[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53914-53925]
[DOCID:fr02se10-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 140

[EPA-R09-OW-2010-0438; FRL-9196-3]
RIN 2009-AA04

Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs): Proposed Regulation To
Establish a No Discharge Zone (NDZ) for California State Marine Waters

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to establish a No Discharge Zone (NDZ) for
sewage discharges from: Large passenger vessels; and oceangoing vessels
of 300 gross tons or more (referred to throughout this proposed rule as
``Large oceangoing vessels'') with two days or more sewage holding
capacity to California State marine waters pursuant to Section
312(f)(4)(A) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1322(f)(4)(A).
This action is being taken in response to an April 5, 2006 application
from the California State Water Resources Control Board (State)
requesting establishment of this NDZ. Under Section 312(f)(4)(A), if
EPA determines upon application by a State that the protection and
enhancement of the quality of specified waters within such State
requires such a prohibition, then EPA shall by regulation completely
prohibit the discharge of any sewage (whether treated or not) from a
vessel into such waters. California State marine waters would be
defined as the territorial sea measured from the baseline, as
determined in accordance with the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone, and extending seaward a distance of three miles,
and would also include all enclosed bays and estuaries subject to tidal
influences from the Oregon border to the Mexican border. (Federal Clean
Water Act Section 502(8)). State marine waters also extend three miles
from State islands, including the Farallones and the Northern and
Southern Channel Islands. A map of California State marine waters can
be obtained or viewed at the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/
region9/water/no-discharge/overview.html, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
It should be noted that effective March 2009, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) established prohibitions on the
discharge of sewage from large vessels in waters within the boundaries
of the four National Marine

Sanctuaries along the California coast (73 FR 70487).

DATES: Comments must be submitted to EPA on or before November 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OW-
2010-0438, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions. 2.
E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>3. Mail or deliver: Allan Ota (WTR-8), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Ota, Wetlands Office, Water
Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street (WTR-8), San Francisco, CA
94105, (ota.allan@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background of Clean Water Act Section 312

    Clean Water Act Section 312, 33 U.S.C. 1322, (hereafter referred to
as ``Section 312''), regulates the discharge of sewage from vessels
into the navigable waters. Pollutants most frequently associated with
sewage discharges include solids, nutrients, pathogens, petroleum
products, heavy metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other
potentially harmful compounds.\1\ Sewage discharges contaminate
shellfish beds, pollute drinking water supplies, harm fish and other
aquatic wildlife, and cause damage to coral reefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Page 33 of the April 5, 2006 State Application/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Direct contact with these pollutants can have serious human health
effects, with children, the elderly, and individuals with compromised
immune systems being most susceptible. While data specifically
associating disease outbreaks with sewage discharges from vessels are
not available, data summarizing disease outbreaks and beach closures
due to waterborne pathogens are available. During 2005-2006, the most
recent period for which data are available, waterborne disease
outbreaks associated with pathogen exposures in recreational water were
reported by 31 States and territories through the Centers for Disease
Control's Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System.\2\
During this period, 4,412 people were reported ill, resulting in 116
hospitalizations and five deaths. Thirty of these outbreaks were
reported in California.\3\ These data include exposures to pathogens at
beaches and other natural swimming locations, but pathogen sources were
not specifically identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Yoder, et al., 2008, Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and
Outbreaks Associated with Recreational Water Use and Other Aquatic
Facility-Associated Health Events--United States, 2005-2006. Centers
for Disease Control, Surveillance Summaries, 57(SS09), September 12,
2008.
    \3\ Yoder, et al., 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When pathogen levels exceed water quality standards, States and
territories may issue swimming advisories or close beaches to swimming.
EPA's Beach Monitoring and Notification program reports that of the
3,740 coastal beaches monitored in 2008, 1,210 (32 percent) had at
least one swimming closure or advisory and coastal beaches were under
swimming closures or advisories about 5 percent of the time, similar to
the previous two years. For 2007, the last year for which data was
available, 138 of the 424 monitored beaches in California had at least
one water quality advisory due to water quality standard
exceedances.\4\ According to the State's California Beach Water Quality
Information Page in 2005, the last year reported, there were 104 beach
closure events for a total of 486 beach days because monitoring
indicated elevated bacteria levels.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA, 2009, National Summary: 2008 Swimming Season Update.
EPA 823-F-09-005, May 2009.
    \5\ State Water Resources Control Board, California Beach Water
Quality Information page: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/
programs/beaches/beach_water_quality/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shellfish beds are also vulnerable to coastal pollutants resulting
in closures when water quality standards are exceeded. In 2001, the
last comprehensive national study of water quality data at shellfish
beds revealed that 40 percent were unsuitable for harvesting.\6\
Pathogens from a variety of sources, including urban and agricultural
runoff, vessel discharges, sewage treatment plants and septic systems
can contribute to shellfish bed contamination, closure, and illness in
human shellfish consumers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA, 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development
and Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-620/R-01/005.
    \7\ EPA National Estuary Program: http://www.epa.gov/nep/
challenges.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 312(h) prohibits vessels equipped with installed toilet
facilities from operating on the navigable waters (which include the
three mile territorial seas), unless the vessel is equipped with an
operable marine sanitation device (MSD), certified by the Coast Guard
to meet applicable performance standards. 33 U.S.C. 1322(h). The
provisions of section 312 are implemented jointly by EPA and the Coast
Guard. EPA sets performance standards for MSDs and is involved in
varying degrees in the establishment of no discharge zones (NDZs) for
vessel sewage. 33 U.S.C. 1322(b) and (f). The Coast Guard is
responsible for developing regulations governing the design,
construction, certification, installation and operation of MSDs,
consistent with EPA's performance standards. 33 U.S.C. 1322(b) and (g);
see also 33 CFR part 159. The Coast Guard's responsibility includes
certifying MSDs for installation on U.S. flagged vessels. There are
three types of MSDs:
     Type I MSDs are flow-through treatment devices that
commonly use maceration and disinfection for the treatment of sewage.
Type I devices may be installed only on vessels less than or equal to
65 feet in length. The performance standard applied to Type I MSDs is
to produce an effluent with no more than 1000 fecal coliform count per
100 mL, with no visible floating solids.
     Type II MSDs are also flow-through treatment devices,
which may employ biological treatment and disinfection, although some
Type II MSDs use maceration and disinfection. Type II MSDs may be
installed on vessels of any

