[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67469-67470]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24345]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4784-106]

Topsham Hydro Partners Limited Partnership (L.P.); Notice of
Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for license for the Pejepscot Hydroelectric
Project, located on the Androscoggin River in Sagadahoc, Cumberland,
and Androscoggin Counties in the village of Pejepscot and the town of
Topsham, Maine and has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (FEA)
for the project. No federal land is occupied by project works or
located within the project boundary.
    The FEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.

    The number of pages in the FEA exceeds the page limits set forth in
the Council on Environmental Quality's July 16, 2020 final rule, Update
to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (85 FR 43304). Noting the scope and
complexity of the proposed action and action alternatives, the Director
of the Office of Energy Projects, as our senior agency official, has
authorized this page limit exceedance for the EA.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the FEA via the internet through the Commission's
Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov/), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected], or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Ryan Hansen
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 2, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24345 Filed 11-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53480-53482]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87188; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-066]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Move
the Rules in Chapter XIII of the Currently Effective Rulebook, Which
Governs Net Capital Requirements, to Proposed Chapter 11 of the Shell
Structure for the Exchange's Rulebook

October 1, 2019
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 25, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to move the Rules in Chapter XIII of the currently effective Rulebook
(``current Rulebook''), which governs net capital requirements, to
proposed Chapter 11 of the shell structure for the Exchange's Rulebook
that will become effective upon the migration of the Exchange's trading
platform to the same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges (as
defined below) (``shell Rulebook''). The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In 2016, the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
(formerly named CBOE Holdings, Inc.) (``Cboe Global''), which is also
the parent company of Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired Cboe
EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``BZX
Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with
Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges''). The Cboe Affiliated Exchanges are working to align
certain system functionality, retaining only intended differences,
between the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, in the context of a technology
migration. Cboe Options intends to migrate its trading platform to

the same system used by the Cboe Affiliated Exchanges, which the
Exchange expects to complete on October 7, 2019. In connection with
this technology migration, the Exchange has a shell Rulebook that
resides alongside its current Rulebook, which shell Rulebook will
contain the Rules that will be in place upon completion of the Cboe
Options technology migration.
    The Exchange proposes to relocate current Chapter XIII, which
governs net capital requirements, to proposed Chapter 11 in the shell
Rulebook. The Exchange notes that in addition to relocating the net
capital requirement rules to proposed Chapter 11 in the shell Rulebook,
the proposed rule change deletes the rules from the current Rulebook.
The proposed rule change relocates the rules as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Current rule                        Proposed rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 13.1 (Minimum Requirements).......  Rule 11.1 (Minimum
                                          Requirements).
Rule 13.2 (``Early Warning''             Rule 11.2 (``Early Warning''
 Notification Requirements).              Notification Requirements).
Rule 13.3 (Power of President to Impose  Rule 11.3 (Power of President
 Restrictions).                           to Impose Restrictions).
Rule 13.4 (Joint Back Office             Rule 11.4 (Joint Back Office
 Participants).                           Participants).
Rule 13.5 (Customer Portfolio Margin     Rule 11.5 (Customer Portfolio
 Accounts).                               Margin Accounts).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will not
amend the relocated rules other than to update their rule numbers,
conform paragraph structure and number/lettering format to that of the
shell Rulebook, and make cross-reference changes to shell rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated, the proposed rule change makes no substantive changes to
the rules. The proposed rule change is merely intended to relocate the
Exchange's rules to the shell Rulebook and update their numbers,
paragraph structure, including number and lettering format, and cross-
references to conform to the shell Rulebook as a whole in anticipation
of the technology migration on October 7, 2019. As such, the proposed
rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest, by improving the way the Exchange's
Rulebook is organized, making it easier to read, and, particularly,
helping market participants better understand the rules of the
Exchange, which will also result in less burdensome and more efficient
regulatory compliance.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
intended as a competitive change, but rather, seeks to make non-
substantive rule changes in relocating the rules and updating cross-
references to shell rules in anticipation of the October 7, 2019
technology migration. The Exchange also does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any undue burden on competition
because the relocated rule text is exactly the same as the Exchange's
current rules, all of which have all been previously filed with the
Commission.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
Because this proposal does not make any substantive changes to the
rules but only moves them into the shell Rulebook, the Commission
designates a shorter time under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) by waiving the
five business prefiling period for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is appropriate
because, as the Exchange discussed above, its proposal does not make
any substantive changes to the Exchange Rules, but merely relocates net
capital rules to the shell Rulebook that the Exchange wishes to
maintain post migration. Accordingly, its proposal is designed to
preserve its net capital rules after October 7, 2019. The Commission
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because the
proposal does not raise any new or novel issues and makes only non-
substantive changes to the rules. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the

operative delay and designates the proposal as operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2019-066 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-066. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-066 and should be submitted on
or before October 28, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21729 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Memorandum Date: February 22, 2006 Subject: Effect of Benzene Control on Gasoline Quality From: Lester Wyborny, Engineering Specialist Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U. S. Environmental Protection Agency To: Docket EPA HQ OAR 2005 0036 The refinery by refinery modeling tool used to estimate the cost of benzene control for the proposal estimates the change in benzene levels, but does not estimate the changes in other fuel qualities. 1 While their effects are not expected to be large, changes in other fuel qualities need to be understood to account for their impact on emissions. The purpose for this note is to summarize an analysis conducted for to assess the changes in other gasoline qualities associated with a benzene control standard. This information, along with the change in benzene levels in each PADD, was used to estimate changes in total air toxics emissions in the air quality analysis.

