~

. ~

c Docket No. O~~ 2002 0052 * Item NO. 1143 127 I*

$ n G UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2771 1 4*\"" D %+..

ww 5 % .4i PRO& 8 OFFICE OF AIR QUALNY PLANNING AND STANDARDS MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Cost Inputs for Econ ime Industry NESHAP ' +

James Crowder, Group Leader 8 bA Minerals and Inorganic Chemic s Group Ron Evans, Group Leader Innovative Strategies and Economics Group This memorandum provides the costs of air pollution controls ( that may be needed to comply with emission limits being considered) and testing and monitoring requirements being considered for the subject regulation. These costs are for the control of HAP w and existing lime kilns, lime coolers, and mat 1 costs have been estimatedxor kil for the kiln, cooler, and MHO are HAP metals, using PM flect updated thinking on rule requirements based on el's recommendations and a comment received fro Two EIAs need to be conducted, for the two regulatory options under consider assuming that PM continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS) will be required, other option that PM CEMS will not be required.

Please find attached the following items:

es applicable to the cost and economic analysis.

grading existing kilns' baghouses ( replace bags) sts for each PM control option for model kilns and cooler: I I I Upgrading existing kilns' ESP ( new ESP field) Upgrading existing kilns' wet scrubbers ( replace with new venturi wet scrubber) Upgrading existing uncontrolled kilns with a new baghouse Ne& baghouse for a new kiln 0 I I 0 MHO conti oi costs

Table of testing and monitoring costs for kilns Testing and monitoring costs for materials handling sources Table matching each lime plant's kiln( s) to model kilns RqcledlRecyclable Prlnted with Vegetable Oil Based Ink on 100% Recycled Paper ( 40% Postconsumer) General Notes for Cost and Economic Analysis 0 Costs are in 1000' s of first quarter1 997 dollars. TCI = total capital investment DAC = direct annual cost IAC = indirect annual cost TAC = total annual cost = D Cost recovery based on 7 perc Costs for kilns are provided on a model basis, and only for those models Since the draft revised rule includes a provision for bubbling of PM emissions from the 0 0 0 0 C + cost recovery 0 0 corresponding actual kilns i kilns and coolers, this will allow some plants to avoid installation of new, or upgrading of existing, PM controls that may have been required without the bubbling provision. To account for this lesser impact, the cost of cooler PM controls ( which % without the bubbling provision) are zero. 0 0 MHO control costs are lump sum for the whole plant. We assume 70 percent of plants are major sources, but we do not know which plants are , except the costs to measure HC1 lete list of all plants in the U. S. 0 major. A random assignment of major vs. area status based on this 70% probability is recommended.

0 orne by every plant.

0 Extrapolation of costs and * In addition, if ofthe economic impacts to the entire industry needs to be consi plants listed in Table 7 are small businesses, please use the costs we provide you ( in a separate memo).

sugar production; this is reflected in the list of plants.

example, the percentage of existing kilns with a certain PM control device needing an upgrade ( i. e., not meeting the emission limit and thus having to incur the cost of upgrading their air pollution control) is indicated. We do not know which plants are meeting the emission limits, so these costs should be assigned randomly based on the percentages indicated. The exception to this is the small businesses, for which costs have already been assigned, based on the assumption that all are major except 1 company. However, the small businesses need to be included when determining how many kilns incur a cost based on the aforementioned percentages. We will provide you the costs to small businesses in a separate memo.

( 1) HCl testing for area source status determination ( incurred by every plant; depends on # of kilns  see Table 6) ;, and if the lime plant is a major source, the following costs also 0 The NESHAP will not affect lime plants associated with pulp/ paper production or beet Additional notes particular to a control option are also provided in the tables below. For 0 0 In summary, total cost to a lime plant equals cost of:

apply: 3 ( 2) kiln PM control ( depends on control device, if meeting emission limit  see Tables 1 through 5) ( 3) MHO control ( costs are per plant  see top of page 7) ( 4) kiln testing and monitoring ( costs are per kiln; all kilns incur costs  see Table 6) ( 5) MHO testing and monitoring ( per plant  see page 8)

Table 1 : Upgrading; Existing; Kilns FF with New Bags Notes: 29 % of kilns with baghouses are not expected to meet the PM emission limit, and thus would incur these costs. Reference: 11 B 66 * *