length. The performance standard applied to Type II MSDs is to produce
an effluent with no more than 200 fecal coliform per 100 mL, and no
more than 150 mg total suspended solids per liter.
     Type III MSDs are holding tanks, where sewage is stored
until it can be disposed of shore-side or at sea (beyond three miles
from shore). Type III MSDs may be installed on vessels of any length.
[33 U.S.C. 1322 (b and h), 40 CFR 140.3; 33 CFR part 159].
    CWA section 312 generally preempts State regulation of the
discharge of sewage from vessels: ``no State or political subdivision
thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation of such State
or political subdivision with respect to the design, manufacture, or
installation or use of any [MSD] on any vessel subject to the provision
of [CWA section 312].'' CWA Sec.  312(f)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C.
1322(f)(1)(A). Under Section 312(f), however, States may, in certain
circumstances, request that EPA establish no discharge zones (``NDZs'')
for vessel sewage or, after required findings are made by EPA,
establish such zones themselves.
    There are three types of NDZ designations. First, under section
312(f)(3) States may designate portions or all of their waters as NDZs
if the State determines that the protection and enhancement of the
quality of the waters require greater environmental protection than
provided by current Federal standards. However, no such prohibition
applies to discharges until EPA determines that adequate facilities for
the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels
are reasonably available for the waters in the NDZ. Second, a State may
apply under section 312(f)(4)(A) for EPA's determination that the
protection and enhancement of the quality of specified waters within
such State requires a prohibition. In contrast to section 312(f)(3) NDZ
designations, section 312(f)(4) does not require EPA to determine that
adequate pump out facilities are reasonably available for all vessels.
Upon this determination, EPA shall by regulation completely prohibit
the discharge from a vessel of any sewage (whether treated or not) into
such waters. Lastly, a State may apply under section 312(f)(4)(B) for
EPA to establish, by regulation, a drinking water intake zone which
prohibits the discharge of sewage into that zone. [33 U.S.C. 1322(f),
40 CFR 140.4] California applied to EPA to establish the proposed NDZ
under CWA section 312(f)(4)(A).
    While section 312(f)(3) has been used to prohibit discharges in an
entire State's waters, today's NDZ, if finalized, would be the first
CWA section 312(f)(4)(A) NDZ to cover an entire State's waters. It
would also be the first NDZ to only apply to discrete classes of
vessels. Today's proposed rule would apply to all California marine
waters and to two specific types of vessels--(1) passenger vessels of
300 gross tons or more having berths or overnight accommodations, and
(2) oceangoing vessels of 300 gross tons or more with two days or more
of sewage holding capacity. As discussed in Sections V and VI of the
preamble, the proposed NDZ will not alter existing NDZs in California,
all of which were enacted pursuant to 312(f)(3). Those NDZs remain in
effect for all vessels. These NDZs cover a relatively small portion of
California's marine waters, although as discussed below, certain
discharges of sewage are also prohibited under NOAA regulations for
marine sanctuaries in California waters.

II. Enforcement

    The U.S. Coast Guard and the States are authorized to enforce the
requirements of Section 312. 33 U.S.C. 1322(k). Persons who tamper with
an installed certified MSD, or who operate vessels subject to section
312 without operable MSDs, are subject to civil penalties of up to
$5,000 and $2,000, respectively, for each violation; manufacturers who
sell a non-certified MSD, or who sell a vessel subject to section 312
that is not equipped with a certified MSD, are subject to civil
penalties of up to $5,000 for each violation. 33 U.S.C. 1322(j). For
more information see 33 U.S.C. 1322(j) and the U.S. Coast Guard's
regulations at 33 CFR part 159.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Coast Guard MSD Requirements: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/
cg5/cg5213/msd.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The State's Application for This NDZ

    The State of California declared the importance of protecting and
enhancing coastal water quality when it enacted legislation in 2003-
2004 to limit pollution from large passenger vessels Assembly Bill (AB)
121, AB 906, AB 2093, and AB 2672 (available in the docket for today's
proposal). The new legislation required a number of actions to address
and reduce sewage and other pollution discharges from large vessels.
Specifically, AB 2672 required the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Board) to submit an application to the EPA seeking Federal
prohibition of discharges of sewage from large passenger vessels to
State waters.\9\ Similarly, the State enacted the California Clean
Coast Act of 2005 (Senate Bill (SB) 771) to address and reduce sewage
and other pollution discharges from large oceangoing vessels with
sufficient holding tank capacity. SB 771 directed the State Board to
submit an application to the EPA seeking prohibition of sewage
discharges from large oceangoing vessels with ``sufficient holding tank
capacity'' to contain sewage while the vessels are within the marine
waters of the State. In enacting this legislation, the State found that
California's coastal waters warrant a higher level of protection and
determined that protection and enhancement of coastal water quality
requires a reduction in vessel sewage discharges to the State's coastal
waters. The legislation also provided that ``[i]t is not the
Legislature's intent to establish for the marine waters of the State a
no discharge zone for sewage from all vessels, but only for a class of
vessels.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ California State Assembly Bill 2672, Section 1(c).
    \10\ California Senate Bill 771, Chapter 588, Section 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information submitted by the State in its application for this
NDZ (available in the docket for today's proposal) documents the
importance of California's marine waters, the sensitivity of all of
California's marine waters to sewage discharges, and the need for the
proposed NDZ to protect and enhance those waters.

IV. Who is affected by this rule?

    The proposed rule would completely prohibit the discharge of sewage
(whether treated or not) from all large passenger vessels, as defined
by 46 U.S.C. 2101(22), of 300 gross tons or more and which have berths
or overnight accommodations, and private, commercial, government, and
military oceangoing vessels of 300 gross tons or more. The State's
definition of large passenger vessels in AB 2672 excluded all
noncommercial, government and military vessels, treating them as
``oceangoing ships.'' For this proposed rule EPA uses the generally
applicable definition of ``passenger vessel'' from Title 46 of the US
Code, but, like the State, applies the rule only to passenger vessels
of 300 gross tons or more and which have berths or overnight
accommodations. A large oceangoing vessel means a private, commercial,
government, or military vessel of 300 gross tons or more.
    Certain Department of Defense (DoD) vessels and activities may be
exempt from these requirements. Pursuant to CWA Section 312(d), the
Secretary of

Defense promulgated DoD 4715.06-R1 ``Regulations on Vessels Owned or
Operated by the Department of Defense'' (January 2005), which explains
the circumstances under which DoD may exempt its vessels from the
sewage discharge requirements of Section 312, including NDZs, because
compliance would excessively and unreasonably detract from the vessel's
military characteristics, effectiveness, or safety, and not be in the
interest of national security. Exempted vessels are nonetheless
required to limit sewage discharges into U.S. navigable waters,
territorial seas, and NDZs to the maximum extent practicable without
endangering the health, safety, or welfare of the crew or other
personnel aboard.
    The State legislation limits the prohibition on discharges of
sewage to large oceangoing vessels with ``sufficient holding tank
capacity.'' SB 771 defined ``sufficient holding tank capacity'' to mean
a holding tank of sufficient capacity to contain sewage while the
oceangoing ship is within the marine waters of the State.\11\ For the
purposes of this proposed rule, ``sufficient holding tank capacity''
means two days or more of sewage holding capacity based on the ability
to hold at least two day's sewage while in State marine waters. A
suitable holding tank is a tank that was designed, constructed, and
certified by the ship's flag administration to hold sewage. Two days of
sewage holding capacity is consistent with California State Lands
Commission 2006 Vessel Survey Data, required under SB 771, that showed
oceangoing vessel port calls averaged two days in duration.\12\ The two
day duration was established based on this data and through
consultation with the State. For purposes of this proposed rule, the
two-day holding tank capacity would be determined by multiplying the
crew capacity of a vessel by the average sewage generation rate of 8.4
gallons of sewage per day, per person.\13\ Oceangoing vessel capacity
is determined by: (1) A certificate of inspection issued by the US
Coast Guard for US flagged vessels; or (2) a MARPOL Annex 4 certificate
issued by the signatory State for foreign flagged vessels. For either
certificate, the maximum number of passengers and crew is identified
for the vessel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ California Senate Bill 771, Chapter 588, Section 6
(72401(a)).
    \12\ California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey.
    \13\ EPA's December 29, 2008 Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment
Report found that average reported sewage generation rates were 8.4
gallons/day/person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. EPA's Determination That the Protection and Enhancement of the
Quality of California Coastal Waters Requires This NDZ