The analysis to estimate the effect of benzene control on other fuel qualities relies on the LP refinery modeling work conducted by Abt Associates. Based on the capacities of gasoline producing units within refineries, the estimated volumes of fuel produced and the constraints placed on fuel quality, the LP refinery model estimates the volumes of gasoline blendstocks used to manufacture gasoline. Within the LP refinery model, each gasoline blendstock is assigned the Complex Model qualities including RVP, percent benzene, total aromatics, olefins, and oxygen, and E200 and E300 ( percent of gasoline which boils off at 200 and 300 degrees Fahrenheit). When blending up several different gasoline types, the LP refinery model volume weights the blendstocks together in a way that ensures that each gasoline type complies with all specifications and standards. When the refinery model is establishing the blendstock mix for each gasoline type, it simultaneously is estimating the Complex Model gasoline qualities for each gasoline type. The gasoline types modeled by the LP refinery model include:

 Conventional gasoline,  Ethanol blended conventional gasoline,  7.8 psi Low RVP gasoline,  7.0 psi Low RVP gasoline,  Reformulated gasoline with MTBE, and  Reformulated gasoline with ethanol.

1 Consult Chapter 9 of the RIA to further understand the refinery modeling techniques used to model benzene control conducted for this proposed rulemaking.. The LP refinery modeling study modeled benzene reductions in summertime gasoline in regions called Petroleum Administrative Districts for Defense ( PADD). The PADDs modeled include PADD 1, PADD 2, PADD 3, and PADD 4 and 5 together. For each PADD, the refinery model first estimates gasoline production in a future year without the benzene control   this case is called a reference case. A benzene control case was modeled incremental to the reference case which in this case is an average 0.50 volume percent benzene standard. The change in gasoline qualities between the reference case and benzene control case can be used to estimate the change in gasoline quality associated with benzene control. The benzene control standard did not match the proposed benzene control standard so the change in gasoline quality in the modeling runs could not be used to directly project changes in gasoline quality associated with the proposed benzene control standard. Instead correlations were made between benzene reductions and changes in other gasoline qualities that would be used with the modeled benzene reductions associated with the proposed rule. The other regulations under which this benzene control case was run are consistent with the regulatory situation in 2004. This scenario includes state MTBE bans in California, New York and Connecticut, but MTBE use occurs in the rest of RFG and on the East and Gulf Coast. Also in this scenario, there was no renewable fuels standard. This scenario is consistent with the regulatory assumptions which formed the basis for the fuel quality information used in the air quality analysis.

Tables 1  4 provide the gasoline qualities for the various gasoline types making up the gasoline pool for the reference case and 0.50 volume percent benzene control case in each PADD. Table 5 contains the weighted average gasoline qualities for PADDs 1   4. To understand the correlations between changes in benzene levels and changes in the other fuel qualities, we provide a ratio for the change in each of the other fuel qualities divided by the change in benzene. We provide the correlations for each PADD for RFG, CG and for a volume weighted average of RFG and CG. We also provide the correlations for a volumeweighted average of all the PADDs for RFG, CG and the entire pool. We did not provide these correlations for the low RVP gasoline blends because their very small volumes usually result in very poor correlations due to large changes in gasoline blending in the control case relative to the reference case. Instead, we volume weighted the gasoline qualities for the low RVP cases with the rest of conventional gasoline. Table 1  Summary of Reference Case and Benzene Control Case Gasoline Qualities and Correlations for Benzene Control for PADD 1 2010 Reference Case ( no Additional Benzene Control) 2010 Control Case with 0.50 vol% Benzene Control Standard Change in Qualities per Change in Bz Conventional Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline CG & RFG Conventional Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline CG & RFG 9.0 RVP 7.8 RVP CG Avg. MTBEBlended Etoh Blended RFG Avg. Avg. 9.0 RVP 7.8 RVP CG Avg. MTBEBlended Etoh Blended RFG Avg. Avg. CG RFG Pool RVP 8.7 7.6 8.41 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.5 8.7 7.6 8.4 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.5 0 0 0 Oxygen 0 0 0 2.1 3.5 2.6 1.6 0 0 0 2.1 3.5 2.6 1.6 0 0 0 Aromatics 34.5 36.0 34.9 21.5 20.2 21.1 26.5 34.5 36.0 34.9 21.5 19.4 20.8 26.4 0 2.39 0.73 Benzene 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.70 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.49

Olefins 15.1 14.8 15.0 13.0 14.0 13.3 14.0 14.7 16.0 15.0 13.0 14.0 13.3 14.0  0.04 0  0.03 Sulfur 27 12 23 27 29 28 26 24 22 24 27 29 27.7 26.0  0.99 0  0.69 E200 43.5 39.7 42.5 48.7 46.7 48.0 45.9 42.8 42.8 42.6 48.2 46.2 47.5 45.6  0.37 4.55 1.15 E300 81.9 77.4 80.7 82.3 83.6 82.7 81.9 83.4 75.0 81.2 81.8 83.3 82.3 81.9  1.29 3.95 0.33 Volume 251 88 339 349 171 520 859 251 88 339 349 171 520 859