I 4 Table 2. New FF on Existing Uncontrolled Kiln These costs would apply also to kilns with just cyclones or gravel beds. All kilns that are uncontrolled ( or with cyclone or gravel bed) would incur these costs. Reference: 11 B 70  ( 1 0 a 9 . e c a 5 Table 3. Upgrading Wet Scrubbers on Existing. Kilns with New Venturi Scrubber cost DAC IAC . TAC recovery 28 75 11 113 32 88 11 13 1 57 220 16 293 73 312 19 403 33 102 12 146 55 207 15 278 75 326 19 42Q 39 129 13 180 19 36 9 64 6 Table 4. Additional Field for ESP Notes:

e 33 % of kilns with ESPs are not expected to meet the PM emission limi and thus would incur these costs.

e Reference: 11 B 67 Table 5. New Baghouse on New Kiln Notes:

e 1 kiln of model size N and 1 kiln of model size P are expected to be built after the first 5 2 kilns of model size Q and 2 kilns of model size R are expected to be built after the first For models N, P, and Q, the costs are incremental compared to the costs that would be years following the compliance date.

5 years following the compliance date.

incurred in complying with the NSPS for lime kilns. Model R represents a double shaft vertical kiln and these costs are whole, since the NSPS applies only to vertical kilns. Negative DAC represents a savings due to reduced electricity consumption because of a larger baghouse with less pressure drop. e e e Reference: 11 B 6  L % I 1 1  i ?

. a .  t E 4 7 Materials Handling; Operations Control Costs A lump sum of $ 78,400 capital cost and $ 68,600 total annual cost per major source plant. Reference: Memo fiom Mike Laney, RTI. Estimated Costs of Controlling Materials e Handling Operations at Lime Manufacturing Facilities Table 6. Kiln Testing; and MonitorinP Costs PM control device5 OM and M plans, plus costs for misc. notifications Notes: testing and monitoring costs would only be incurred at major sources, except that the M.

Costs above are per kiln, except as noted. Costs for testing additional kilns at same plant 320 tests would be incurred by every plant are noted below. Add $ 5000 ( one time cost) and $ 1250 ( annualized cost) for each additional kiln tested at same location. Add $ 3 100 ( one time cost) and $ 775 ( annualized cost) for each additional kiln tested at same location. One time costs are annualized over a 5 year period, 7% interest rate. The rule applies only to kilns with baghouses, and BLD are an option for ESPs, but for the purposes of costing, assume all kilns will use BLD e 1.

2.

3. 4.

>  x . be c B 8 5. Assume 55 percent of currently existing kilns with baghouses or scrubbers will have a multi stack ( assume 10 compartment) contr the single stack BLD. Assume 34 percent of existing kilns with ESPs will have multi stack configuration and wil 6. For the start up, shutdown, ction plan, and the operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, and other evice and will incur these costs in lieu of costs in lieu of single stack BLD.

ments. Costs are per plant.

7. Important Notes Reparding PM CEMS: A separate EIA will need to be conducted to model the impact of the costs of PM CEMS. The PM CEMS costs will be u required in the regulation, then BLDs will not be required. The exception to this is that kilns with multi stack PM control devices will not be required to use PM CEMS, so these kilns will always incur the co Note Total Capital cost ( Beta Gage type) PM CEMS = $ 170,000 Annual Cost ( Beta Gage type) PM CEMS = $ 15,000 Capital Cost feed rate monitor = $ 22,000 Annual Cost feed rate monitor = $ 6,000 Materials Handling Operations Testing, and Monitoring which is $ 3,750 annualized over 5 years. instead of the BLD costs, i. e., if PM CEMS are D for a multi stack PM control device. ( See d rate monitoring as well, i. e.,

I . Assume all major source plants incur $ 15,000 in one time costs for PM tests on MHOS,

Costs are based on two PM tests. One time costs are thus 1 * 10,000 + ( 1 * 5000) . = $ 15,000; annualized costs are * 2500 + ( 1 * 1250) = $ 3,750.

. assume 95 percent of major source plants i $ 5,600 in monitoring costs, randomly assigned. . Based on $ 5,300 * ( 138.8/ 131.3)) annual monitoring costs. See attached Appendix A for information on how these costs were derived. ( The factor 138.8/ 13 1.3 is used to convert ts from 1993 dollars to 1997 dollars.)

assume 5 percent of major source plants incur $ 12,600 in annual monitoring costs ( randomly assigned, except assume all small businesses incur these costs).