    Importance of California Waters: California's coastal waters
contain a wide variety of unique, nationally important marine
environments that support rich biological communities and a wide range
of recreational, commercial, conservation, research, educational, and
aesthetic values. Coastal areas contain the greatest variety of
habitats in California, including tidepools, estuaries, embayments,
headlands, sandy beaches, mudflats, tidal wetlands, eelgrass beds, kelp
forests, and deep ocean floor. California's highly varied marine
environments support high levels of biological diversity and habitat
for several dozen species listed as endangered, threatened, or of
concern under Federal or State law, including 10 species of marine
mammals, 4 species of anadromous fish, and 9 species of sea birds. The
State has also established essential habitat along much of the coast
for nearly 100 species of fish.
    The unique values associated with California's coastal marine
environment have been recognized through the creation of a network of
more than 200 protected areas, reserves, sanctuaries, and monuments
that together afford special resource protection status to the vast
majority of California coastal waters. For example, the four Federally
designated National Marine Sanctuaries (Cordell Bank, Gulf of the
Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands) in California occupy
approximately one-third of the coastline and over 9,373 square miles of
marine waters (1,726 within State waters) while the California Coastal
National Monument protects more than 20,000 small islands, reefs, and
pinnacles. The National Park Service manages 6 park facilities along
the California coast including the Channel Islands and Redwood National
Parks and Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Thirteen national
wildlife refuges and 22 marine reserves have been established along the
California coast, several of which cover substantial portions of marine
embayments and estuarine areas. Three National Estuarine Research
Reserves have been designated under the Coastal Zone Management Act as
a partnership between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the State, including San Francisco Bay;
Elkhorn Slough; and Tijuana River. NOAA, has also established Essential
Fish Habitat for several species along the entire California coast. The
State has designated more than 80 Marine Protected Areas, 34 Areas of
Special Biological Significance--Water Quality Protection Areas, 14
Ecological Reserves, 17 State and University of California Reserves, 20
Marine Refuges, and 14 Underwater Parks and Preserves intended to
preserve and enhance living marine resources, cultural and historical
resources, and recreational and research opportunities. The State,
pursuant to CWA 312(f)(3), previously established ten individual NDZs
along the California coast. These NDZs were established after EPA made
the necessary finding that adequate pump out facilities are reasonably
available in the areas of the NDZs.
    Following establishment of the four federally recognized National
Marine Sanctuaries along the California Coast, NOAA promulgated
regulatory revisions to better address their concerns with potential
impacts from vessel discharges by prohibiting discharges of treated and
untreated sewage from cruise ships, and from large vessels with
sufficient holding tank capacity to hold sewage while within the
Sanctuaries.\14\ NOAA Stated that both treated and untreated vessel
sewage are more concentrated than domestic land-based sewage and may
introduce disease causing microorganisms into the marine environment
and increase nutrients that can lead to eutrophication and oxygen-
depleted ``dead zones.'' As shown in Table 1, the four National Marine
Sanctuaries combined with the ten existing NDZs account for over 33
percent of State marine waters (38 percent including proposed
expansions at the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank). These
protected areas account for approximately 51 percent of the 1,624 mile
California coastline. The proposed NDZ would apply to all State marine
waters and would increase protections by prohibiting treated sewage
discharges from the regulated classes of vessels in the remaining 67
percent of State marine waters. A map illustrating these areas can be
obtained or viewed at the EPA's Web site at ``http://www.epa.gov/
region9/water/no-discharge/overview.html, '' or by calling (415) 972-
3476.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Department of Commerce, NOAA, Federal Register/Vol. 73, No.
225 Published November 20, 2008/15 CFR part 922 and Federal
Register/Vol. 74, No. 11/Friday, January 16, 2009/Rules and
Regulations.

                    Table 1--Status of California Marine Waters and Treated Sewage Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Area of
                                                                 California       Percent of          Sewage
              California marine protected area                 marine waters      California        discharges
                                                                (miles \2\)      marine waters      prohibited
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Marine Sanctuaries*................................          **1,726             33.05              Yes
Existing NDZs***............................................               29              0.5               Yes
Proposed NDZ................................................            5,222            100            Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Office of NMS--NOAA, 2009.
**Area of existing NMS off California's coast and occurring outside State marine waters equals 7,647 square
  miles.
***EPA Region 9 GIS Center, September 2006.

    Waters along the California coastline (including islands) support
equally important economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. Many of
these values are heavily dependent upon clean water. California's ocean
economy is the largest in the nation and in 2000 alone, directly
provided approximately 408,000 jobs and contributed $42.9 billion to
gross State product. Seventy-seven percent of the State's population
lives on or near the coast and annually, over 150 million visitor-days
are spent at California beaches. California ranks first in the nation
as a travel destination and its beaches are the leading destination for
tourists. Coastal tourism and recreation generate more than $10 billion
per year in wages and more than $20 billion per year in gross State
product. In 2000, California's commercial marine fishing industry
generated more than $400 million.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ California's Ocean Economy, Report to the Resources Agency,
State of California, The National Ocean Economics Program, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California coastal waters are home to more than 889 water contact
recreational facilities including 450 public beaches, of which 63 are
units of the State Parks system. As noted above, over one third (138
out of 424) of beaches monitored in California in 2007 reported at
least one water quality advisory due to water quality standard
exceedances, and 104 incidents in 2005 resulted in 486 closure days at
California beaches because of elevated bacteria levels.
    The shellfish industry in California is vulnerable to water quality
impacts from pathogens from a variety of sources including vessel
discharges. For example, in 2007, the State adopted a TMDL (total
maximum daily load) for pathogens to protect recreational uses and
shellfish harvesting in Tomales Bay, north of San Francisco, where
leases exist for nearly half of the State's shellfish growers and
production of almost 20 percent of the State's oysters.\16,\ \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ West Marin Chamber of Commerce.
    \17\ The Tomales Bay Watershed Stewardship Plan: A Framework for
Action. Tomales Bay Watershed Council, July 2003. 137 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Coastal waters are increasingly more important for potable water
supply as desalination measures are used to meet demands. There are
more than 40 desalination plants in various stages of planning and
operation in California.\18\ Given that net potable water demand
exceeds supply in many years, it is anticipated that desalination will
increase as a means to meet California's projected population
growth.\19\ CWA Section 312(f)(4)(B) recognized the importance of
prohibiting vessel sewage near drinking water intakes by authorizing
States to apply to the EPA Administrator for establishment of NDZs at
intake zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ June 2007 Pacific Institute Desalination Report.
    \19\ April 5, 2006 State Application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pollutants Affecting California Marine Waters: These aquatic
resource uses and values are threatened and impaired by pollutant
discharges to most California coastal waters from a variety of land and
marine activities. In addition to marine vessel discharges, other
important pollutant sources include land-based wastewater treatment
plant ocean outfalls, stormwater discharges, rivers and streams,
thermal discharges from power plants, dredging and dredged material
disposal operations, wind transport, and construction activities.
Pollutants causing water quality impairment include chemicals, metals,
nutrients, pathogens, sediments, and heat. Table 2 shows the current
status of impaired water body segments along the California coast. In
California coastal waters, 222 beach and water body segments have been
designated as impaired under Section 303(d) of the CWA. Among the 222
segments, 592 pollutant-impairments that have been identified as
exceeding State water quality standards still require a TMDL limit.
TMDLs for an additional seventy-nine impairments have already been
approved by EPA.\20\ Information on impaired waters in California can
be found at EPA's National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDLs Web
site at ``http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/'', or by calling (415) 972-
3476.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 2006 CWA 303(d) List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 671 impairments, at least 162 are for pollutants commonly
associated with sewage, including nutrients, fecal coliform, and
pathogens. Pathogens alone account for approximately 120 miles of
impaired coast line in the State.

