Date: May 6, 2003 Subject: Cost Impacts for Wastewater at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities for Promulgation Package Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP From: Melissa Icenhour To: MON Project File I. Introduction Due to comments received during the comment period, the MACT floor for wastewater has been revised since the proposal package. As a result, the regulatory alternative and cost impacts also have changed. This memorandum summarizes the revised regulatory analysis and presents the results of the revised cost analysis.

II. MACT Floor The previous analysis evaluated all of the HAP that are listed in Table 9 of the HON ( i. e., " Table 9 HAP") in one group. 1 This revised analysis evaluates wastewater streams that contain soluble HAP separately from streams that contain partially soluble HAP or a mixture of soluble and partially soluble HAP. Partially soluble and soluble HAP are listed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively, of 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart GGG ( Pharmaceuticals MACT).

The revised MACT floor consists of HON equivalent management and treatment for wastewater streams with the following characteristics: 2,3 1. The total annual average concentration of partially soluble HAP compounds is > 50 ppmw, and the combined total annual average concentration of all Table 9 HAP compounds is

10,000 ppmw at any flow rate.

2. The total annual average concentration of partially soluble HAP compounds is > 50 ppmw, the combined total annual average concentration of all Table 9 HAP is

1,000 ppmw, and the annual average flow rate is

1 liter per minute.

3. The total annual average concentration of partially soluble HAP compounds is  50 ppmw, the total annual average concentration of soluble HAP compounds is

30,000 ppmw, and the total annual load of soluble HAP compounds is

1 ton per year. 2 Table 1. Summary of Current Wastewater Database for Chemical Manufacturing Facilities Number of streams Total Controlled as required All accepted dataa 364 All streams meeting any of the cutoffs 157 30 1. Streams with total annual avg conc of partially soluble HAP > 50 ppmw and all Table 9 HAP conc

10,000 ppmw 60 13 2. Streams with total annual avg conc of partially soluble HAP > 50 ppmw and all Table 9 HAP conc

1,000 ppmw and flow

1 L/ min 53 9 3. Streams with total annual avg conc of partially soluble HAP  50 ppmw and total annual avg conc of soluble HAP

30,000 ppmw and load of soluble HAP

1 ton/ yr 44 8 a Includes only streams that contain Table 9 HAP at concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000 ppm.

III. Impacts The number of affected streams is summarized in Table 1. Compared to the May 2000 analysis, the number of affected streams decreased from 186 to 157. A total of 59 streams were excluded because they contain soluble HAP at concentrations less than 30,000 ppmw or loads less than 1 tpy. In comparison, only 30 streams were added because they contain partially soluble HAP with flows between 1 liter per minute and 10 liters per minute.

Emissions and cost impacts were estimated for both the MACT floor and a regulatory alternative using the same procedures as in the previous analysis, but the threshold cutoffs for the regulatory alternative have been changed to coincide with the revised MACT floor. The regulatory alternative consists of the same management and treatment requirements as the floor, but the flowrate cutoff for streams containing partially soluble HAP and the concentration cutoff for streams containing soluble HAP were reduced by 50 percent. The regulatory alternative criteria are as follows.

1. The total annual average concentration of partially soluble HAP compounds is > 50 ppmw, and the combined total annual average concentration of all Table 9 HAP compounds is

10,000 ppmw at any flow rate.

2. The total annual average concentration of partially soluble HAP compounds is > 50 ppmw, the combined total annual average concentration of all Table 9 HAP compounds is

1,000 ppmw, and the annual average flow rate is

0.5 liter per minute. 3 3. The total annual average concentration of partially soluble HAP compounds is  50 ppmw, the total annual average concentration of soluble HAP compounds is

15,000 ppmw, and the total annual load of soluble HAP compounds is

1 ton per year.

The method and equations used to calculate the cost impacts are identical to the previous analysis. The flow rate of the stream, the HAP load of the stream, and the HAP emission reduction were used to calculate the cost impacts.

