15 minute period
occurring between 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in conjunction with a
construction project. The blasting will take place on the southern bank
of the Menominee River near the Fincantieri Marinette Marine facility.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the blasting would be a safety
concern for anyone within a 1,000 foot radius of the blasting site. The
purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters within a 1,000-foot radius of the blasting site
before, during, and after the scheduled event.
    In response, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Fincantieri Blasting Project;
Menominee River, Menominee, MI and Marinette, WI (86 FR 12887). There
we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed
regulatory action related to this project. During the comment period
that ended March 22, 2021, we received 00 comments opposed to the
regulatory action.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the daily
blasting.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan (COTP) has determined that a safety zone would mitigate the
potential hazards associated with the blasting project. The safety zone
will last from May 10, 2021 to November 30, 2021 for an approximate 15
minute period occurring daily between 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The safety
zone will cover all navigable waters within 1,000 foot radius of the
blasting site which will be on the southern bank of the Menominee River
at the Fincantieri Ship Yard in Marinette, WI. The duration of the zone
is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters
before, during, and after the daily blasting event. No vessel or
persons will be permitted to enter the safety zone during blasting
operations. During non-blasting times, no vessel or persons will be
permitted to transit the area at speeds that would create a wake.
Additionally, no vessel or persons will be permitted to transit between
the construction barges and the southern bank of the Menominee River.
No vessel or persons will be allowed to conduct the three preceding
activities without obtaining permission from the COTP Lake Michigan or
a designated representative.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments opposed to our NPRM
published on March 4, 2021. The only change in the regulatory text of
this rule from the proposed rule is the delay in the project's start
date from April, 2021 to May 10, 2021. The delayed start date is due to
operational delays with the construction company. The project end date
is unchanged.
    This rule establishes a safety zone lasting from May 10, 2021 to
November 30, 2021 for an approximate 15 minute period occurring daily
between 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters within 1,000 foot radius of the blasting site which will be on
the southern bank of the Menominee River at the Fincantieri Ship Yard
in Marinette, WI. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the
safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after
the daily blasting event. No vessel or persons will be permitted to
enter the safety zone during blasting operations. During non-blasting
times, no vessel or persons will be permitted to transit the area at
speeds that would create a wake. Additionally, no vessel or persons
will be permitted to transit between the construction barges and the
southern bank of the Menominee River. No vessel or persons will be
allowed to conduct the three preceding activities without obtaining
permission from the COTP Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the
characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by

this rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its
impact on navigable waters. This rule will prohibit entry into certain
navigable waters of the Menominee River in Marinette, WI, and it is not
anticipated to exceed 15 minutes in duration each day. During non-
blasting operations, vessels and persons will be allowed to enter the
safety zone at speeds that do not create a wake. Additionally, the
exclusion area between the construction barges and southern bank of the
river is small and allows for plenty of space within the channel for
vessels to transit the area north of the construction barges. Thus,
restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are
expected to be minimal. Moreover, under certain conditions vessels and
persons may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the
COTP Lake Michigan.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received 00 comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email 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). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that would prohibit vessels and persons from passing
through a small area located between the construction barges and the
southern bank of the Menominee River, would prohibit entry into the all
navigable waters within a 1,000 foot radius of the construction barges
for a maximum of 15 minutes per day during blasting activities, and
would prohibit vessels and persons from transiting the safety zone at
speeds that would create a wake. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0083 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0035  Safety Zone; Blasting Project; Menominee River,
Marinette, WI.

    (a) Location. All navigable waters of the Menominee River within
1,000 feet of the blast area on the southern bank of the river at
coordinates 43.0705000[deg]N,<PHONE_NUMBER>[deg].
    (b) Enforcement period. The safety zone portion of the regulated
area described in paragraph (a) is effective

for 15 minutes between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. each evening without
actual notice from May 21, 2021 through November 30, 2021. For the
purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 10, 2021
until May 21, 2021. The part of the safety zone between the
construction barges and the southern bank of the river, and the no-wake
zone portion of the regulated area described in paragraph (a) will be
in effect continuously without actual notice from May 21, 2021 through
November 30, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will
be used from May 10, 2021 until May 21, 2021.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan (COTP) or a designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessels and persons, except
as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the COTP Lake Michigan is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Persons and vessel operators desiring to enter or operate
within the safety zone during blasting operations, or at speeds that
would create a wake, must contact the COTP Lake Michigan or an on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or an on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the COTP Lake Michigan or an on-
scene representative.