   Table 2--California Marine Impaired Water Body Segments and TMDLs*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Impairments
  Impaired water    Total pollutant    associated with   Approved  TMDL
  body  segments      impairments          sewage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            222                671                162                79
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*2006 CWA 303(d) list.

    Large Passenger Vessel Sewage Generation and Pollutants: Large
passenger vessels continue to increase in size and can now accommodate
as many as 6,300 passengers and 2,400 crew members.\21\ Because these
vessels generate large volumes of sewage, the State has requested that
all large passenger vessels of 300 gross tons or

greater, regardless of sewage holding capacity, be subject to the
proposed rule. As mandated by SB 771, in 2006 the California State
Lands Commission conducted a survey (2006 Vessel Survey) of large
passenger and large oceangoing vessels calling on California ports in
order to better understand vessel sewage generation and discharges.\22\
Based on the 33 large passenger vessels reporting, an average sized
passenger vessel holds nearly 2,900 passengers and crew (2,154 and 709
respectively). At a daily per person sewage generation rate of 8.4
gallons, an average sized large passenger vessel is capable of
generating as much as 24,360 gallons of sewage per day.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Royal Caribbean Press Release--Fast Facts Oasis of the
Seas/Allure of the Seas-http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/press-
materials.php.
    \22\ California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey data
was dictated under SB 771.
    \23\ California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey
reported 33 large passenger vessels making port calls in California
with an average 709 crew and 2,154 passengers for an average of
2,864 people on board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, 48 large passenger vessels made 788 calls to California
ports and spent an average of one day in port per arrival.\24\ As
illustrated in Table 3, at an estimated 24,360 gallons per day and an
average stay of one day, these vessels could potentially generate 19.2
million gallons of treated sewage annually while in State marine
waters. EPA has no way of verifying how much treated large passenger
vessel sewage is actually discharged in State marine waters; this
depends on actual numbers of passengers and crew and how much treated
sewage is discharged to treatment facilities on land and/or held for
discharge outside State waters. However, it is likely that a
significant portion of this estimated 19.2 million gallons is in fact
currently being discharged in State waters. The intent of this proposed
rule is to prohibit all sewage generated from large passenger vessels
from entering State marine waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Number and frequency of port calls for large passenger
vessels based on the January 27, 2009 State Application Addendum.

                         Table 3--California Large Passenger Vessel (LPV) Data for 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimated treated
                                                                             Estimated sewage     vessel sewage
      LPVs*           Passengers &       Port calls*        Average port     generation  (g/    generated while
                         crew**                                days**            day)***        in State waters
                                                                                (g/year)***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            48              2,900                788                  1             24,360         19,195,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* State's January 27, 2009 Application Addendum.
** State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey Data.
*** EPA calculations.

    Treated sewage discharges from vessels generally contain higher
concentrations of pollutants than discharges of treated sewage from
land-based wastewater treatment plants and can cause or contribute to
water quality impairments and impacts to highly sensitive marine
habitats. This can be attributed to lower dilution rates for large
passenger vessel sewage discharges, especially in cases where these
vessels employ vacuum flushing and conveyance to reduce water use.
    Based on data collected in 2000 for the Alaska Cruise Ship
Initiative (21 vessels), the average fecal coliform concentrations in
traditional Type II MSD effluent was 2.04 million MPN (most probable
number)/100 mL.\25\ As shown in Table 4, of the 92 samples collected,
51 exceeded EPA's performance standard for Type II effluent fecal
coliform count of 200 MPN/100 ml. Of the 92 samples collected, 35
exceeded 100,000 MPN/100 mL and 22 exceeded 1 million MPN/100 mL. The
range of fecal coliform concentrations ranged between <2 MPN/100 mL and
24 million MPN/100 mL. Based on these results, the average
concentration was as much as 20 times greater than un-treated municipal
wastewater (ranges from 10,000 to 100,000 MPN/100 mL) \26\ and over
10,000 times greater than the Federal MSD fecal coliform standard of
<200 MPN/100 mL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 2000 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, reported in 2008 EPA
Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. Two of the 21 vessels
sampled were using reverse osmosis treatment systems.
    \26\ 2003 Metcalf & Eddy Wastewater Engineering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2008 Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report found that Type
II MSD effluent concentrations of fecal coliform also could lead to
exceedences of EPA's 2006 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
(NRWQC) established for shellfish harvesting waters. This bacteria
standard States that median fecal coliform concentrations should not
exceed 14 MPN/100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of samples
exceeding 43 MPN/100 mL. EPA notes that these are ambient water quality
criteria not discharge standards, and that depending on the amount of
mixing, discharges exceeding the numeric level of the criterion at the
point of discharge would not necessarily lead to an exceedence of the
NRWQC. However, given the levels of fecal coliform in some of the
samples discussed above, sewage discharges from cruise ships could be
causing or contributing to violations of these NRWQC as well as State
water quality criteria. For example, California has adopted the NRWQC
for fecal coliform for shellfish in some coastal waters and for all
coastal waters has adopted criteria for contact recreation not to
exceed 200 MPN/100 mL with not more than 10 percent of samples
exceeding 400 MPN/100 mL.
    For suspended solids, values detected in effluent from Type II MSDs
were substantially higher than levels that would generally be
considered to comply with narrative NRWQC land-based discharge
standards. Data for residual chlorine concentrations from Type II MSDs
and advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTs) also exceeded levels
that would violate NWRQC standards if found in the ambient water. Site-
specific evaluations would be needed to determine whether these vessel
discharges would cause, have the potential to cause, or contribute to
non-attainment of water quality standards.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 2000 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, reported in 2008 EPA
Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.

    Table 4--Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Large Passenger Vessel
                                Effluent*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Federal type
  Number of        II MSD      Samples >200     Samples        Samples
   samples     standard (MPN/   MPN/100 ml   >100,000 MPN/   >1,000,000
                  100 ml)                        100 ml      MPN/100 ml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          92           <200             51             35            22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2000 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, reported in 2008 EPA Cruise Ship
  Discharge Assessment Report.