Table 2  Summary of Reference Case and Benzene Control Case Gasoline Qualities and Correlations for Benzene Control for PADD 2 2010 Reference Case ( no Additional Benzene Control) 2010 Control Case with 0.50 vol% Benzene Control Standard Change in Qualities per Change in Bz Conventional Gasoline RFG Pool Conventional Gasoline RFG Pool CG RFG Pool 9.0 RVP CG w Etoh 7.8 RVP 7.0 RVP CG Avg. Avg. Avg. 9.0 RVP CG w Etoh 7.8 RVP 7.0 RVP CG Avg. Avg. Avg.

RVP 8.7 8.7 7.6 6.8 8.4 6.8 8.2 8.7 8.7 6.8 7.6 8.3 6.8 8.2 0.10 0 0.10 Oxygen 0 3.5 0 0 0.8 3.5 1.1 0 3.5 0 0 0.8 3.5 1.1 0 0 0 Aromatics 34.0 19.0 34.0 35.0 30.7 22.7 29.8 29.1 33.2 25.0 34.0 29.6 21.5 28.6 1.31 3.64 1.42 Benzene 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37 0.83 1.31 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.5

Olefins 8.9 12.0 15.2 12.2 10.8 4.1 10.0 11.5 6.2 11.8 14.9 10.5 4.1 9.8 0.24 0 0.23 Sulfur 18 25 25 25 21 13 20 23 13 25 25 21 13 20.2  0.23 0  0.22 E200 43.8 54.7 46.6 42.4 46.6 51.9 47.2 44.4 54.5 40.0 40.0 45.7 49.2 46.1 1.00 8.18 1.35 E300 78.7 88.4 86.1 87.3 82.4 81.7 82.4 83.5 79.5 85.3 79.3 82.7 82.3 82.7  0.29  1.82  0.37 Volume 1006 391 282 86 1768 237 2005 1009 391 282 86 1768 237 2005

Table 3a  Summary of Reference Case Gasoline Qualities for PADD 3 2010 Reference Case ( no Additional Benzene Control)

Conventional Gasoline RFG Pool CG w MTBE CG 7.8 RVP 7.0 RVP CG Avg. RFG w MTBE RFG no Oxy RFG w Etoh RFG Avg. Avg.

RVP 8.7 8.7 7.6 6.8 8.32 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 8.0 Oxygen 0.3 0 0.5 0.1 0.28 2.1 0 3.5 2.3 0.7 Aromatics 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 31.6 Benzene 0.94 0.83 0.94 0.73 0.91 0.58 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.84 Olefins 8.2 13.0 12.2 0.2 9.2 12.5 11.8 8.2 11.6 9.7 Sulfur 18 25 25 4 20 25 25 19 24 20.4 E200 42.0 42.0 43.9 46.1 42.7 52.2 44.9 51.2 51.7 44.5 E300 79.0 81.1 87.9 77.4 81.1 83.2 80.8 82.1 82.9 81.4 Volume 1928 558 732 266 3484 656 34 173 863 4347 Table 3b  Summary of Benzene Control Case Gasoline Qualities and Correlations for Benzene Control for PADD 3 2010 Control Case with 0.50 vol% Benzene Control Standard Change in Qualities Per Change in Bz Conventional Gasoline RFG Pool CG RFG Pool CG w MTBE CG 7.8 RVP 7.0 RVP CG Avg. RFG w MTBE RFG no Oxy RFG w Etoh RFG Avg. Avg.

RVP 8.7 8.7 7.6 6.8 8.3 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 8.0 0 0 0 Oxygen 0.3 0 0.4 0.6 0.3 2.1 0 3.5 2.3 0.7  0.04 0  0.04 Aromatics 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 31.6 0 0 0 Benzene 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.48

Olefins 9.2 12.9 13.3 0.2 10.0 9.7 0.2 7.5 8.9 9.8  1.85 22.9  0.21 Sulfur 20 25 25 5 21 22 8 18 20.6 21  2.84 27.18  0.86 E200 42.0 42.0 45.4 45.0 42.9 47.8 42.2 50.6 48.1 44.0  0.56 30.06 1.47 E300 79.0 80.4 80.9 98.5 81.1 82.1 97.6 81.4 82.6 81.4  0.07 2.65 0.11 Volume 1928 558 732 266 3484 656 34 173 863 4347    Table 4  Summary of Reference Case and Benzene Control Case Gasoline Qualities and Correlations for Benzene Control for PADDs 4 and 5 2010 Reference Case ( no Additional Benzene Control) 2010 Control Case with 0.50 vol%

Benzene Control Standard Change in Qualities per Change in Bz Conventional Gasoline Conventional Gasoline CG CG w Etoh 7.8 RVP Avg CG CG w Etoh 7.8 RVP Avg Pool RVP 8.7 8.7 7.6 8.5 8.7 8.7 7.6 8.5 0 Oxygen 0 3.5 0 0.5 0 3.5 0 0.5 0 Aromatics 29.2 26.9 33.4 29.7 29.8 26.8 25.0 28.4 0.90 Benzene 2.00 1.09 2.00 1.86 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Olefins 8.9 15.5 13.3 10.7 10.9 15.8 10.0 11.5  0.54 Sulfur 19 25 25 21.1 22.0 25.0 21 22.3  0.89 E200 50.0 50.0 49.0 50.0 48.4 50.0 44.7 47.9 1.37 E300 87.4 80.2 87.1 86.2 87.0 79.7 85.9 85.7 0.42 Volume 476 110 138 724 476 110 138 724

Table 5   Summary of Reference Case and Benzene Control Case Gasoline Qualities and Correlations for Benzene Control for the U. S.