    Dated: May 17, 2021.
D.P. Montoro,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2021-10775 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53267-53268]
[DOCID:fr31au10-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0878; FRL-9195-5]
RIN 2040-AD94

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Revisions to the
Total Coliform Rule; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending by 30
days the public comment period for a proposed National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation, the Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule (RTCR),
which was published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2010. This
extended comment period will afford greater opportunity to all
interested parties to review and submit comments on the proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: Water Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2008-0878. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through
hand delivery/courier by following the instructions provided in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries, contact Sean
Conley, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For general
information, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, Telephone (800)
426-4791 or e-mail: hotline-sdwa @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comment period for the proposed RTCR now
ends on October 13, 2010. This is an extension of 30 days beyond the
comment period established in the Federal Register on July 14, 2010.
Anyone seeking to submit comments must follow the procedures specified
in the SUMMARY section of the proposal as published in the Federal
Register (75 FR 40926, July 14, 2010). The RTCR applies to all public
water systems. The proposed revisions require systems that have an
indication of coliform contamination in the distribution system to
assess the problem and take corrective action that may reduce cases of
illnesses and deaths due to potential fecal contamination and
waterborne pathogen exposure. This proposal also establishes criteria
for systems to qualify for and stay on reduced monitoring, thereby
providing incentives for improved water system operation.
    See the proposal as published in the Federal Register (75 FR 40926,
July 14, 2010) for additional information regarding public health
concerns, proposed regulatory requirements, implementation schedules,
estimated costs and benefits, implementation tools, and other issues.

    Dated: August 25, 2010.
Cynthia C. Dougherty,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2010-21697 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1823.02 " REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PFC EMISSION REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP FOR THE SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY"

September 6, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( b) Practical Utility and Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( b) Public Notice Request Prior to ICR Submission to OMB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4( b) Information Requested. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6( g) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1 1 PFCs are the most potent greenhouse gases known. In comparison to an equivalent amount of the common greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, PFCs are 6,000  24,000 times more potent. Also, the atmospheric lifetimes of the PFCs range from 2,600 to 50,000 years. 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection This ICR is entitled " Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the Perfluorocompound ( PFC) Emission Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry," EPA ICR number 1823.02.

1( b) Short Characterization In April 1993, President Clinton issued the Climate Change Action Plan ( CCAP), which establishes the nation's commitment to return U. S. greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. EPA's PFC Emission Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry is an important program contributing to the overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from projected 2000 levels. This program serves as an expansion of Action # 40 of the CCAP. The PFC Emission Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry, along with ENERGY STAR Buildings, Green Lights, ENERGY STAR Computers, and other similar EPA programs, is a voluntary effort aimed at preventing pollution rather than controlling it after its creation. These programs focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The PFC Emission Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry is a voluntary, non regulatory program that promotes reduction of perfluorocompound ( PFC) 1 emissions, e. g., perfluoromethane ( CF 4), perfluoroethane ( C 2 F 6), sulfur hexafluoride ( SF 6), nitrogen trifluoride ( NF 3), and perfluoropropane ( C 3 F 8), from the semiconductor industry. ( A single hydrofluorocarbon, trifluoromethane ( CHF 3 ) is included in the program with the PFCs due to its high global warming potential.) Semiconductor manufacturers participate in the Partnership with EPA to make reductions in the normalized rate of PFC emissions from semiconductor manufacturing operations. This program is intended to decrease atmospheric pollution from greenhouse gas emissions. In turn, EPA agrees to work with the industry to serve as a clearinghouse of technical information on successful strategies for reducing PFC emissions that are economically, technically, and environmentally sound, conduct preliminary assessments of the possibility that substitute chemicals are greenhouse gases, publicize Partner Companies' successes in reducing PFC emissions, and share information about potential replacement compounds.