    Some large passenger vessels, especially those traveling to Alaska,
have installed AWTs that provide sewage treatment effectiveness greater
than Type I and II MSDs; however, the extent to which vessels operating
in California waters operate AWTs is unknown. In 2006, 23 of 28 large
passenger vessels that operated in Alaskan waters had AWTs to treat
both sewage and graywater in order to meet the more stringent discharge
requirements in effect there. Analyses of sampling results from 2003-
2005 indicate that AWTs are very effective in removing pathogens,
oxygen demanding substances, suspended solids, oil and grease, and
particulate metals.\28\ AWTs can remove some of the dissolved metals,
and can remove most volatile and semi-volatile organics to levels below
detection limits but achieve moderate nutrient removals and do not
remove all contaminants. According to EPA study results of a
representative vessel, toxic pollutants such as ammonia, copper,
nickel, selenium, and zinc were still discharged at concentrations
above their toxicity criteria.\29\ Again, site specific evaluations
would be needed to determine whether these vessel discharges would
cause, have the potential to cause, or contribute to non-attainment of
water quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Sampling results used include EPA sampled wastewater from
cruise ships in 2004 and 2005, cruise ship compliance monitoring
data for AWT effluent provided by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Coast Guard for 2003-2005, and
self-monitoring data for AWT effluent submitted by the cruise
industry in response to EPA's 2004 cruise ship survey.
    \29\ March 2006, EPA Sampling Episode Report Princess Cruise
Lines--Island Princess, Sampling Episode 6505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would address anticipated increases in large
passenger vessel sewage discharges as the industry grows in future
years. In 2007, nearly 1.5 million passengers departed from California
ports making the State the second largest cruise market in the
nation.\30\ This is significant considering North America accounted for
more than 75 percent of the overall global cruise market in 2009.
According to the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), 14 new
passenger vessels were introduced globally in 2009, 12 will be
introduced in 2010, with a total of 23 on order between 2010 and
2012.\31\ Large passenger vessel traffic is increasing as average
annual growth of the global cruise industry has continued at almost
eight percent since 1980. At this rate, the number of cruise ship
passengers is expected to triple to 15 million by 2020, while the
current number of cruise ships globally is projected to double by
2020,\32\ which will significantly increase the number of vessel trips
in California marine waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ July 8, 2009 letter from Congress to Administrator Jackson.
    \31\ CLIA Forecasts Continued Growth in Cruise Industry, January
12, 2010. http://www.travelpulse.com/Resources/
Editorial.aspx?n=66206.
    \32\ GlobalSecurity.org: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/
systems/ship/passenger-cruise.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vessel Sewage Generated from Large Oceangoing Vessels with two days
or more sewage holding capacity: Table 5 provides data used to
determine sewage discharges from large oceangoing vessels with two days
or more sewage holding capacity. Based on 2006 Vessel Survey data,
approximately 35 percent of the 1,384 vessels reporting had two days or
more of sewage holding capacity.\33\ This represents the approximate
percentage of large oceangoing vessels that would likely be subject to
the proposed rule. According to the State's application, in 2008, 1,753
large oceangoing vessels made 9,620 port calls to California. Based on
the 2006 survey, 35 percent of those port calls (3,367 port calls)
would have been made by vessels that are subject to the proposed
rule.34, 35 Larger oceangoing vessels typically carry 15 to
25 crew members. The average, based on the 2006 Vessel Survey, was 21
crew members. The average port stay was two days. At an average rate of
8.4 g/person/day, an oceangoing vessel with an average sized crew would
generate approximately 176 gallons of sewage per day. EPA multiplied
the 176 g/day average sewage generation rate, with the estimated 3,367
annual port calls, and the average two-day port visit, to estimate that
large oceangoing vessels calling on California ports generate almost
1.2 million gallons of sewage per year. As with large passenger
vessels, EPA does not have data for determining how much of this sewage
is discharged in State marine waters, however it is likely to be a
significant portion. Unlike large passenger vessels, EPA does not have
treated sewage sampling data for large oceangoing vessels, but lacking
any data that would demonstrate otherwise, we assume that sewage from
large oceangoing vessels has similar pollutant concentrations as large
passenger vessels. The intent of the proposed rule is to prohibit all
treated sewage from large oceangoing vessels with adequate holding
capacity from being discharged to State marine waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ According to the California State Lands Commission 2006
Vessel Survey, 35 percent of vessels had sewage capacity of two days
or more. This was extrapolated to estimate sewage capacity of
vessels calling in 2008 as reported in the State's January 27, 2009
Application Addendum.
    \34\ California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey.
    \35\ January 27, 2009 State Application Addendum.

                            Table 5--California Oceangoing Vessel (LOV) Data for 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Port calls by                                                      Sewage
                                     LOVs with                                                       Generated
     LOVs*         Port calls*      sufficient        Crew**       Average port     Sewage (g/    while in State
                                   holding tank                       days**          day)***       waters  (g/
                                    capacity***                                                      year)***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1,753            9,620           3,367              21               2             176       1,185,184
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* State's January 27, 2009 Application Addendum.
** State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey Data.

*** EPA calculations.

    Oceangoing vessel traffic is projected to increase significantly in
California marine waters. San Pedro Bay Ports in Los Angeles and Long
Beach comprise the highest volume port complex in the nation and
project a 44 percent increase in the volume of container throughput
between 2010 and 2020.\36\ Vessel container capacity will increase with
larger ships, but port calls are still projected to increase from
nearly 3,600 in 2007 to as many as 5,600 in 2020.\37\ The Port of
Oakland, the second highest volume port in the State and fourth in the
nation, hosted nearly 2,000 container ship calls in 2008 and is
forecast to increase cargo throughput approximately 5 percent each year
between now and 2017.\38\ This increase in vessel traffic will result
in increased generation of treated vessel sewage that could potentially
be discharged to State marine waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ San Pedro Bay Ports Long-Term Cargo Forecast, Mercer
Management Consulting, 2001.
    \37\ Container Vessel Forecast for San Pedro Bay Ports, Mercator
Transport Group, 2000.
    \38\ Port of Oakland Website: http://www.portofoakland.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vessels Not Covered by the NDZ: As described in Section IV of this
proposed rule, the State's application requested that the discharge
prohibitions be limited to a certain class of vessels. Vessels not
covered by the proposed rule include oceangoing vessels with less than
two days of sewage holding capacity, and vessels less than 300 gross
tons. Based on the State's 2006 Vessel Survey data and the number of
vessels calling to California ports in 2008, approximately 65 percent
(1,139) of the oceangoing vessels had less than two days of holding
capacity and would not be subject to the rule as proposed.\39\
Multiplying the estimated 176 g/day average sewage generation rate,
with the estimated 6,253 annual port calls, and the average two-day
port visit, EPA estimates that large oceangoing vessels without
adequate holding capacity generate approximately 2.2 million gallons of
sewage per year. The EPA and the State are aware that smaller vessels,
including recreational and smaller commercial vessels, also discharge
sewage to the State's coastal water. In deciding to request designation
of an NDZ applicable only to larger vessels as specified above, but
applicable to the entire California coast, the State legislature
determined that prohibiting discharge from the largest vessels would
provide a relatively efficient approach to reducing the vessel sewage
waste stream along the entire coast because these vessels generate a
significant amount of sewage compared to smaller vessels. Vessels
equipped with installed toilets are currently prohibited from
discharging untreated sewage in any navigable waters within 3 miles
from shore. Based on State estimates for 2006, approximately 80 percent
of the 841,000 recreational vessels in California did not have Type I
(flow through treatment device for vessels 65 feet or less) or Type II
MSDs and therefore would be prohibited from discharging sewage to State
marine waters.\40\ The remaining 20 percent (168,200) can discharge
treated sewage from their MSDs to State waters. Applying the State's
data for small vessel usage, two persons per vessel, an average of one
full ``recreation day'' (four 6-hour trips per year), and an 8.4
gallons of sewage per person per day, the total amount of treated
sewage potentially discharged from recreational vessels to State marine
waters in one year could amount to approximately 2.8 million gallons,
if all discharges were within State waters.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ California State Lands Commission 2006 Vessel Survey.
    \40\ January 27, 2009 State Application Addendum.
    \41\ January 27, 2009 State Application Addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to current MSD requirements, the ten NDZs previously
approved along the California coast address small vessel pollution in
high density recreational boating areas.\42\ Instead of seeking an NDZ
applicable to all vessels, the State legislation enacted companion
provisions designed to improve sewage pump out capacity and utilization
rates for vessel pump out facilities by recreational and small
commercial vessels as alternative approaches to reducing sewage
discharges from smaller vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ USEPA No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage: HTTP://
www.epa.gov/region09/water/no-discharge/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Effect on Current Vessel Sewage Controls