2010 Reference Case ( no Additional Benzene Control) 2010 Control Case with 0.50 vol% Benzene Control Standard Change in Qualities Per Change in Bz 2010 Reference Case ( no Add.

Benzene Control) 2010 Control Case with 0.50 vol% Bz Control Std Change in Qualities per Change in Bz CG RFG CG RFG CG RFG CG & RFG CG & RFG CG & RFG RVP 8.4 6.8 8.4 6.8 0.04 0 8.06 8.04 0.04 Oxygen 0.2 1.3 0.2 1.3 0.08 0 0.87 0.87  0.01 Aromatics 32.6 21.8 32.2 21.5 0.71 1.77 30.42 30.00 0.77 Benzene 1.14 0.62 0.49 0.47   1.04 0.49

Olefins 10.1 11.1 10.6 9.6  0.69 9.89 10.31 10.38  0.11 Sulfur 20 23 21 21.7  1.34 11.71 20.95 21.29  0.62 E200 44.6 50.6 44.3 48.1 0.50 16.73 45.82 45.06 1.39 E300 82.0 82.7 82.1 82.4  0.07 1.49 82.17 82.16 0.01 Volume 6315 1620 6315 1620   7935 7935  The results from the LP modeling summarized in Tables 1   5 were then used to develop the correlations for how fuel qualities vary with changing benzene levels ( i. e., by RFG and CG separately or as a single pool, PADD by PADD, or nationally). We attempted to develop correlations between benzene and total aromatics, RVP, sulfur, olefins, E200 and E300. Unfortunately, as we closely evaluated the correlations, many were inconsistent with refinery practices, fuel standard constraints, or how benzene reduction is expected to affect gasoline quality, with the exception of aromatics. As a result, while we discuss the other parameter results as well, a realistic correlation was only possible to be developed between benzene reduction and the change in total aromatics ( of which benzene is a small component).

Total Aromatics In PADD 1, total aromatics decrease only in RFG, despite the larger decrease of benzene in CG. In PADD 2, total aromatics decrease in both pools, while for PADD 3, aromatics don't decrease at all. Aromatics decrease in the CG in PADD 4 and 5. The inconsistent decrease in total aromatics relative to the decrease in benzene in RFG compared to CG is likely to be caused by refinery modeling overoptimization. Because the LP model acts as one big refinery in each PADD, it is common for the refinery model to switch gasoline blendstocks freely between the two pools. However, while some refineries produce both RFG and CG, many produce only one of the two gasoline types. For example, in PADD 1, despite the large fraction that RFG comprises of the gasoline pool there, three refineries only produce CG and another three predominantly produce CG. It is likely that these CG refineries would experience some impact on their gasoline aromatics levels concurrent with benzene reductions in their gasoline. Thus, it would be very likely for there to be a change in CG aromatic levels in PADD 1. It is also likely that PADD 3 would have changes to the total aromatic levels in the RFG and CG produced within that PADD. Because of these inconsistencies, the correlations in total aromatics reductions with benzene reductions were established based on pool averages of RFG and CG and across PADDs  from the last column in Table 5. Thus, for each 1 percent reduction in benzene in a refinery's gasoline pool, there is a 0.77 percent reduction in total aromatics ( i. e., nonbenzene aromatics increase by 0.23 per each 1.0 change in benzene). Thus, the only secondary impact on gasoline quality that we are considering in our emissions modeling work is aromatics  for every 1 percent decrease of benzene in gasoline, aromatics concentration decreases by 0.77 percent.

RVP and Sulfur Both of these gasoline qualities will be established by refiners using technologies separate from that used to reduce benzene. We fully expect that refiners will use these technologies to just meet the applicable standard to minimize cost and maximize gasoline production. RVP of the gasoline pool is established by blending back butane into the gasoline pool up to the RVP standard. Gasoline sulfur levels will be established by how hard refiners operate their naphtha hydrotreaters. For this reason, no changes in RVP or sulfur are anticipated in practice to result from benzene changes, though the modeling allowed for such changes.

Olefins Reducing benzene levels would not be expected to affect olefin levels because the refining unit principally involved in producing olefins ( the fluidized catalytic cracker unit) is not the unit that refiners would adjust or treat to reduce benzene. The inconsistent results across the PADDs may simply be evidence of the limitations of the refiner model for use in this situation. Changes in olefins are associated with gasoline sulfur changes, however, so it is possible that the olefins changes resulted from the projected changes in sulfur content.