[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 48399-48400]
[DOCID:fr10au10-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62648; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Amend Fees Schedule

August 4, 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 July 30, 2010, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing
or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by CBOE under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to make changes
related to its Marketing Fee Program. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/
Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

(a) Purpose
    CBOE proposes to amend its Marketing Fee Program to increase the
amount of the fee that is assessed in options on the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY)
and options on the iShares Russell 2000 Index (IWM). Currently, the
marketing fee is assessed at the rate of $0.10 per contract in SPY
options and $0.00 per contract in IWM options. CBOE proposes to assess
the marketing fee at the rate of $0.25 per contract in SPY options and
IWM options, which is consistent with the marketing fee that CBOE
assesses in nearly all of the option classes participating in the Penny
Pilot Program. CBOE also notes that it would be consistent with the fee
NYSE Amex assesses for its payment for order flow program in option
classes participating in the Penny Pilot Program.
    CBOE proposes to implement this change to the marketing fee program
beginning on August 1, 2010. CBOE is not amending its Marketing Fee
Program in any other respects.
(b) Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \6\
of the Act in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
CBOE Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange believes the fee change proposed by this filing is equitable
and reasonable in that it will allow the Exchange to be competitive
with the fees assessed by the NYSE Amex in its payment for order flow
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 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-CBOE-2010-071 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-CBOE-2010-071. 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,\9\ 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 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
CBOE. 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 Number SR-
CBOE-2010-071 and should be submitted on or before August 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19655 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13601-13603]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5534]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9644-4]

Notice of Proposed NPDES General Permit; Proposed NPDES General
Permit for New and Existing Sources and New Dischargers in the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Category for the Western
Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico
(GMG290000)

    Summary: The Regional Administrator of Region 6 today proposes to
reissue the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit No. GMG290000 for existing and new sources and new
dischargers in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart A), located in and
discharging to the Outer Continental Shelf offshore of Louisiana and
Texas. The discharge of produced water to that portion of the Outer
Continental Shelf from Offshore Subcategory facilities located in the
territorial seas of Louisiana and Texas is also authorized by this
permit.
    This draft permit proposes to retain, with certain modifications,
the limitations and conditions of the existing 2007 issued permit (2007
permit). The 2007 permit limitations conform with the Oil and Gas
Offshore Subcategory Guidelines and contain additional requirements to
assess impacts from the discharge of produced water to the marine
environment, as required by section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act.
    The following major changes to the 2007 permit are proposed as part
of the permit reissuance: (1) Define operators for the purpose of this
permit, (2) delete New Source Exemption language, (3) add toxicity test
requirement for hydrate control fluids, (4) add spill prevention best
management practices provision, (5) authorize de minimis discharges
caused by subsea safety valve testing, (6) require electronic Notice of
Intent (NOI) and discharge monitoring reporting (NetDMR), and (7)
establish updated critical dilutions for whole effluent toxicity (WET)
limitations for produced water.
    Addresses: Comments should be sent to: Ms. Diane Smith, Water
Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may be
sent electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Dates: Comments must be received by May 7, 2012. Public meetings
and hearings on the proposed permit will be

held at the times and places below. The meetings will include a
presentation on the proposed permit followed by the opportunity for
questions and answers. The public hearings will be held in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 124.12. At the public hearing, any
person may submit oral or written statements and data concerning the
proposed permit. Any person who cannot attend one of the public
hearings may still submit written comments, which have the same weight
as comments made at the public hearing, through the end of the public
comment period.
    Date: April 11, 2012.
    Time: 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m. for public meeting and 7:30 p.m.-9 p.m. for
public hearing.
    Place: Houston Marriott South Hobby Airport, Galveston Room, 9100
Gulf Freeway, Houston, TX 77017.