    Today's proposed rule does not alter existing vessel sewage
discharge prohibitions in California waters. All existing NDZs in
California remain in effect for all vessels operating in those waters.
    The proposed rule complements the discharge prohibitions recently
passed by NOAA for all four of California's NMSs. Those discharge
prohibitions were adopted pursuant to California's application to NOAA
and became effective March 9, 2009 for the Gulf of the Farallones,
Monterey Bay, and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries (74 FR 12088
(Mar. 23, 2009)) and March 19, 2009 for the Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary (74 FR 12087 (Mar. 23, 2009)). The new Sanctuary
management plans prohibit ``discharges/deposits of treated and
untreated sewage from vessels 300 gross registered tons or more, except
oceangoing ships without sufficient holding tank capacity to hold
sewage and graywater, respectively, while within the Sanctuary. Large
passenger vessels are not provided an exception and, therefore, are
prohibited from discharging/depositing treated or untreated sewage and
graywater in the Sanctuary.'' See Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Regulations; and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Regulations;
Final Rule, 73 FR 70488 (Nov. 20, 2008) and Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Final Rule, 74 FR 3216 (Jan. 16, 2009).
Like the Sanctuary prohibitions, today's proposed rule would not
require oceangoing vessels without sufficient holding tank capacity, as
defined, to hold treated vessel sewage while within State marine
waters.
    The four California National Marine Sanctuaries cover over 33
percent of all California marine waters (nearly 38 percent with
proposed Cordell bank and Gulf of the Farallones expansions). This
proposal would cover all California waters. The discharge prohibitions
in California's National Marine Sanctuaries cover a total of 1,726
square miles of ocean (and would be expanded by almost 232 square miles
with the proposed expansions) in addition to nearly 30 square miles of
existing NDZs. In total, sewage discharges are currently prohibited
within 1,755 square miles of the 5,222 square miles of California
marine waters. Today's prohibition would apply to the entire 5,222
square miles.
    Other Existing Vessel Pollutant Controls: Following several
confirmed sewage discharge violations, the Cruise Lines International
Association (CLIA), representing the 25 major cruise lines serving
North America, adopted voluntary industry standards to address cruise
industry waste management. Under the CLIA 2006 ``Cruise Industry Waste
Management Practices and Procedures'', Association members have agreed
to comply with requirements to process all sewage through an MSD
certified in accordance with U.S. or international regulations prior to
discharge. For ships that do not have

AWTs traveling regularly on itineraries beyond territorial coastal
waters, (CLIA) standards provide that discharge will take place only
when the ship is more than four miles from shore and when the ship is
traveling at a speed of not less than six knots (for vessels operating
under sail, or a combination of sail and motor propulsion, the speed
shall not be less than four knots). For vessels whose itineraries are
fully within U.S. territorial waters, CLIA standards provide that
discharge shall comply fully with U.S. and individual State legislation
and regulations.
    To EPA's knowledge, CLIA voluntary measures are not monitored or
reported and the degree of compliance with these voluntary measures is
unknown. The State of California states that existing MSD requirements
and voluntary discharge limitations are not fully effective.\43\ While
the number of vessels actually discharging partially or untreated
sewage in State marine waters can only be estimated, the Government
Accountability Office 2000 report to Congress \44\ and the State
confirm discharges of untreated sewage from large passenger vessels and
other oceangoing vessels in State marine waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ April 5, 2006 State Application.
    \44\ Marine Pollution, Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution
by Cruise Ships but Important Issues Remain, GAO 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A majority of large oceangoing vessels operating in U.S. waters are
registered in foreign countries and subject to the ``International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified
by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto'' (``MARPOL''). The principal
international instrument regulating discharges of sewage from vessels
is Annex IV to MARPOL. While the United States is not a Party to MARPOL
Annex IV, and thus is not bound by its provisions, a vessel flying the
flag of a country who is a Party to Annex IV remains subject to the
Annex's requirements (as implemented and enforced by the flag State) no
matter where the vessel sails, including when the vessel is operating
in U.S. waters.
    Annex IV applies to subject vessels engaged in international
voyages of 400 gross tonnage and above, and to subject vessels of less
than 400 gross tonnage which are certified to carry more than 15
persons (passengers and crew). The Annex contains, among other
requirements, limits on the discharge of sewage into the sea, and
provisions for the survey and certification of a vessel's sewage
treatment device. In particular, Annex IV prohibits the discharge of
sewage into the sea except when:
    The vessel is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage from an
approved system at a distance of more than three miles (nm) from the
nearest land; or
    The vessel is discharging sewage which is not comminuted or
disinfected (i.e., untreated sewage), at a distance of more than 12 nm
from the nearest land, provided that sewage that has been stored in
holding tanks, or sewage originating from spaces containing living
animals, is not discharged instantaneously but at a moderate rate when
the ship is en route and proceeding at a speed of at least four knots;
or
    The vessel is using a type-approved sewage treatment plant (STP)
that has been certified to meet the applicable International Maritime
Organization's recommendations and regulations, the test results are
laid down in the ship's International Sewage Pollution Prevention
Certificate, and the effluent does not produce visible floating solids
or cause discoloration of the surrounding water.

VII. Conclusion

    EPA has reviewed the State's application for the establishment of
an NDZ, and other information summarized above, and has determined that
an NDZ is required to protect and enhance the quality of these waters.
As shown in Table 6, by prohibiting large passenger vessels and large
oceangoing vessels with two days or more of sewage holding tank
capacity from discharging sewage in State marine waters, a significant
pollutant waste stream of up to 20.4 million gallons of treated sewage
per year would be prohibited from waters that support a variety of
unique, nationally important and biologically significant environments
that contribute to California's recreational, economic, and aesthetic
values. As a result, improved water quality would likely benefit human
health by reducing pollutant exposure from recreation and provide
benefits to wildlife and their habitats, commercial fisheries and shell
bed operations, and water intakes for desalination plants.

                      Table 6--California Vessel Sewage Contributions and NDZ Prohibitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Treated vessel  sewage         Treated vessel  sewage
                   Sewage Source                        generation  in State       prohibited by  this proposed
                                                       waters  (gallons/year)          NDZ  (gallons/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Passenger Vessels............................  19.2 million..............  19.2 million.
Large Oceangoing Vessels (with two days or more      1.2 million...............  1.2 million.
 sewage holding capacity).
Combined Large Passenger and Large Oceangoing        20.4 million..............  20.4 million.
 Vessels.
Not addressed by this rule
    Large Oceangoing Vessels without holding         2.2 million...............  No Change.
     capacity.
    Recreational Vessels...........................  2.8 million...............  No Change.
    Combined Large Oceangoing Vessels without        5 million.................  No Change.
     holding capacity and Recreational Vessels \45\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The proposed rule would not apply to non-recreational oceangoing vessels less than 300 gross tons in size.
  Insufficient data were available to estimate sewage generation from these smaller oceangoing vessels. Based on
  a review of available data describing the sizes of oceangoing vessels operating in US ports, it appears very
  few oceangoing vessels are less than 300 gross tons in size (see, e.g., Commercial Marine Activity for Deep
  Sea Ports in the United States, EPA420-R-99-020, September, 1999). Therefore, we do not expect that sewage
  discharges from oceangoing vessels less than 300 gross tons are significant in comparison with other types of
  oceangoing vessels.

    Section 312(f)(4)(A) states ``If the EPA Administrator determines
upon application by a State that the protection and enhancement of the
quality of specified waters within such State requires such a
prohibition, he

shall, by regulation completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of
any sewage (whether treated or not) into such waters.'' This authority
has been delegated to EPA Regional Administrators. On April 5, 2006,
the California State Water Resources Control Board, pursuant to State
statutory mandates, requested that EPA Region 9 establish an NDZ for
all State waters along the California coast that applies to large
passenger vessels of 300 gross tons or more, and oceangoing vessels of
300 gross tons or more that have two days or more of sewage holding
capacity. For the reasons discussed above, the EPA Region 9
Administrator finds that the protection and enhancement of the quality
of California's marine waters requires the requested NDZ.