The HAP load was calculated for each wastewater stream from the reported flow rates and HAP concentrations as follows:

Eq. 1 HAP load Flow HAP concentration ppm lb yr gal yr lb gal , , . ,

, , = × × 833 1 000 000 Uncontrolled emissions from each stream were then calculated by multiplying the HAP load by the Fe value for each HAP. The Fe values for each HAP are from Table 34 of the HON.

Baseline emissions were then assumed to be equal to the uncontrolled emissions for the streams that were not treated. For wastewater streams currently treated in a unit that meets the requirements of the HON, the HAP removed was estimated by multiplying the HAP load by the Fr value ( from Table 9 in subpart G of the HON). Emission reductions were estimated by multiplying the load reduction by the Fe as follows:

Eq. 2 HAP reduction lb yr HAP Load Fr Fe , ( ) ( ) ( ) = × × Baseline emissions for these controlled streams were then estimated as the difference between the uncontrolled emissions and the reductions.

Emission reductions achieved by the MACT floor and regulatory alternative were also estimated using Equation 2. Wastewater stream characteristics and the estimated uncontrolled and baseline emissions for each wastewater stream are presented in Attachment 2.

Treatment costs for all streams from batch processes that would require additional control under the MACT floor or regulatory alternative were estimated for a steam stripper. The total annual cost ( TAC) and total capital investment ( TCI) were estimated using the equations developed in the analysis for the HON. 4 These equations express the costs as a function of the wastewater flow rate ( in liters per minute) treated by the steam stripper. The original equation estimated costs in July 1989 dollars. The TCI equation was escalated to February 1999 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index ratio of 387.9/ 356. We also added costs to purchase and install steam flow, liquid flow, and outlet gas temperature monitors and a data acquisition system ($ 20,100), resulting in the following equation: 4 Eq. 3 TCI Flowrate yr ( ) , , $ = × + 1189 432 475 In the original analysis, separate equations were developed for the total direct annual costs ( TDAC) and the total indirect annual costs ( TIAC). We used the TDAC equation without change because the original unit costs for utilities and labor are acceptable. We escalated the TIAC equation using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index ratio of 387.9/ 356 because most of the elements in the TIAC are calculated as a percentage of the TCI. We also added monitoring labor costs ($ 12,300/ yr); monitoring maintenance materials costs ($ 500/ yr); and associated indirect costs for overhead ($ 7,690/ yr); administrative charges, property taxes, and insurance ($ 800/ yr); and capital recovery ($ 2,200/ yr). Combining the original TDAC equation with the escalated TIAC equation and the monitoring costs produced equation 4.

Eq. 4 ( ) TAC yr Flowrate ( $) . , = × + 418 6 156 343 The electricity and steam costs for the steam stripper are based on the amount of flow that will be treated by the steam stripper. In equations 5 and 6, the flowrate is in liters per minute.

Eq. 5 ( )( ) Electricity yr Flowrate kwh ( $) $ 0./ = × × 249 059 Eq. 6 ( )( ) Steam yr Flowrate lb ( $) , . $ 6/, = × × 44 067 4 1 000 Emissions and treatment costs for wastewater from continuous processes were estimated to be equal to 1.7 times greater than the emissions and costs for the wastewater from batch processes. 5 Thus the nationwide impacts are estimated to be 2.7 times the impacts for the wastewater from batch processes. The results of the cost analyses are summarized in Table 2. The impacts for each facility with wastewater subject to the applicability cutoffs of the floor and regulatory alternative are presented in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Data for the individual streams that meet the thresholds for control are presented in Attachment 3. Five of the 48 facilities with streams that meet the cutoffs have HAP loads less than 1 Mg/ yr; these facilities were excluded from the analyses in Attachments 1 and 2 because a standard based on HONequivalent requirements would exempt these facilities.