Oxygen Oxygen levels increased only in PADD 3 through the addition of a small amount of MTBE. However, this result is inconsistent with recent expectations of the industry.

E200 & E300 E200 levels decreased somewhat in each PADD. Most of the benzene reduction is expected to occur through benzene saturation or benzene precursor rerouting. When benzene is saturated or if the benzene precursors are routed around the reformer, cyclohexane would replace benzene in the gasoline pool. Cyclohexane and benzene both boil below 200 degrees Fahrenheit ( and at almost an identical temperature), thus this switch in gasoline components is not expected to impact either E200 or E300. Benzene extraction could impact E200 and E300, but not significantly beyond the base case and not nationwide. Thus, we did not consider the E200 and E300 effects estimated by the LP refinery model to be a valid model outcome.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 38045]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings
related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):

RECB Task Force & Planning Advisory Committee--June 28, 2012;
Order 1000 Right of First Refusal Task Team--June 28, 2012;
Order 1000 Right of First Refusal Task Team--June 29, 2012.

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters,
720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER12-1577-000, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-715, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-309, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. EL11-56, FirstEnergy Service Company.
Docket No. EL11-30, E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC v.
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-24-000, Pioneer Transmission LLC v. Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-28-000, Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. American
Transmission Company, LLC.
Docket No. OA08-53, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.

    For more information, contact Christopher Miller, Office of Energy
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5936 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 19, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15487 Filed 6-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 136 (Monday, July 18, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42665-42667]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0483]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a security zone in
the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Yerba Buena Island
within the San Francisco Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. This security
zone is necessary to provide for the security of military service
members on board vessels moored at the pier and the government property
associated with these valuable national assets. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit the entry of, transiting through, or
anchoring within a portion of the San Francisco Bay extending from
Yerba Buena Island unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port San Francisco. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 17, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0483 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT William Harris, Sector San
Francisco, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    In October 2021, the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco
identified a need for clearer Aids to Navigation to

inform the boating public of restricted areas near Yerba Buena Island.
Further discussion discovered that current regulations established a
Restricted Area, but not a Security Zone. The COTP has determined that
potential security concerns associated with the mooring of Coast Guard
Cutters would necessitate a Coast Guard Security Zone.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the security of Coast
Guard facilities, personnel, and vessels, at all times within the
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba
Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena
Island at 37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'44'' W; east to 37[deg]48'27''
N, 122[deg]21'35'' W; north to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W, a
point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. The Coast Guard
is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a security zone which would
cover all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of
Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba
Buena Island at 37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'44'' W; east to
37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W; north to 37[deg]48'49'' N,
122[deg]21'35'' W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena
Island. This zone is intended to protect the personnel and facilities
of U.S. Coast Guard units and assets located on and within the waters
of Yerba Buena Island. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter
the security zone unless authorized by the COTP. The regulatory text we
are proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
location of the security zone. The effect of this proposed rule will
not be significant because vessel traffic can pass safely around the
area, and this proposed rule will encompass only a small portion of the
waterway.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a security
zone that would prohibit entry within navigable waters of the San
Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along
the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37[deg]48'27'' N,
122[deg]21'44'' W; east to 37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W; north
to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W, a point on the northeastern
side of Yerba Buena Island. Normally such actions are

categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60a] of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0483 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1189 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1189  Security Zone; San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all navigable
waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island
from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at
37[deg]48'27'' N, 122[deg]21'44'' W; east to 37[deg]48'27'' N,
122[deg]21'35'' W; north to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]21'35'' W, a
point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. These coordinates
are based on North American Datum (NAD) 83.
    (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general security zone
regulations in subpart D of this part, entry into the area of the
security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco.
    (2) The security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the COTP.
    (3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP by VHF Marine
Radio channel 16 or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone
(415) 399-3547. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful
orders or directions given to them by the COTP.
    (c) Enforcement. The Captain of the Port will enforce the security
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section and may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the security zone by any Federal, State,
county, municipal, or private agency.

    Dated: July 12, 2022.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2022-15270 Filed 7-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 76274]
[DOCID:fr23de05-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC06-18-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Filing

December 13, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 8, 2005, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America (Natural) submitted a request for confirmation that it can
continue to capitalize the costs incurred in a onetime rehabilitation
project to address stress corrosion cracking on Natural's system.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 27, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7748 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