VIII. Public Comment

    EPA invites public comment on all aspects of the proposed rule and
will accept all comments for the next 60 days. Particular parts of the
rule may benefit from attention and comment from reviewers with
expertise and knowledge and opinions on the following subjects: EPA's
conclusion that the protection and enhancement of California State
marine waters require the requested prohibition on sewage discharges;
EPA's prohibition of sewage discharges from specific classes of
vessels; EPA's use of a two-day sewage holding capacity, and the
generation rate of 8.4 gallons per day per person, as the basis for
applying the proposed rule to large oceangoing vessels; the definitions
used in the proposed rule, including the definition of ``large
oceangoing vessel'' to include private, commercial, government or
military vessels of 300 gross tons or more; EPA's economic analysis for
vessel retrofit and operational costs; and whether vessels subject to
the proposed rule are owned by companies that are ``small entities''
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis, summarized in Table 7, of
the potential costs associated with this action to determine whether
the rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy or a sector of
the economy.
    Vessels that are equipped with MSDs and that navigate throughout
California State Waters are already subject to the EPA MSD Standard at
40 CFR part 140 and the U.S. Coast Guard MSD Standard at 33 CFR part
159. These standards prohibit the overboard discharge of untreated
vessel sewage in State waters and require that vessels with installed
toilets be equipped with U.S. Coast Guard certified MSDs which either
retain sewage or treat sewage to the applicable standards. There are
three types of MSDs, but only Type II and Type III MSDs apply to
vessels affected by this rule.
    Vessels subject to this rule include large passenger vessels of 300
gross tons or more and oceangoing vessels of 300 gross tons or more
with two days or more sewage holding capacity. According to the State's
2006 Vessel Survey data, approximately 35 percent of oceangoing vessels
that made port calls in California had holding capacity for at least
two days and, therefore, would be subject to the proposed rule. Based
on an average two-day port call, EPA does not anticipate oceangoing
vessels subject to the proposed rule would be required to employ
operational or structural changes, such as making special trips beyond
State marine waters to discharge, or increasing their holding capacity.
If vessels subject to the proposed rule were to stay in State marine
waters for a period of time beyond their sewage holding capacity
operators may choose to make additional trips to discharge beyond State
waters, and/or vessel owners may decide to retrofit their current
holding tank capacities in order to comply with the rule.
    Although the proposed rule would not require vessel owners to
retrofit any oceangoing vessels, EPA evaluated the potential costs of
retrofitting holding tanks to increase capacity. Based on an industry
estimate obtained by the EPA, the cost of holding tank retrofits could
be approximately $100,000 each but would vary from vessel to
vessel.\46\ EPA was unable to estimate an annual cost of retrofits for
oceangoing vessels subject to the proposed rule. Data was not available
for determining how many oceangoing vessel owners with vessels subject
to the proposed rule might choose to implement retrofits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Estimate from third party industry group, 11/3/2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to responses to EPA's 2004 cruise ship survey, large
passenger vessels operating in Alaska had an average of 62 hours of
sewage holding capacity greatly exceeding average port stays of one day
\47\ However, according to the State's 2006 Vessel Survey 40 percent of
the large passenger vessels had less than one day holding capacity. As
a result, some large passenger vessels may need to install sewage
holding capacity retrofits to avoid discharging sewage in State marine
waters. Based on 2008 vessel calls, if 40 percent, or 48, large
passenger vessels chose to retrofit their vessels at a cost of $200,000
per vessel, the resulting cost would be approximately $3.8 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 2008 EPA Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to expanding holding capacity, vessels that would
be regulated by the proposed rule may choose to comply by traveling
outside of State marine waters to discharge sewage. For large passenger
vessels, EPA estimates the cost of each trip would be approximately
$2,000. This estimate assumes the use of 800 gallons of diesel fuel at
$2.50 per gallon to travel beyond 3 miles, discharge, and return to
port at a cruising speed of 25 knots.\48\ Based on the 2008 data, if
all 788 port calls required extra trips to discharge sewage outside
State marine waters, the total fuel cost would be approximately $1.6
million per year. This is likely a conservative estimate considering
there are volunteer vessel speed reduction programs in place and under
development along the California coast that provide incentives to
vessel operators to reduce speeds within 20 nautical miles of the coast
to reduce air pollutant emissions.\49\ Lower speeds could reduce fuel
consumption costs by as much as 30 percent.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Cunard Queen Elizabeth 2 Technical Information estimated
fuel consumption rate of 49.5 feet per gallon: http://
www.cunard.com/uploads/QE2_Tech.pdf.
    \49\ Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Vessel Speed Reduction
Program: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/ogv.asp.
    Port of San Diego Voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction Program
Showing Signs of Success: http://www.portofsandiego.org/environment/
1728-voluntary-vessel-speed-reduction-program-showing-signs-of-
success.html.
    \50\ New York Times, February 16, 2010, Slow Trip Across Sea
Aids Profit and Environment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/
business/energy-environment/17speed.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vessels calling at ports within the San Francisco Bay, and Suisun
Bay further inland, would have to travel beyond 3 miles to discharge
beyond the NDZ limit. At most, a small percentage of oceangoing vessels
calling at the Shell

Oil Terminal of Martinez and Port of Benicia would need to travel
approximately 45 miles each way to go beyond the 3 mile NDZ limit and
back. Vessels calling at the Ports of Oakland and Richmond would travel
approximately 18 miles each way and for the Port of San Francisco, 9
miles each way. Greater travel distances to discharge beyond the NDZ
limit could incur increased costs for this small percentage of vessels.
    EPA was unable to estimate an annual cost of special trips for
oceangoing vessels to discharge beyond State marine waters. Data was
not available for determining how many oceangoing vessel owners with
vessels subject to the proposed rule might choose to implement these
operational changes.

        Table 7--Potential Industry Costs From the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Discharging outside
                                    Expansion of       of State marine
                                  holding tank\**\      waters \***\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Oceangoing Vessels (with   $100,000/vessel..  $2,000/trip.
 two days or more sewage
 holding capacity)\*\.
Large Passenger Vessels........  $3.8 million.....  $1.6 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Oceangoing vessels subject to proposed rule that would make
  operational or structural changes could not be determined.
\**\ One-time cost estimate.
\***\ Annual cost estimates.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Since today's rule would not
establish or modify any information and record keeping requirements, it
is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed regulation/
rule on small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities subject to the requirements of this proposed rule
fall under Deep Sea Freight Transportation (NAICS Code 483111) and Deep
Sea Passenger Transportation (NAICS 483112) classifications.\51\ The US
Small Business Administration size standard for these businesses is 500
or fewer employees. To determine the size of companies that own large
passenger and large oceangoing vessels that call at California ports,
the EPA reviewed owner profiles for all large passenger vessels and
several oceangoing vessels that responded to the 2006 vessel survey.
Based on this review, it was determined that no large passenger and
oceangoing vessels that call at California ports are owned by companies
that employ 500 or fewer people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Small Business
Size Standards, North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS)), http://www.sba.gov/size).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year,
as demonstrated above in section A, Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review.
    Because the rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it is also not
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the Act. Small
governments are subject to the same requirements as other entities
whose duties result from this rule and they have the same ability as
other entities to retain and pump out treated sewage or discharge
outside of the designated zones.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Section 312(f) of the CWA generally
preempts State regulation of sewage discharges in State waters. An NDZ
allows the State to seek protection of its State waters that it would
otherwise be preempted from providing on its own. The State of
California is requesting that EPA take action to designate all State
waters as an NDZ under CWA Sec.  312(f)(4)(A). Therefore, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have any known tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000). The
only expected impact on tribal rights or responsibilities is the
improvement of ocean water quality. EPA has notified all California
tribes with coastal reservations of this proposed action. EPA will
consider any comments on this proposed action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks & Safety Risks

    The order applies to economically significant rules under E.O.
12866 that concern an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. This action
is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is
not economically significant as defined in EO 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. The proposed rule would further regulate and reduce
pollutants from sewage in California marine waters thus reducing the
risk of exposure to all populations, including those covered under this
Executive order.