    Date: April 12, 2012.
    Time: 5:30 p.m.-7 p.m. for public meeting and 7 p.m.-8:30 p.m. for
public hearing.
    Place: East Bank Regional Library, Jefferson/Napoleon Rooms, 4747
W. Napoleon Ave., Metaire, LA 70001.
    For Further Information Contact: Ms. Diane Smith, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The complete proposed permit, Fact Sheet and a
copy of the Federal Register notice may also be obtained on the
Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/genpermit/.
    Supplementary Information:

Statutory and Regulatory History

    The Clean Water Act (``CWA'') establishes a comprehensive program
``to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters.'' 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The CWA also
includes the objective of attaining ``water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and * *
* recreation in and on the water.'' 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2). To achieve
these goals, the CWA requires EPA to control point source discharges of
pollutants to Waters of the United States through the issuance of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits.
    NPDES permits issued for oil and gas exploration, development, and
production discharges are required under Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA
to include conditions for meeting technology-based effluent limits
established under Section 301 and, where applicable, Section 306. Once
an effluent limitations guideline or new source performance standard is
promulgated in accordance with these sections, NPDES permits issued by
the NPDES permitting authorities must incorporate requirements based on
such limitations and standards. See 40 CFR 122.44(a)(1). Effluent
limitation guidelines for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category are found at 40 CFR part 435, subpart
A.
    Regulated Entities. EPA intends to use the reissued permit to
regulate oil and gas extraction facilities located in the Outer
Continental Shelf of the Western Gulf of Mexico, e.g., offshore oil and
gas extraction platforms, but other types of facilities may also be
subject to the permit. Covered operators would fall primarily under the
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 211 and 213
code series (previously the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 13
code series). To determine whether your facility, company, business,
organization, etc., may be affected by today's action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in Part I, Section A.1 of
the draft permit. Questions on the permit's application to specific
facilities may also be directed to Ms. Smith at the telephone number or
address listed above.
    Oil Spill Requirements. Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, (CWA or
the Act), prohibits the discharge of oil and hazardous materials in
harmful quantities. Discharges that are authorized by NPDES permits are
excluded from the provisions of Section 311. However, the permit does
not preclude the institution of legal action or relieve permittees from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for other, unauthorized
discharges of oil and hazardous materials which are covered by Section
311 of the Act.
    Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation. For discharges into waters of
the territorial sea, contiguous zone, or oceans, CWA section 403(c)
requires EPA to consider guidelines for determining potential
degradation of the marine environment when issuing NPDES permits. These
Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR part 125, subpart M) are intended to
``prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment and to
authorize imposition of effluent limitations, including a prohibition
of discharge, if necessary, to ensure this goal'' (45 FR 65942, October
3, 1980). EPA Region 6 previously determined that discharges in
compliance with the OCS general permit would not cause unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment. EPA had also completed a study
of the effects of produced water discharges on hypoxia in the northern
Gulf of Mexico and found that these discharges would not have a
significant impact. (See Predicted Impacts from Offshore Produced Water
Discharges on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, Limno-Tech, Inc., 2006).
Since this reissued permit contains limitations that will protect water
quality and in general reduce the discharge of toxic pollutants to the
marine environment, the Region finds that discharges authorized by the
reissued general permit will not likely cause unreasonable degradation
of the marine environment. EPA is proposing to require an industry-wide
produced water and drilling fluid characterization study to obtain more
representative data to evaluate impacts to water quality.
    Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. The Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 regulates the
transportation for dumping of materials into ocean waters and
establishes permit programs for ocean dumping. The NPDES permit EPA
reissues today does not authorize dumping under MPRSA.
    In addition the MPRSA establishes the Marine Sanctuaries Program,
implemented by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), which requires NOAA to designate certain ocean
waters as marine sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving or restoring
their conservation, recreational, ecological or aesthetic values.
Pursuant to the Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act, NOAA has
designated the Flower Garden Banks, an area within the coverage of the
OCS general permit, a marine sanctuary. The OCS general permit
prohibits discharges in areas of biological concern, including marine
sanctuaries. The permit authorizes discharges incidental to oil and gas
production from a facility which predates designation of the Flower
Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary as a marine sanctuary. EPA has
previously worked extensively with NOAA to ensure that authorized
discharges are consistent with regulations governing the National
Marine Sanctuary.
    National Environmental Policy Act. In connection with its oil and
gas leasing programs under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management of the Department of Interior (BOEM)
has prepared and published draft environmental impact statements (EIS)
on potential impacts of oil and gas operations in the Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico for the 2012--2017 period. BOEM published a
Notice of Availability of the DRAFT EIS at 76 FR 39435 (December 30,
2011). EPA is