However, the proposed costs have been changed to account for one modified source and five new sources over the next five year period instead of six new sources over the same time period. Revisions include the addition of costs for installation and operation of an SCR system for the modified source ($2.7 million capital and $370,000 annualized), costs related to Appendix F to account for annual stack testing for all six sources ($72,000 annualized), and costs associated with the purchase and installation of a dual span NOX concentration monitor for all six sources ($138,000 capital and $53,400 annualized).
At proposal, the capital costs and annualized costs for Subpart Ga were $234,000, and $90,000, respectively. The cost effectiveness was estimated at $45 per ton of NOX.
With the additions discussed above, the resulting total industry-wide final capital costs and annualized costs of $3.07 million and $585,000, respectively, remain reasonable and result in an overall cost effectiveness of approximately $300 per ton of NOX.
Comment 10.10:  Commenter (0098) states that EPA's projected costs fail to accurately assess the cost impact of its proposal to require a continuous emissions rate monitoring system (CERMS). According to the commenter, EPA's cost estimates are based on its assumption that each newly constructed NAP would be required to install an air flow meter only and that existing and installed NOX CEMS would not require modification. According to the commenter, this assumption appears to have been driven by EPA's calculation of incremental costs instead of actual costs. Of course, the commenter notes that such an assumption makes little sense for a newly constructed facility, which would need to install both the NOX CEMS and the air flow monitor. Nevertheless, even assuming the six future NAPs already had a NOX CEMS installed, the commenter notes that EPA's assumptions remain flawed.
According to the commenter, the majority of existing NAPs use NOX CEMS consisting of one of three analyzer technologies: (1) Chemiluminsescence analyzers; (2) Non-dispersive infrared analyzers; or, (3) Fourier Transform infrared analyzers. For the majority of NAPs in existence, the commenter notes that these analyzers are equipped with only a single span range (which monitor in the 0-500 ppm NOX range, in compliance with Subpart G). In order to capture SSM events, as required by the proposed NSPS, the commenter notes that the NOX analyzers will require replacement with dual range analyzers because SSM events result in emissions far greater than 500 ppm (producers find result in emissions from 2,000 to 5,000 ppm). Further, the new analyzers will be equipped with logic that will automatically switch the span range to the higher value so that SSM events (elevated NOX readings) are captured. According to the commenter, the purchase, installation, and maintenance of dual range CEMS are not included in EPA's cost considerations. The commenter's members and their consultants have found that the cost to switch a single span range analyzer to a dual span range analyzer is between $18,000 and 28,000.
In the more likely scenario, to perform the monitoring EPA seeks, the commenter believes that a new NAP would be required to purchase and install a comprehensive and integrated CERMS. Commenter members and their consultants have found that installed CERMS that would meet EPA's monitoring requirements for the proposed NSPS range between $140,000 and $300,000. [See the Attachment A to the commenter's letter.] Although not definitively determined, commenter members have estimated that ongoing O&M for a CERMS is approximately $100,000 per year, per NAP.
Comment 10.11:  Commenter (0097) states that adding the requirement for continuous flow meters also is unnecessarily costly for subcategorized small size nitric acid plants and the unnecessary costs to install and maintain them are unjustified.
   Response to Comments 10.10-10.11: We acknowledge your comments related to cost of CERMS. Much of the costs for CERMS supplied by the commenters related to NOX concentration CEMS (stack probe, data acquisition and handling systems, etc) are not associated with these NSPS revisions. The EPA has made some changes to the cost analysis. See memo entitled Impacts of Nitric Acid NSPS Review -- NOX (Updated Memo for Final NSPS). See also Response to Comments 10.4-10.9. Also as discussed in Section 7, no subcategorization in this source category is warranted.

 11. General Supportive Comments
Comment 11.1:   Commenters (0092, 0093, 0095, 0096, 0098) agree with EPA's assertion that an opacity limit is not necessary for facilities. Commenter 0096 states that EPA's decision is appropriate since the facility is required to demonstrate compliance with NOX using a Continuous Emission Monitor. According to the commenter, the opacity requirement is not required as an additional method of demonstrating compliance with a NOX emission limit.
Response to Comment 11.1:  We acknowledge the support for EPA's decision to remove the opacity limit from subpart Ga.
Comment 11.2:   Commenters (0092, 0093, 0095, 0098) support EPA's inclusion of EPA Reference Method 7E of Appendix A-4 as an additional method available to sources for evaluating performance because it provides affected sources with flexibility in selecting the best performance test for its purposes.
Commenter (0098) states many nitric acid plants have relied upon Method 7E in light of a March 2000 EPA determination. Although the commenter does not agree with EPA that Method 7E must include modifications to address moisture and a NO/NO2 split, the commenter nonetheless supports recognition in Subpart Ga of the use of a modified Method 7E.
Response to Comment 11.2:  EPA acknowledges the support for EPA's decision to allow the use of Method 7E in subpart Ga.
   12. Wording and Typographic Changes
Comment 12.1:  Commenter (0105) questioned the placement of proposed method ASTM E1584-00(2005)e1 in §60.17(a)(93), stating that in the 3/21/2011 Federal Register, this paragraph was assigned to ASTM D6784‐02 (Reapproved 2008) for NSPS Subparts CCCC, DDDD, LLLL, and MMMM. EPA has proposed 24 new ASTM methods in other proposed amendments {10/9/2008  -  73 FR 59956, 12/28/2008  -  73 FR 78522, 5/3/2011  -  76 FR 24976}. None of them are ASTM E1584‐00 (2005).
Response to Comment 12.1:  The incorporation by reference is not official until the standards are final. When this rule is finalized, §60.17(a) will reflect the existence of ASTM E1584-11. Also note that the standard was revised in 2011 so the ASTM number has changed slightly from proposal.
    Comment 12.2:  Commenter (0098) notes that the proposed definition of "operating day" in the proposed §60.71a(c) is missing the word "operated": a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 a.m. during which the nitric acid production unit [operated] at any time during this period.
   Response to Comment 12.2:  We agree with your recommendation. This change has been made to the final standards at Subpart Ga.