Participation in the program begins with completion of a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) that outlines responsibilities of the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership. This MOU reflects a voluntary agreement between a semiconductor manufacturer ( the " Partner Company") and EPA ( collectively, the " Parties"). By joining the Partnership, a Company agrees to submit a 2 Company specific annual report, identifying an overall estimate of PFC emissions and a normalized PFC emissions rate ( i. e., amount of emissions per unit of production), to a third party designated by the participating Companies. The MOU also specifies that the Partner Company will direct the designated third party to create a confidential data depository for the information supplied by the Partner Company. In addition, the MOU states that the Partner Company will direct the designated third party to prepare an industry wide annual report, to be submitted to EPA, that aggregates PFC emissions estimates, and provides each Partner Company's normalized PFC emissions rate on a " blind" basis. (" Blind" means company identifying information for each emissions estimate is not provided to EPA.) The Partner Company also agrees that it will share with the EPA and others in the semiconductor industry information about successful PFC emission reduction processes and technologies that the Partner Company considers nonconfidential. This agreement can be terminated by either Party 30 days after the receipt of written notice by the other Party with no penalties or continuing obligations.

The MOU applies only to PFC emissions emanating from the manufacture of semiconductor devices in the U. S.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection The Climate Change Action Plan, issued by President Clinton in April 1993, establishes the nation's commitment to returning U. S. greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels. The PFC Emission Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry is an important action contributing to the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The PFC Emission Reduction Partnership also supports EPA's pollution prevention goals. Authority for collection of this information is provided in Sections 7403( a)( 1), ( b)( 6), and ( g)( 1) [ Clean Air Act § 103].

EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect information from Companies participating in the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry. By participating in the program, a Partner Company agrees to the terms of various information collections specified by EPA in the Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU). The Partner Company should submit the MOU to EPA. In addition, the Partner Company should submit to a designated third party a Company specific annual report that includes an overall estimate of the Partner Company's PFC emissions and a normalized PFC emissions rate.

An industry designated third party aggregates information on Company specific PFC emissions into an industry wide annual report, and combined with information on Partner Companies' normalized rates of PFC emissions ( submitted on a blind basis), EPA is able to evaluate the overall PFC emission reductions achieved by the voluntary program. 3 Through the information sharing provision, the EPA will collect information about successful PFC emission reduction processes and technologies that participating Partner Companies consider nonconfidential.

2( b) Practical Utility and Users of the Data The Agency will use the MOU to establish a framework for a voluntary agreement with Companies in the Partnership. EPA will use information submitted in the industry wide annual reports to demonstrate that Partner Companies are reducing PFC emissions from semiconductor manufacturing operations. EPA also will use the information on an annual basis to develop the Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. The U. S. government committed to developing and maintaining the Inventory under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC). In addition, EPA will use the information collected to evaluate the quantity of emissions prevented and to publicize Company and Partnership successes. EPA may also use aggregated data to disseminate information concerning the Partnership. It is expected that the industry will employ this information to understand the extent and rate of growth of its PFC emissions in the U. S. To further this process, information sharing provided by Partner Companies will be used by EPA to publicize new processes or technologies that lower emissions rates, and by the Partner Companies themselves to improve their environmental performance.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication The information to be obtained under this ICR is not collected by any other EPA program or Federal agency. The PFCs currently are not regulated chemicals, and the emissions of the gases are not tracked elsewhere. No data bases are otherwise available for obtaining this information.

3( b) Public Notice Request Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA issued a public notice in the Federal Register [ 66 FR 33680] soliciting public comments for a 60 day period ending August 24, 2001. EPA received no public comments on the ICR during the comment period.

3( c) Consultations In the fall of 2000, EPA consulted with eight Companies in the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership to obtain feedback on the burdens and costs associated with the Partnership's paperwork activities. EPA tried to ensure that the Partner Companies contacted were representative of Companies across the Partnership. After collecting their feedback, EPA developed an average burden and cost estimate for each respondent activity in this ICR and 4 incorporated these estimates into the ICR's burden and cost calculations. See Section 6 of this ICR for these calculations.