As shown in Table 2, the emission reductions and cost impacts are lower than the previous analysis. Two changes account for the bulk of the difference. Part of the reduction is due to the smaller number of streams that are affected by this analysis. Also, the calculation of load has changed slightly since the previous analysis. As shown in equation 1, the HAP load depends on the flow rate in gallons per year. Originally, the flow rate was calculated assuming each process operated 24 hours per day and 365 days per year. This revised analysis uses the actual process operating time to calculate the yearly flow rate if the wastewater flow rate data were given on a daily or per minute basis. Since estimated costs and emission reductions both have been reduced, the cost per Mg of HAP removed has changed only slightly relative to the previous analysis. The 5 cost effectiveness values of both the MACT floor and the regulatory alternative relative to baseline are similar. However, the because few additional streams are subject to control under the regulatory alternative, the incremental cost effectiveness of the regulatory alternative is unreasonable. Thus, we recommend setting the revised standard for wastewater at the MACT floor.

Table 2. Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Sources Parameter Previous analysis Current analysis MACT floor Regulatory alternative MACT floor Regulatory alternative TCI, $ 47,000,000 63,400,000 40,400,000 44,200,000 TAC, $/ yr 16,900,000 22,730,000 14,600,000 15,900,000 Emission reduction, Mg/ yra 4,380 4,780 2,840 3,000 Cost effectiveness, $/ Mg Relative to baseline 3,860 4,760 5,130 5,310 Incremental N/ A 14,600 N/ A 8,450 a Nationwide uncontrolled and baseline emissions from affected streams at the MACT floor are estimated to be 15,000 Mg/ yr and 5,900 Mg/ yr, respectively.

IV. References 2. Memorandum from D. Randall and J. Fields, Midwest Research Institute, to MON Project File. MACT Floor, Regulatory Alternative, and Impacts for Wastewater at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities. December 10, 1999 ( revised May 17, 2000).

3. Memorandum from B. Shine, North State Engineering, Inc., to MON Project File. MACT floor for Partially Soluble Mixed Streams. December 18, 2002.

4. Memorandum from D. Randall, RTI International, to MON Project File. MACT Floor for Soluble HAP in Wastewater Streams. March 20, 2003.

5. Memorandum from C. Zukor and K. Pelt, Radian Corporation, to Mary Tom Kissell, EPA: SDB. Total Capital Investment and Total Annual Cost Equations Used in the Framework for Steam Stripping Wastewater. February 1, 1994 6. Memorandum from C. Zukor, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc., to Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP Project File. July 27, 1999. National Impacts Associated with Regulatory Options for MON Chemical Manufacturing Processes. 6 This page intentionally left blank. A 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Costing Analysis for MACT Floor A 2 This page intentionally left blank. A 3 Facilities that Meet the Floor Criteria for Analysis of Group I Wastewater Streams Count Facility # Flow rate ( 1/ min) Uncontrolled load ( tpy) Uncontrolled HAP emissions ( tpy) Control Device Baseline HAP emissions ( tpy) HAP reduction ( tpy) TCI ($) TAC ($/ yr) CE ($/ ton)