Comment 12.3:  Commenter (0105) submitted suggested changes to subpart Ga:
         Section numbers and headings should be in bold. Some of the Section numbers are not underlined with their heading. (May be done when signed document is converted to the Federal Register format.)
         §60.71a  -  remove the lettering "(a)", "(b)", "(c)", and "(d)" in front of the paragraphs of definitions. The current procedures for the definition section of the NSPS subparts are to the words alphabetically, not assigned a specific paragraph letter. The older NSPS subparts that have not been modified recently (≈ last 10 years) still have the lettering, and when their definition sections are modified the paragraph letter is removed and then sorted alphabetically.
         §60.71a  -  the words being defined should be in italics. (May be done when signed document is converted to the Federal Register format.)
         §60.73a  -  Some of the major parts {(a), (b), (c), and (f)} of this section have individual headings which are underlined. The heading for (d) should also be underline. A heading should be added to (e) to be consistent for this section. {In other subparts, these headings are in italics.}
         §60.73a(d)(1) in the last sentence, change "lb NOX /ton" to "lb NOX/ton". To be consistent, the "x" should be capitalized. {Type NOX, then subscript the "X".}
         §60.74a(b)  -  Can the facility send an email notifying the Administrator of the emission exceedance? Most government agencies include emails as part of any FOIA review, and therefore have procedures for handling email submittals. Communications between government staff and facilities are more likely to be by email than faxes these days (don't remove fax from notification option).
         §60.75a(a)(4) in Equation 2 definition for Md, change "lb NOX" to "lb NOX.".
         §60.76a(f)(2), suggest change "section 60.72a(b)," to "§60.72a(b)," to be consistent with similar language in the subpart.
         §60.77a(b)(3), suggest the following:
         change: (3) Reasons for noncompliance with the emissions standard; and description of corrective actions taken.
         to: (3) Reasons for noncompliance with the emissions standard; and (4) Description of corrective actions taken.
         §60.77a(f)(2), change "with 60.72a(b)," to "with §60.72a(b),"
Response to Comment 12.3:  EPA agrees with many of these recommendations. These changes have been made to Subpart Ga where appropriate. Most of the suggested changes occur when the document is converted to Federal Register format.
The agency understands and appreciates the commenter's suggestion regarding use of electronic mail, but at this time the rule has not been changed to allow it for notification purposes. As the agency works through security and routing issues, the rule may be revised in the future to allow for electronic mail notification.


[Federal Register: August 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44816-44817]
[DOCID:fr09au07-33]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0620; FRL-8450-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the state of Kansas for the purpose of including
the Kansas City 8-hour ozone maintenance plan into the SIP. Section
110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires that areas which were
maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone standard and attainment for the
8-hour ozone standard develop a plan showing how the state will
maintain the ozone standard for the

area. The maintenance plan includes an emissions inventory
demonstration, a plan for how the states will track progress on
reducing emissions, a commitment to continue ozone monitoring, and a
contingency plan that will ensure that a violation of the 8-hour ozone
standard is promptly addressed.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
September 10, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0620 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Amy Algoe-
Eakin, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 27, 2007.
John B. Askew,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
 [FR Doc. E7-15255 Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a_ 2 _ 0 _ 6 _ 0  _ 0 _ 2 _ 7 _ 3 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAPfor Halogenated Solvent Cleaners/ Hazardous Air Pollutant ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart T)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1652.04 9. Keywords Clean Air Act, Air Pollution Control, Environmental Protection 10. Abstract Respondents subject to this NESHAP are owners or operators of solvent cleaning machines using any solvent containing methylene chloride ( MC), perchloroethylene ( PCE), 1,1,1 trichloroethane ( TCA), trichlorethylene ( TCE), carbon tetrachloride ( CT), chloroform ( C), or any combination of these halogenated solvents in a concentration greater than 5 percent by weight. This includes batch vapor, in line vapor, in line cold, and batch cold solvent cleaning machines. Owners or operators of batch vapor and in line solvent cleaning machines can choose between an equipment/ work practice options and an overall solvent emissions limit option for each solvent cleaning machine. Owners or operators of batch cold cleaning machines must comply with an equipment standard and work practice.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 1431 b. Total annual responses 3943 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10% c. Total hours requested 45,207 d. Current OMB inventory 45,207 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 3079 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 1012 c. Total annualized cost requested 4091 d. Current OMB inventory 4091 0 e. Difference f. Explanation of difference 0 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4.

Quarterly 5.

Semi annually 6.