EPA consulted with the following Partner Companies:

NAME OF CONTACT NAME OF ORGANIZATION PHONE NUMBER Jim Jewett Intel ( 480) 554 3621 Joe Mauser Philips ( 505) 822 7634 Coleen Miller & Tina Gilliland Texas Instruments ( 512) 356 7430 Mishelle Noble Dominion Semiconductor ( 703) 396 1120 Jamie Rubin Agilent Technologies ( 970) 288 4880 David Sovie Eastman Kodak ( 716) 722 9124 Tom Tamayo International Business Machines ( 802) 769 4950 Diane Van Schoten Advanced Micro Devices ( 408) 749 2045 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection EPA requests that the Partner Company submit information on its PFC emissions to the designated third party once per year. The designated third party will submit an industry wide annual report to EPA once per year. EPA believes that any reduction in the frequency of this information collection would impede efforts by EPA to evaluate results of this program. In particular, if information were submitted less than once per year, emission inventories of greenhouse gases prepared by the government on an annual basis would suffer because the information used in such inventories would be dated. A less frequent collection would not enable EPA to judge annual greenhouse gas emission reductions across the CCAP programs or to submit an accurate assessment to the UNFCCC.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, OMB's implementing regulations, OMB's Information Collection Review Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 5 3( f) Confidentiality No confidential information will be submitted to EPA at any point in the information collection process. Information submitted to EPA in the industry wide annual report will be either aggregated or provided on a " blind" basis. Further, data will be released by the designated third party only if a sufficient number of semiconductor companies participates in the Partnership so that aggregated emissions data cannot be correlated back to an individual Partner Company or a small group of Partner Companies. In addition, other information regarding successful PFC reduction strategies shared with EPA by the Partner Companies is nonconfidential.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No questions of a sensitive nature or of matters usually considered private to individuals will be asked.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes The following is the Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) code and the corresponding North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code associated with industries most likely to be affected by the information collection requirements covered under this ICR:

SIC NAICS 3674 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing 334413 These SIC and NAICS codes refer to the industry respondents for the Partnership. These SIC and NAICS codes are applicable because the Companies in the Partnership are semiconductor manufacturing companies.

4( b) Information Requested Companies participating in the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership submit a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) to the EPA. The Partner Companies also agree to submit to the designated third party a Company specific annual report that provides an overall estimate of PFC emissions and a normalized PFC emissions rate. The designated third party will submit to EPA an industry wide annual report that provides an aggregated estimate of PFC emissions. In addition, each Partner Company's normalized PFC emissions rate will be reported through the designated third party to EPA on a " blind" basis. EPA may review Company specific annual reports on the premises of the designated third party, after the third party has removed Company identifying information. In addition, by signing the MOU, Partner Companies agree to share information about successful PFC emission reduction processes with the EPA and others in 6 the semi conductor industry. Each of these information collections is described separately below, along with the respective data items and respondent activities.

Memorandum of Understanding A number of Partner Companies worked with EPA to prepare the MOU establishing the terms of participation in the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership. After finalizing the MOU, each Company must review, sign, and submit it to the Agency.

( i) Data Item

Memorandum of Understanding.

( ii) Respondent Activities

Prepare the MOU in conjunction with EPA;

Review and sign the MOU; and

Submit the MOU to EPA.

Company specific Annual Report The Partner Company agrees that it will prepare a Company specific annual report to be submitted to the designated third party. The report form requests two estimates of PFC emissions from the Partner Company's U. S. manufacturing operations: ( 1) an overall estimate of PFC emissions and ( 2) a normalized PFC emissions rate which is correlated to a common unit of production. These estimates will aggregate the emissions of various types of PFCs ( e. g., perfluoromethane ( CF 4), perfluoroethane ( C 2 F 6), sulfur hexafluoride ( SF 6), nitrogen trifluoride ( NF 3), trifluoromethane ( CHF 3), and perfluoropropane ( C 3 F 8)). The report form also requests a written explanation of the methodology used to generate such estimates. The Partner Company must submit its Company specific annual report, containing PFC emissions estimates and a normalized PFC emissions rate for the previous calendar year, to the designated third party by July 1st of the subsequent year. Because emissions estimates have potential competitive significance, they will be maintained on a Company specific confidential basis.

( i) Data items The Company specific annual report must include the following information:

The Partner Company name, name of a designated Partner Company representative, contact phone number, and fax number;

Reporting period;

Overall estimate of PFC emissions for all U. S. facilities operated by the Partner Company; 7

Normalized estimate of PFC emissions; and

Description of methodology used for calculating PFC emissions estimate. The following is to be included for the methodology elements:

S Description of how PFC usage was determined;

S Description of source of emissions factors and how they were applied;

S Description of the factors the Partner Company used to normalize PFC emissions estimates for effects of overall increases in production and chip complexity;

S Description of how reductions due to abatement or other reduction techniques were accounted for; and S An example calculation ( optional).