1 1 71 4,119 975 SS/ DP 435 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 2 10 95 559 248 248 228 $ 545,788 $ 196,227 $ 862 3 11 14 31 26 26 25 $ 449,606 $ 162,374 $ 6,411 4 19 2 6 5 O ( Onsite destruction) 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 5 20 3 8 7 7 7 $ 435,901 $ 157,550 $ 23,296 6 21 2 7 6 6 6 $ 435,447 $ 157,390 $ 26,828 7 22 1 4 3 3 3 $ 434,126 $ 156,925 $ 48,147 8 23 1 4 3 3 3 $ 434,126 $ 156,925 $ 48,147 9 24 2 5 4 O( onsite destruc) 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 10 27 1 19 3 3 1 $ 433,237 $ 156,613 $ 160,323 11 29 2 73 12 12 4 $ 434,444 $ 157,037 $ 40,870 12 31 2 23 18 18 18 $ 435,070 $ 157,258 $ 8,702 13 34 15 836 564 O Onsite incineration 25 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 14 35 1 7 2 2 1 $ 434,188 $ 156,947 $ 153,388 15 36 10 20 16 SS 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 16 43 0 17 5 OF ( incin) 2 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 17 45 136 382 72 72 29 $ 594,607 $ 213,410 $ 7,454 18 53 2 111 45 45 38 $ 434,301 $ 156,987 $ 4,098 19 54 151 633 195 195 137 $ 612,459 $ 219,693 $ 1,600 20 57 189 73 31 31 31 $ 657,576 $ 235,573 $ 7,685 21 58 144 171 137 SS, DP 1 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 22 63 1,155 4,233 768 768 286 $ 1,806,266 $ 639,877 $ 2,238 23 74 1 22 4 O Onsite Distruct 3 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 24 81 0 2 1 1 1 $ 432,481 $ 156,346 $ 125,912 Count Facility # Flow rate ( 1/ min) Uncontrolled load ( tpy) Uncontrolled HAP emissions ( tpy) Control Device Baseline HAP emissions ( tpy) HAP reduction ( tpy) TCI ($) TAC ($/ yr) CE ($/ ton) A 4 25 86 3 102 17 17 5 $ 435,962 $ 157,572 $ 29,222 26 88 1 33 6 6 2 $ 433,332 $ 156,646 $ 89,198 27 89 0 5 1 1 0 $ 432,821 $ 156,466 $ 588,674 28 91 2 46 9 9 3 $ 435,019 $ 157,240 $ 47,383 29 92 12 58 30 30 27 $ 446,180 $ 161,168 $ 5,956 30 105 166 281 135 135 128 $ 629,438 $ 225,669 $ 1,760 31 106 29 284 163 TT, AS ( incin),

DP 4 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 32 108 17 144 50 50 46 $ 453,184 $ 163,633 $ 3,577 33 109 7 12 10 10 10 $ 440,424 $ 159,142 $ 16,464 34 128 95 438 280 SS, DP 13 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 35 130 11 2,332 1,866 AS, TT, HT, O ( Off site treat at WW TSDF) 19 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 36 130 0 19 15 15 15 $ 432,604 $ 156,389 $ 10,277 37 133 48 230 99 0 ( after burner) 4 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 38 136 0.4 60 41 41 40 $ 432,962 $ 156,516 $ 3,927 39 138 2 159 29 SS 18 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 40 143 23 133 107 TT, OF ( off site trash to steam) 1 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 41 153 70 152 45 45 36 $ 516,213 $ 185,817 $ 5,132 42 155 0 2 1 1 1 $ 432,526 $ 156,362 $ 191,999 43 158 14 500 85 85 26 $ 449,606 $ 162,374 $ 6,164 Batch processes 16,354 6,141 2,412 1,158 $ 14,979,894 $ 5,392,126 $ 4,656 Continuous processes 27,802 10,440 4,100 1,969 $ 25,465,820 $ 9,166,614 $ 4,656 Total 44,156 16,581 6.511 3,127 $ 40,445,714 $ 14,558,740 $ 4,656 A 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Costing Analysis for Regulatory Alternative A 6 This page intentionally left blank. A 7 Facilities that Meet the Criteria for Analysis of Group I Wastewater Streams Regulatory Alternative Count Facility # Flow rate ( 1/ min) Uncontrolled load ( tpy) Uncontrolled HAP emissions ( tpy) Control Device Baseline HAP emissions ( tpy) HAP reduction ( tpy) TCI ($) TAC ($/ yr) CE ($/ ton)