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 140

    Environmental protection, Sewage disposal, Vessels.

    Dated: August 25, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    In consideration of the foregoing, EPA is proposed to be amend part
140, chapter 1 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 140--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 140 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1322.

    2. Section 140.4 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(2)to read as
follows:

Sec.  140.4  Complete prohibition.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) For the marine waters, of the State of California, including
the territorial sea measured from the baseline as determined in
accordance with the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone and extending seaward a distance of three miles, and
also including all enclosed bays and estuaries subject to tidal
influences from the Oregon border (41.999325 North Latitude, 124.212110
West Longitude, decimal degrees, NAD 1983) to the Mexican border
(32.471231 North Latitude, 117.137814 West Longitude, decimal degrees,
NAD 1983), the discharge of sewage (whether treated or not) from large
passenger vessels and from large oceangoing vessels that have two days
or more holding capacity is completely prohibited pursuant to CWA
section 312(f)(4)(A). A map illustrating these waters can be obtained
from EPA or viewed at http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/no-discharge/
overview.html.
    (ii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
    (A) A ``large passenger vessel'' means a passenger vessel, as
defined in section 2101(22) of title 46, United States Code, of 300
gross tons or more, that has berths or overnight accommodations for
passengers.
    (B) A ``large oceangoing vessel'' means a private, commercial,
government, or military vessel of 300 gross tons or more.
    (C) Two days of holding capacity is the ability to hold in a
holding tank of suitable design, construction and purpose, as
determined by the vessel's flag Administration, at least two days of
sewage per the vessel's crew capacity at a generation rate of 8.4
gallons per day per person.
    (D) Oceangoing vessel crew capacity is determined by: a certificate
of inspection issued by the US Coast Guard for US flagged vessels; or a
MARPOL Annex 4 certificate issued by the signatory State for foreign
flagged vessels. For either certificate, the maximum number of
passengers and crew is identified for the vessel.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-21950 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ÿWPCL
ûÿ2BJ#|xÐ°°ÐÐÐÐÐØ	pÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°ÐÐÃÃFrom: ÄÄÁØ	Ø<EMAIL_ADDRESS>ÃÃTo:ÄÄÁØ	Ø	ÁMartin Rollins<EMAIL_ADDRESS>ÃÃDate: ÄÄÁØ	Ø	Á5/27/05 12:17:24 PM
ÃÃSubject: ÄÄÁØ	Ø	ÁRe: Creosote Industry Form R Guidance

ÐÐ°`	¸hÀpÈ 	x
Ð (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? AøCPF¨HKXM°OR`T¸VYh[À]`°ÐÐDear Martin:

Thank you for sharing this draft letter. As you correctly noted below,
my review does not constitute approval or validation of the guidance or
statements in this draft letter. One comment I have is whether you want
to include a small statement or section on how your sampling did not
detect a "first flush" effect and what that means for operators as they
attempt to convert inches of rainfall and pollutant concentration data
to TRI reported releases.

Sincerely,

Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water
ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
fx:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

             Martin Rollins
             <martinrollins@h
             mrollins.com>                                           To
                                      Carey Johnston/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
             05/27/2005 10:11                                        cc
             AM
                                                                Subject
                                      Creosote Industry Form R Guidance

Carey,  The attached file is the guidance that was sent to the industry
earlier this week.  I would be interested if you have any comments on
this guidance.  I know that you can't "approve" it, but if you have any
suggestions or comments please let me know.

Martin Rollins, P. E.
H. M. Rollins Company, Inc.
228-832-1738(See attached file: FormRGuide (2).doc)
ÐÐØ	ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ°ÐÐ
ÃÃCC:ÄÄÁØ	Ø<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Betsy Bicknell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44835]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4334-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4334-DR), dated August 27, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: The amendment was issued on September 8, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael R.
Scott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Michael L. Parker as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20575 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 230)]
[Notices]
[Page 72134-72135]
[DOCID:fr01de05-58]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-07708]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Marlton Technologies,
Inc. To Withdraw Its Common Stock, No Par Value, From Listing and
Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC

November 25, 2005.
    On November 9, 2005, Marlton Technologies, Inc., a Pennsylvania
company (``Issuer''), filed an application with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to section 12(d) of the
Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder,\2\ to
withdraw its common stock, no par value (``Security''), from listing
and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 4, 2005, the Board of Directors (``Board'') of the
Issuer unanimously approved resolutions to withdraw the Security from
listing and registration on Amex. The Issuer stated that the Board is
taking such action for the following reasons: (i) The Board has
conducted a thorough review of the Issuer's current standing internally
and in the market and has determined that the costs to the Issuer of
public reporting company status outweigh the corresponding benefits;
(ii) the Board had voted to approve a plan to effect a 1 for 5,000
reverse stock split of the Security with the purpose of bringing the
number of record holders below 300 to allow the Issuer to deregister
the Security as a class under the Act; (iii) on September 28, 2005, the
Issuer filed a preliminary proxy statement with the Commission to
announce a special meeting of shareholders of the Issuer scheduled for
December 19, 2005 to seek shareholder approval of the proposed reverse
stock split; and (iv) provided that the reverse stock split is effected
and the number of holders of record of the Security falls below 300,
the Board has determined it to be in the Issuer's best interest to
deregister the Security from the Act. The Issuer stated that it expects
the Security to trade in the over-the-counter market and quote on the
Pink Sheets following the withdrawal of the Security from Amex.
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the
requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in
effect in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in which it is
incorporated, and providing written notice of withdrawal to Amex.
    The Issuer's application relates solely to withdrawal of the
Security from listing on the Amex and from registration under section
12(b) of the Act,\3\ and shall not affect its obligation to be
registered under section 12(g) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before December 20, 2005, comment
on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

the File Number 1-07708 or;

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

    All submissions should refer to File Number 1-07708. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help us 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/delist.shtml).

Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be
posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6733 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="24/04/2008 07:16:41 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 22928]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10345]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Change in Use of
Aeronautical Property at Tallahassee International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is requesting public
comment on a request by the City of Tallahassee to change a portion of
airport property from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use at the
Tallahassee International Airport, Tallahassee City, Florida. The
request consists of approximately 317.37 acres of vacant property
located on the western side of the airport property boundary. Present
fair market value of the property is $157,098 annually. Documents
reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by appointment only,
for inspection at the Tallahassee International Airport and the FAA
Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at Tallahassee
International Airport, and the FAA Orlando Airports District Office,
8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819. Written comments
on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: Pedro Blanco,
Community Planner, FAA Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark
Circle, Suite 524, Orlando, FL 32819.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Blanco, Community Planner, FAA
Orlando Airports District Office, 8427 SouthPark Circle, Suite 524,
Orlando, FL 32819.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2019-10345 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P