( ii) Respondent activity ° Partner Companies will complete and submit to the designated third party the Company specific annual report for each calendar year the MOU is in effect ( due July 1 of subsequent year).

Industry wide Annual Reports The designated third party is responsible for maintaining the Company specific annual reports and compiling them into an industry wide annual report. The designated third party will create a confidential data depository containing the annual reports supplied by the Partner Companies. The designated third party will provide to EPA an industry wide annual report. This report will be in the form of a letter to EPA. Based on the Company specific annual reports, the designated third party will provide an aggregated, overall PFC emissions estimate. The designated third party will also provide normalized PFC emissions rates for each Partner Company, on a blind basis.

The third party will make available to EPA emissions estimates prepared by the Partner Companies and the written explanation of the methodology used. This information will be reviewed by EPA on the designated third party's premises. The designated third party will remove Company identifying information from such documents before they are reviewed by EPA.

( i) Data items The confidential data depository will include the following information:

The Partner Company name, name of a designated Partner Company representative, contact phone number, and fax number;

Reporting period; 8

Overall estimate of PFC emissions for all U. S. facilities operated by the Partner Company;

Normalized estimate of PFC emissions; and

Description of methodology used for calculating PFC emissions estimates.

The industry wide annual report prepared by the designated third party will include the following information:

Reporting period;

Total number of participating semiconductor manufacturers;

Total PFC emissions estimate for the semiconductor industry; and

Normalized rate of PFC emissions.

( ii) Respondent activities In developing and submitting this information, the designated third party will perform the following activities:

Develop and update confidential data depository;

Receive Company specific annual reports and enter into confidential data depository;

Complete and submit to EPA the industry wide annual report containing an aggregated PFC emissions estimate and each Partner Company's normalized PFC emissions rate on a blind basis;

File and maintain copies of annual reports; and

Make emissions estimates and written explanations of the methodology prepared by Partner Companies available to EPA for review.

Information Sharing Each Partner Company agrees that it will share with EPA and others in the semiconductor industry information about successful PFC emission reduction processes and technologies that the Partner Company considers nonconfidential.

( i) Data item

Documentation describing applicable PFC reduction processes and technologies.

( ii) Respondent activity

The Partner Companies will share information about successful PFC emission reduction processes and technologies by submitting this information to EPA. 9 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities The Partnership requires EPA to perform certain activities associated with the MOU, the Company specific Annual Report, the Industry wide Annual Report, and the Information Sharing. Each of these four information collections, and the Agency's activities associated with them, are described in more detail below.

Memorandum of Understanding EPA must perform the following activities related to the MOU for Partner Companies:

Develop the MOU in conjunction with Partner Companies;

Disseminate the MOU; and

Review the completed MOU.

Company specific Annual Reports EPA will perform the following activities with regard to the Company specific annual report submitted by the Partner Company to the designated third party:

Review Company specific annual reports on the premises of the designated third party, on a blind basis.

Industry wide Annual Reports EPA will perform the following activities with regard to the industry wide annual report submitted by the designated third party to EPA:

Receive and review the industry wide annual report; and

File and maintain copies of the report.

Information Sharing EPA will perform the following activities with respect to information sharing with the Partner Company and the public:

Establish and maintain clearinghouse of technical information on successful strategies for reducing PFC emissions; and

Provide public recognition of Partner Companies' achievements in reducing PFC emissions and for their public service in protecting the environment. 10 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management In collecting and analyzing the information associated with this ICR, EPA uses electronic equipment such as personal computers and applicable data base software. EPA will ensure the accuracy and completeness of collected information by reviewing each Partner Company's submitted information. EPA will maintain files of MOUs and other reports. Public access to the overall annual emission estimate will be possible through annual CCAP reporting, EPA's annual Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, and informational materials EPA will prepare to publicize the successes of the Partnership.

EPA is currently developing an Internet web page for this program that will facilitate access to general program information and allow interested parties to download the MOU, guidelines for estimating emissions, and the annual report form.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA has designed its report forms to minimize respondent burden while obtaining sufficient and accurate information. In addition, the burden associated with the Partnership is inherently minimized since the initial agreement to participate is voluntary.