a cooperating agency on BOEM's EIS and intends to use that EIS to
fulfill the National Environmental Policy Act obligations for this
permit issuance.
    Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. The
Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act requires
that federal agencies proposing to authorize actions that may adversely
affect essential fish habitat (EFH) consult with NMFS. The entire Gulf
of Mexico has been designated EFH. EPA intends to adopt the EFH
analysis BOEM prepared in the above mentioned Draft EIS for lease sales
in the Western and Central Planning Areas (WPA and CPA). BOEM concludes
in the Draft EIS that ``Impacts of routine dredging and discharges are
localized in time and space and are regulated by Federal and State
agencies through permitting processes; therefore, there would be
minimal impact to fish resources and essential fish habitat from these
routine activities associated with a WPA or CPA proposed action.'' BOEM
also concludes that ``If there is an effect of an oil spill on fish
resources in the Gulf of Mexico, it is expected to cause a minimal
decrease in standing stocks of any population. This is because most
spill events would be localized, therefore affecting a small portion of
fish populations.'' This permit contains limitations conforming to
EPA's Oil and Gas extraction, Offshore Subcategory Effluent Limitations
Guidelines at 40 CFR Part 435 and additional requirements assuring that
regulated discharges will cause no unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment, as required by section 403(c) of the Clean Water
Act. This permit also does not authorize spills or any uncontrolled
discharges.
    Endangered Species Act (ESA). The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) previously concurred with EPA's determination that reissuance of
the General Permit for the Outer Continental Shelf of the Western Gulf
of Mexico (OCS general permit) was not likely to adversely affect any
listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat
when the permit was reissued in 1991 and 1998 and when it was modified
in 1993 and 2001. When EPA reissued the OCS general permit in 2004, EPA
requested written concurrence on EPA's ``may affect but are not likely
to adversely affect'' determination from NMFS. In a letter dated July
12, 2004, NMFS provided such concurrence on the 2004 issued OCS general
permit. When EPA proposed reissuance of the permit in 2006, EPA found
that changes would not decrease the level of protection the permit
affords threatened or endangered species. The main changes included new
intake structure requirements and more stringent whole effluent
toxicity limits based on sub-lethal effects. Since those changes would
increase the level of protection, EPA determined that reissuance of the
permit was not likely to adversely affect any listed threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat.
    EPA is evaluating the effects caused by this permit reissuance
action upon the 2004 consultation baseline. EPA will meet its
responsibility to fulfill the section 7 of the ESA requirements prior
to reissuance of this general permit.
    State Water Quality Standards and State Certification. The permit
does not authorize discharges to State waters; therefore, the state
water quality certification provisions of CWA section 401 do not apply
to this proposed action.
    Coastal Zone Management Act. EPA determined that activities
proposed to be authorized by this reissued permit are consistent with
the local and state Coastal Zone Management Plans. The proposed permit
and consistency determination was submitted to the State of Louisiana
and the State of Texas for interagency review at the time of public
notice. Concurrence was received from both Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources and Railroad Commission of Texas on the 2007 permit.
Both letters of concurrence were dated February 23, 2007. EPA again
determines that reissuance of this permit is consistent with the local
and state Coastal Zone Management Plans. The proposed permit and
consistency determination are submitted to the State of Louisiana and
the State of Texas for interagency review at the time of public notice.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collection required by
this permit will reduce paperwork significantly by implementation of
electronic reporting requirements. EPA is working on an electronic
notice of intent (eNOI) system so applicants will file their NOIs
online. EPA estimates that it takes 10 to 15 minutes to fill up all
information required by eNOI for each lease block, and it takes much
less time to add, delete, or modify eNOI. EPA will also incorporate an
electronic discharge monitoring report (NetDMR) requirement in the
permit. The time for NetDMR preparation will be much less than that for
paper DMR. The electronic filing systems will also significantly reduce
the mailing cost.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq, requires that EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis for regulations that have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As indicated below, the permit
reissuance proposed today is not a ``rule'' subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. EPA prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis,
however, on the promulgation of the Offshore Subcategory guidelines on
which many of the permit's effluent limitations are based. That
analysis shows that reissuance of this permit will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Dated February 28, 2012.
William K. Honker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-5534 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P