1 1 71 4,119 975 SS/ DP 435 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 2 10 100 586 260 260 237 $ 551,878 $ 198,370 $ 835 3 11 14 31 26 26 25 $ 449,606 $ 162,374 $ 6,411 4 19 2 6 5 O ( Onsite destruction) 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 5 20 3 8 7 7 7 $ 435,901 $ 157,550 $ 23,296 6 21 2 7 6 6 6 $ 435,447 $ 157,390 $ 26,828 7 22 1 4 3 3 3 $ 434,126 $ 156,925 $ 48,147 8 23 1 4 3 3 3 $ 434,126 $ 156,925 $ 48,147 9 24 2 5 4 O( onsite destruc) 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 10 27 2 34 6 6 2 $ 434,865 $ 157,185 $ 86,793 11 29 2 84 14 14 4 $ 435,260 $ 157,324 $ 35,330 12 31 2 23 18 18 18 $ 435,070 $ 157,258 $ 8,702 13 34 15 836 564 O Onsite incineration 25 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 14 34 42 698 119 119 37 $ 481,997 $ 173,775 $ 4,721 15 35 1 7 2 2 1 $ 434,188 $ 156,947 $ 153,388 16 36 10 20 16 SS 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 17 43 0 17 5 OF ( incin) 2 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 18 45 136 382 72 72 29 $ 594,607 $ 213,410 $ 7,454 19 53 2 111 45 45 38 $ 434,301 $ 156,987 $ 4,098 20 54 152 636 198 198 139 $ 613,353 $ 220,008 $ 1,578 21 57 189 73 31 31 31 $ 657,576 $ 235,573 $ 7,685 22 58 144 171 137 SS, DP 1 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 23 63 1,157 4,246 772 772 288 $ 1,807,994 $ 640,486 $ 2,224 24 74 1 22 4 O Onsite Distruct 3 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 25 75 10 136 23 23 7 $ 444,467 $ 160,565 $ 22,327 Count Facility # Flow rate ( 1/ min) Uncontrolled load ( tpy) Uncontrolled HAP emissions ( tpy) Control Device Baseline HAP emissions ( tpy) HAP reduction ( tpy) TCI ($) TAC ($/ yr) CE ($/ ton) A 8 26 81 0 2 1 1 1 $ 432,481 $ 156,346 $ 125,912 27 86 3 102 17 17 5 $ 435,962 $ 157,572 $ 29,222 28 88 1 35 6 6 2 $ 433,460 $ 156,691 $ 85,999 29 89 0 5 1 1 0 $ 432,821 $ 156,466 $ 588,674 30 91 2 46 9 9 3 $ 435,019 $ 157,240 $ 47,383 31 92 14 85 35 35 28 $ 449,606 $ 162,374 $ 5,704 32 105 166 281 135 135 128 $ 629,438 $ 225,669 $ 1,760 33 106 29 284 163 TT, AS ( incin),