5( d) Collection Schedule EPA collects information in the MOU, which is completed and submitted by the Partner Company. EPA will collect emissions reports from the designated third party on an annual basis. EPA may collect other program information on a periodic basis or as the information is submitted.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Exhibit 1 presents the estimated annual respondent burden and costs for information collection activities associated with the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership for the Semiconductor Industry. The exhibit includes the number of hours required to conduct the information collection activity and the cost associated with each requirement. In developing burden estimates for each information collection requirement in this ICR, EPA consulted with Companies in the Partnership. ( See Section 3( c) of this ICR for information on the consultations.) As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates a total average annual respondent burden of approximately 14,950 hours. Assumptions used in calculating this estimate are described below. 11 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs Labor Costs EPA estimates respondent labor costs ( hourly rate plus overhead and fringe) based on the average hourly labor rates of the Partner Companies' and designated third party's employees, as applicable. For the Partner Companies, EPA estimates average hourly labor rates of $ 161.61 for legal staff, $ 96.56 for managerial staff, $ 71.98 for technical staff, and $ 36.18 for clerical staff. These labor rates are based on consultations with eight Partner Companies. For the designated third party, which is currently a law firm, EPA estimates an average hourly labor rate of $ 300.00 for legal staff and $ 115.00 for paralegal staff. No other labor categories would be used in carrying out its activities. EPA obtained this feedback from consultation with the law firm currently supporting the Partner Companies. Table 1 summarizes the labor rates.

Table 1: Average Hourly Respondent Labor Rates Type of Respondent Legal Managerial Technical/ Paralegal Clerical Partner Companies $ 161.61 $ 96.56 $ 71.98 $ 36.18 Designated Third Party $ 300.00 Not applicable $ 115.00 Not applicable Capital and Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The Companies participating in the Partnership are not required to incur any notable capital costs under the Partnership ( i. e., for analytical equipment used to develop PFC emissions factors). The Partner Companies' equipment suppliers normally provide emissions readings to them as a standard business practice. In addition, emissions factors tables are available to the industry through the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

Companies participating in the Partnership may incur annual operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs. Partner Companies may incur O& M costs by continuing to develop and operate gas tracking programs, operating and maintaining analytical equipment to allow for continued analysis of emissions, and submitting information to EPA ( based on postage costs of $ 3.00 per mailing). Partner Companies also may incur O& M costs associated with travel to meetings as a part of their sharing of information. 12 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Exhibit 2 presents the estimated Agency burden hours and costs associated with the information collection activities for this ICR. Agency labor costs are based on the 2000 GS pay schedule. EPA estimates an average hourly labor cost ( labor plus overhead) of $ 65.98 for legal staff ( GS 14, Step 10), $ 42.14 for managerial staff ( GS 12, Step 6), $ 29.26 for technical staff ( GS 10, Step 3), and $ 18.08 ( GS 5, Step 4) for clerical staff. To derive hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080, which is the number of hours in the Federal work year. EPA then multiplied hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6. As shown in Exhibit 2, EPA estimates that the annual Agency burden for all activities covered in this ICR is 607 hours at a total cost of $ 20,315.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Respondent Burden and Costs Respondent Universe Table 2 summarizes the number of Companies expected to participate in the Partnership during the three year effective life of this ICR. In total, EPA expects 21 Companies to renew their membership with the PFC Emissions Reduction Partnership ( in Year 1) and two new Companies to join the Partnership during each year of this ICR's three year effective life. The following paragraphs discuss the information collections these Partner Companies will perform under the Partnership. Exhibit 1 calculates the annual burden and cost to Partner Companies in performing these collections.

Table 2: Number of Companies in the Partnership During the Three Year Life of ICR Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Current Partner Companies 21 23 25 New Partner Companies 2 2 2 Total 23 25 27 Memorandum of Understanding As shown in Table 2, EPA estimates that, over the three year life of this ICR, 27 Companies will participate in the Partnership. A number of Companies worked with EPA to prepare the Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) establishing the terms of participation in the Partnership. Companies then reviewed, signed and submitted the MOU to EPA to begin their 13 2 EPA and Partner Companies prepared the MOU in 2000. The next MOU will be prepared in 2010. participation in the Partnership. As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA has annualized the one time burden of MOU preparation over three years to estimate that nine Partner Companies will prepare and submit an MOU each year. [ Note that Exhibit 1 calculates respondent burden and costs on an annual basis. The exhibit calculates the burden and cost of one time activities ( i. e., activities performed once during the three year period of this ICR) by dividing the total number of respondents by three ( e. g., 27 Partner Companies / 3 years = 9 Partner Companies per year). 2]