Annually 7. Q Biannually 8  Other ( describe)__________

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Acquanetta Delaney Phone: ( 202) 564 7061 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 110 (Monday, June 8, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34639-34641]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0890]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Highway 99 Partial Bridge Replacement, Stanislaus
River, Ripon, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Stanislaus River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on the Stanislaus River near the Highway
99 Bridge in Ripon, CA, during partial bridge replacement scheduled to
occur between June 15, 2020 and November 7, 2020. This regulation
prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on June 15, 2020 through
11:59 p.m. on November 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0890 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Jennae N. Cotton, Sector San Francisco Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port San Francisco
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On October 18, 2019, the California Department of Transportation
notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting partial bridge
replacement of the Highway 99 Bridge in Ripon, CA. In response, on
March 16, 2020, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled ``Safety Zone;
Highway 99 Partial Bridge Replacement, Stanislaus River, Ripon, CA''
(85 FR 14840) proposing a safety zone around the bridge replacement to
be effective from June 15, 2020 until November 7, 2020. There we stated
why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory
action related to this partial bridge replacement. During the comment
period that ended April 15, 2020, we received two comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because this rule is needed to protect
mariners, commercial and recreational waterway users, and construction
workers from the potential safety hazards associated with construction
and replacement of the Highway 99 Ripon Bridge. It is necessary for
this rule to be in effect when construction commences on June 15, 2020.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. During this bridge construction project, approximately 200 feet
of the existing concrete, double-arch bridge on Southbound Highway 99
over the Stanislaus River will be demolished, removed, and replaced.
Bridge construction hazards include reduced bridge clearance and the
potential for falling debris, such as steel beams and other
construction materials from demolition and crane operations. The COTP
has determined that potential hazards associated with the Highway 99
Ripon Bridge replacement will be a safety concern for anyone within the
navigable waters of the Stanislaus River around or under the bridge
construction project. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety
of vessels and mariners in the navigable waters surrounding the Highway
99 Bridge in Ripon, CA during construction.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published
March 16, 2020. One comment identified the safety zone as a necessity
to protect mariners, commercial and recreational waterway users, and
construction workers during the bridge replacement, which will improve
traffic conditions for an average of 112,000 vehicle transits each day.
Due to hazards associated with the bridge demolition and replacement,
the COTP is implementing this rule to protect members of the public in
the waters of the Stanislaus River surrounding the project.
    The other comment challenged the reason this rule is being
enforced, asserting the rule is not for the safety of life on the
navigable waters of the Stanislaus River. The Coast Guard disagrees
with this comment. The Coast Guard is enforcing this rule to protect
and ensure the safety of all vessels and waterway users on the waters
of the Stanislaus River near Ripon, CA from to the potential hazards
associated with the bridge construction project noted in section III of
this rule.
    There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM. Between 12:01 a.m. on June 15, 2020 through
11:59 p.m. on November 7, 2020, the safety zone will encompass all
navigable waters of the Stanislaus River surrounding the Highway 99
Bridge in Ripon, CA, from surface to bottom, between the Union Pacific
Railway Bridge to the west and the Stanislaus River pedestrian crossing
bridge to the east of the Ripon Highway 99 Bridge, within the area
formed by

connecting the following approximate latitude and longitude points in
the following order: 37[deg]43'47.7'' N, 121[deg]06'36.0'' W, thence to
37[deg]43'49.9'' N, 121[deg]06'38.6'' W, thence to 37[deg]43'51.3'' N,
121[deg]06'36.1'' W, thence to 37[deg]43'49.2'' N, 121[deg]06'33.6'' W
(NAD 83), and thence to the point of beginning; or as announced via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The duration of this zone is intended to
ensure the safety of mariners, vessels, and the navigable waters during
the bridge construction project. No vessel or person would be permitted
to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or
a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location of
the safety zone. Vessel transits in the area are limited to
recreational vessels and personal watercraft, including small
recreational vessels used for fishing, kayaks, and inner tubes. Notice
would be provided to mariners via Notice to Mariners and posted at the
construction site and adjacent river entry locations 30 days in
advance.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator. Notice will be provided 30 days in advance of
the safety zone. River entry and exit points will be identified on both
sides of the safety zone, and markers will provide mariners with clear
instruction throughout the duration of the project. Depending on
operations and river level parameters, mariners will be provided a
transit lane on weekends between July 25, 2020 and November 7, 2020.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit entry to the area surrounding the bridge
construction site and will last approximately five months with
intermittent weekend openings. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-019 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-019   Safety Zone; Highway 99 Partial Bridge Replacement,
Stanislaus River, Ripon, CA.

    (a) Location. The following is a safety zone: The navigable waters
of the Stanislaus River, from surface to bottom, between the Union
Pacific Railway Bridge to the west and the Stanislaus River pedestrian
crossing bridge to the east of the Highway 99 Ripon Bridge, within the
area formed by connecting the following approximate latitude and
longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]43'47.7'' N,
121[deg]06'36.0'' W, thence to 37[deg]43'49.9'' N, 121[deg]06'38.6'' W,
thence to 37[deg]43'51.3'' N, 121[deg]06'36.1'' W, thence to
37[deg]43'49.2'' N, 121[deg]06'33.6'' W (NAD 83), and thence to the
point of beginning; or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart B of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter
or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the
safety zone through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-
3547.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from June 15,
2020 through November 7, 2020.
    (e) Information broadcasts. The COTP or the COTP's designated
representative will notify the maritime community of periods during
which this zone will be enforced in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
Additionally, signage will be posted beginning 30 days prior to the
start of the project and will remain posted for the duration of the
project. River markers will be provided on the Stanislaus River on each
side of the safety zone to direct mariners.

    Dated: May 14, 2020.
Marie B. Byrd,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2020-11055 Filed 6-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P