Company Specific Annual Report Each Partner Company agrees to prepare a Company specific annual report to be submitted to the designated third party. The report will contain PFC emissions estimates and a normalized PFC emissions rate for the previous calendar year. In estimating burden and costs for this information collection, EPA believes that Companies new to the Partnership ( i. e., 2 each year) will incur a greater burden in preparing their first report ( i. e., for their first year of membership), than in preparing reports for their subsequent years of membership. That is, Companies new to the Partnership may encounter a one time learning curve in compiling and examining data for their " first year" reports. After gaining such experience, these Partner Companies would likely incur a lower burden in preparing their " subsequent year" reports.

As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that two Companies each year will be new to the Partnership and that each will incur, on average, about 637 hours in preparing and submitting their first year reports to the designated third party. EPA further estimates that, over the threeyear life of this ICR, 23 Partner Companies on average will submit subsequent year reports to the designated third party each year and incur, on average, about 292 hours per report.

Industry wide Annual Report The designated third party will be responsible for receiving and tracking the Companyspecific annual reports and compiling them into an industry wide annual report. The designated third party will create and update a confidential data depository containing the annual reports supplied by the Partner Companies. The designated third party will provide to EPA an industrywide annual report. Based on the Company specific annual reports, the designated third party will provide an aggregated, overall PFC emissions estimate. The designated third party will also provide normalized PFC emissions rates for each Partner Company, on a blind basis.

In addition, the designated third party will make available to EPA emissions estimates prepared by the Partner Companies and the written explanation of the methodology used. This information also will be maintained on site by the designated third party and reviewed by EPA on the designated third party's premises.

These assumptions are reflected in Exhibit 1. 14 Information Sharing The Companies participating in the Partnership agree to share with EPA information about successful PFC emission reduction processes and technologies that the Partner Companies consider nonconfidential, and will share such nonconfidential information with others in the semiconductor industry. Partner Companies may incur burden and costs for attending meetings ( including travel and lodging costs), participating in teleconferences with EPA and industry, and other outreach efforts. EPA estimates that an average of 25 Partner Companies will share information each year. These assumptions are reflected in Exhibit 1.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Respondent Tally In Exhibit 1, EPA estimates the total annual respondent burden and cost for the PFC Emission Reduction Partnership to be approximately 14,950 hours and $ 1,275,143. The bottom line respondent burden over the three year period covered by this ICR is approximately 44,850 hours, at a total cost of approximately $ 3,825,429.

Agency Tally As shown in Exhibit 2, the annual Agency burden and cost are estimated to be approximately 607 hours and $ 20,315 per year. The bottom line Agency burden over the three year period covered by this ICR is approximately 1,821 hours, at a total cost of approximately $ 60,945.

Variations in the Annual Bottom Line EPA anticipates no significant variation in the annual respondent reporting and/ or recordkeeping burden over the next three years.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The number of burden hours has changed from the previous ICR because the number of Companies in the Partnership has decreased from 30 to 27. In addition, the previous ICR did not include respondent burden hours for the Partner Companies to prepare the MOU or for the designated third party to compile the industry wide annual report. This ICR incorporates burden hours for these activities.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to range from about 566 to 911 hours per Partner Company. This burden includes time for completing the 15 MOU ( one time activity) and the Company specific annual report and for sharing information with the public. There is no recordkeeping burden for Partner Companies. The annual reporting burden is estimated to be about eight hours for the designated third party. This burden includes time for preparing and submitting the industry wide annual report and making emissions data available to EPA. The annual recordkeeping burden to the designated third party is estimated to be about 46 hours. This burden includes time for developing/ updating the data depository, receiving and entering Company specific reports into the depository, and filing and maintaining copies of Company specific annual reports.

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. 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 1.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1823.02 and OMB control number 2060 0382 in any correspondence. 16 EXHIBIT 1 PFC EMISSION REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP ESTIMATED ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST Hours and Costs per Respondent Total Hours and Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Legal Manager Technical/

Paralegal Clerical Respon.

Hours/

Year Labor Cost/

Year Capital/

Startup Cost O& M Cost Number of Respon. or Activities Total Hours/

Year Total Cost/

Year Memorandum of Understanding Work with EPA to prepare MOU 6.23 10.50 35.63 0.00 52.36 $ 4,585.36 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 9 471.24 $ 41,268.22 Review and sign MOU 2.08 3.50 11.88 0.00 17.46 $ 1,529.23 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 9 157.14 $ 13,763.08 Submit the MOU to EPA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 $ 7.24 $ 0.00 $ 3.00 9 1.80 $ 92.12 Subtotal 8.31 14.00 47.51 0.20 70.02 $ 6,121.82 $ 0.00 $ 3.00 9 630.18 $ 55,123.42 Company specific Annual Report Complete and submit first Company specific annual report 0.25 81.56 502.30 52.50 636.61 $ 45,970.84 $ 0.00 $ 2,164.00 2 1,273.22 $ 96,269.68 Complete and submit subsequent Company specific annual reports 0.25 34.40 241.30 16.00 291.95 $ 21,309.72 $ 0.00 $ 2,164.00 23 6,714.85 $ 539,895.57 Subtotal 0.00 varies varies varies varies varies $ 0.00 varies varies 7,988.07 $ 636,165.25 Industry wide Annual Report Develop/ update data depository 1.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 6.00 $ 875.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 6.00 $ 875.00 Receive Company specific annual reports and enter into data depository 15.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 30.00 $ 6,225.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 30.00 $ 6,225.00 Complete and submit Industry wide annual report 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 $ 830.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 4.00 $ 830.00 File and maintain copies of annual reports 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 10.00 $ 1,150.00 Make emissions estimates and written explanations of the methodology prepared by Companies available to EPA for review 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 $ 830.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 4.00 $ 830.00 Subtotal 20.00 0.00 34.00 0.00 54.00 $ 9,910.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 54.00 $ 9,910.00 Information Sharing Share information about successful PFC reduction processes and technologies 6.25 44.44 196.40 4.00 251.09 $ 19,582.78 $ 0.00 $ 3,375.00 25 6,277.25 $ 573,944.52 Subtotal 6.25 44.44 196.40 4.00 251.09 $ 19,582.78 $ 0.00 $ 3,375.00 25 6,277.25 $ 573,944.52 TOTAL varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies varies 14,949.50 $ 1,275,143.20 17 EXHIBIT 2 PFC EMISSION REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP ESTIMATED ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST Hours and Costs per Respondent Total Hours and Costs INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY Legal Manager Technical Clerical Agency Hours/

Year Labor Cost/

Year Capital/

Startup Cost O& M Cost Number of Respon. or Activities Total Hours/

Year Total Cost/

Year Memorandum of Understanding Develop the MOU 4.00 60.00 40.00 24.00 128.00 $ 4,396.64 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 0.33 42.24 $ 1,450.89 Disseminate the MOU 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 $ 18.08 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 9 9.00 $ 162.72 Review the completed MOU 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 8.00 $ 285.60 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 9 72.00 $ 2,570.40 Subtotal varies varies varies varies varies $ 4,700.32 varies varies varies 123.24 $ 4,184.01 Company specific Annual Report Review Company specific annual reports on premises of designated law firm 0.00 8.00 4.00 0.00 12.00 $ 454.16 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 25 300.00 $ 11,354.00 Subtotal varies varies varies varies varies $ 454.16 varies varies varies 300.00 $ 11,354.00 Industry wide Annual Report Receive and review industry wide annual report 0.00 40.00 8.00 0.00 48.00 $ 1,919.68 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 48.00 $ 1,919.68 File and maintain copies of annual report 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $ 4.52 $ 1.90 $ 0.00 1 0.25 $ 6.42 Subtotal varies varies varies varies varies $ 1,924.20 varies varies varies 48.25 $ 1,926.10 Information Sharing Establish and maintain clearinghouse of technical information 0.00 40.00 28.00 0.00 68.00 $ 2,504.88 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1.00 68.00 $ 2,504.88 Provide public recognition of Companies'

achievements 0.00 40.00 28.00 0.00 68.00 $ 2,504.88 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1.00 68.00 $ 345.92 Subtotal varies varies varies varies varies $ 5,009.76 varies varies varies 136.00 $ 2,850.80 TOTAL varies varies varies varies varies $ 12,088.44 varies varies varies 607.49 $ 20,314.91 NOTE: Certain values which refer to a quantity of persons working on a task are expressed in decimals.

This is a result of converting data covering the period of the ICR ( 3 years) into an annual estimate.