DP 4 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 34 108 17 144 50 50 46 $ 453,184 $ 163,633 $ 3,577 35 109 7 14 11 11 11 $ 441,135 $ 159,392 $ 14,011 36 119 1 2 2 2 2 $ 433,160 $ 156,585 $ 98,883 37 128 95 438 280 SS, DP 13 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 38 130 11 2,332 1,866 AS, TT, HT, O ( Off site treat at WW TSDF) 19 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 39 130 0 19 15 15 15 $ 432,604 $ 156,389 $ 10,277 40 133 48 230 99 0 ( after burner) 4 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 41 136 0.4 60 41 41 40 $ 432,962 $ 156,516 $ 3,927 42 138 2 159 29 SS 18 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 43 143 23 133 107 TT, OF ( off site trash to steam) 1 0 $ 0 $ 0 NA 44 153 70 152 45 45 36 $ 516,213 $ 185,817 $ 5,132 45 155 0 2 1 1 1 $ 432,526 $ 156,362 $ 191,999 46 158 15 515 88 88 27 $ 450,891 $ 162,826 $ 5,999 Batch 17,308 6,316 2,586 1,223 $ 16,356,224 $ 5,888,930 $ 4,816 Continuous 29,424 10,736 4,396 2,079 $ 27,805,581 $ 10,011,181 $ 4,816 Nationwide Totals 46,732 17,052 6,982 3,302 $ 44,161,805 $ 15,900,111 $ 4,816 A 9 ATTACHMENT 3 Data for the Individual Streams that Meet the Thresholds for Control A 10 This page intentionally left blank. A 11 Wastewater Streams that Contain Soluble HAP and Meet the Thresholds for Control Facility # Flow rate Units Flow rate ( l/ min) HAP name HAPconc ( ppmw) Load, lb/ yr Already controlled? 1 17,000 gal/ day 44.68 Methanol 200,000 7,363,502 True 10 4,000 gal/ yr 0.0288 Methanol 65,800 2,192 False 10 3,000 gal/ yr 0.0216 Methanol 90,900 2,272 False 10 9,000 gal/ yr 0.0648 Methanol 136,800 10,256 False 10 83,000 gal/ yr 0.597 Methanol 30,600 21,156 False 10 90,000 gal/ yr 0.648 Methanol 172,200 129,095 False 27 89,000 gal/ yr 0.641 Methanol 50,000 37,067 False 29 12,009 gal/ yr 0.0864 Methanol 102,300 10,233 False 29 217,872 gal/ yr 1.569 Methanol 74,700 135,567 False 45 7,000 gal/ yr 0.0504 Methanol 80,000 4,665 False 54 12,000 gal/ yr 0.0864 Methanol 100,000 9,996 False 54 22,300 gal/ yr 0.161 Methanol 75,000 13,932 False 54 55,200 gal/ yr 0.398 Methanol 39,000 17,932 False 54 69,900 gal/ yr 0.503 Methanol 41,000 23,872 False 54 27,650 gal/ yr 0.199 Methanol 107,000 24,644 False 54 72,000 gal/ yr 0.519 Acetonitrile, Triethylamine 44,500 26,689 False 54 69,500 gal/ yr 0.501 Methanol 75,000 43,419 False 54 227,950 gal/ yr 1.64 Methanol 55,000 104,432 False 54 143,360 gal/ yr 1.03 Methanol 240,000 286,597 False 54 245,946 gal/ yr 1.77 Methanol 210,000 430,221 False 63 21,841 gal/ yr 0.157 Methanol 35,000 6,368 False 63 310,544 gal/ yr 2.24 Methanol 48,344 125,054 False 63 543,494 gal/ yr 3.91 Methanol 38,940 176,288 False 63 685,118 gal/ yr 4.93 Methanol 35,000 199,740 False 63 16.3 gal/ min 61.7 Methanol 41,781 490,131 False 63 16.3 gal/ min 61.7 Methanol 41,781 1,388,705 False 63 15 gal/ min 56.8 Methanol 37,023 2,198,221 False 63 16.3 gal/ min 61.7 Methanol 41,781 2,695,721 False 74 175,000 gal/ yr 1.26 Methanol 30,000 43,731 True 86 169,500 gal/ yr 1.22 Methanol 49,600 70,030 False 86 237,600 gal/ yr 1.71 Methanol 68,000 134,582 False 88 100,000 gal/ yr 0.720 Methanol 80,000 66,638 False 89 40,360 gal/ yr 0.291 Methanol 30,000 10,086 False 92 200,000 gal/ yr 1.44 Methanol 31,000 51,644 False 106 17,824 gal/ yr 0.128 Methanol 102,000 15,144 True 106 23,868 gal/ yr 0.172 Methanol 102,000 20,279 True 136 2,945 gal/ yr 0.0212 Methanol 811,262 19,901 False 138 1,766 gal/ yr 0.0127 Methanol 150,000 2,207 True 138 7,167 gal/ yr 0.0516 Methanol 150,000 8,955 True 138 30,498 gal/ yr 0.220 Methanol 150,000 38,106 True 138 153,164 gal/ yr 1.103 Methanol 200,000 255,164 True 153 0.5 gal/ min 1.89 Methanol 153,637 57,128 False 153 0.6 gal/ min 2.27 Methanol 162,420 91,176 False 158 2,000,000 gal/ yr 14.4 Methanol 60,000 999,570 False A 12 Wastewater Streams that Contain Partially Soluble HAP and Meet the Thresholds for Control Facility # Flow rate Units Flow ( L/ min) HAP name HAP Conc ( ppmw) Load ( lb/ yr) Already controlled? HAP concentration greater than or equal to 10,000 ppmw 1 7 gal/ min 26.50 Toluene 40,000 873,346 True 8 320 gal/ yr 0.00230 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 18,000 48 False 8 400 gal/ yr 0.00288 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 18,000 60 False 10 300 gal/ yr 0.00216 Tetrachloroethylene 27,300 68 False 10 1,000 gal/ yr 0.00720 Toluene 48,800 407 False 10 2,096,000 gal/ yr 15.096 2,4 Dinitrophenol 15,200 265,416 False 10 7,000 gal/ yr 0.0504 Xylenes 12,600 735 False 10 287,000 gal/ yr 2.0670 Toluene 10,100 24,149 False 10 40 gal/ yr 0.00029 methanol, xylenes, methylene chloride, toluene 35,000 12 False 10 1,340,000 gal/ yr 9.650 methanol, toluene 20,100 224,385 False 10 52,000 gal/ yr 0.3745 Toluene 39,000 16,895 False 10 26,000 gal/ yr 0.1873 Methyl isobutyl ketone 15,200 3,292 False 10 4,000 gal/ yr 0.0288 Methyl isobutyl ketone 41,100 1,370 False 29 433 gal/ yr 0.00312 Chlorobenzene 450,000 1,623 False 31 175,824 gal/ yr 1.266 Toluene 20,972 30,719 False 31 70,542 gal/ yr 0.5080 benzene 12,751 7,493 False 31 56,600 gal/ yr 0.4076 benzene 15,745 7,424 False 34 819,000 gal/ yr 5.90 toluene, methanol 30,000 204,690 True 34 136,000 gal/ yr 0.979 toluene, methanol 600,000 679,802 True 34 329,000 gal/ yr 2.37 toluene, methanol 150,000 411,130 True 34 94,000 gal/ yr 0.677 toluene 440,000 344,566 True 43 5,610 gal/ yr 0.040 methanol, xylenes 740,000 34,585 True 53 213,208 gal/ yr 1.54 Methanol, xylenes, MEK, toluene 124,800 221,672 False 54 330 gal/ yr 0.00238 Methylene chloride 15,000 41 False 54 32,400 gal/ yr 0.233 Methylene chloride 19,000 5,129 False 54 162,000 gal/ yr 1.17 acetonitrile, carbon disulfide, triethyleamine 19,800 26,722 False 60 1 gal/ yr 0.00001 Vinyl Acetate 49,000 0 False 63 11,505 gal/ yr 0.0829 Xylenes 11,561 1,108 False 81 711 gal/ yr 0.00512 Methylene chloride 550,000 3,258 False 90 1,600 gal/ yr 0.0115 Xylenes 10,000 133 False 91 297,000 gal/ yr 2.14 methanol, methylene chloride 37,030 91,623 False 92 10,000 gal/ yr 0.0720 toluene 10,000 833 False 92 60,000 gal/ yr 0.4321 toluene 10,000 4,999 False 92 40,000 gal/ yr 0.2881 toluene 19,000 6,331 False 92 90,000 gal/ yr 0.6482 toluene 19,000 14,246 False 92 70,000 gal/ yr 0.5041 toluene 10,000 5,832 False A 13 Facility # Flow rate Units Flow ( L/ min) HAP name HAP Conc ( ppmw) Load ( lb/ yr) Already controlled? 92 40,000 gal/ yr 0.2881 toluene 10,000 3,332 False 96 14 gal/ yr 0.0001 Vinyl Acetate 10,000 1 False 96 1 gal/ yr 0.000004 Vinyl Acetate 10,000 1 False 96 14 gal/ yr 0.0001 ethyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate 10,000 0 False 106 1,219,075 gal/ yr 8.780 Dimethyl Aniline 15,900 161,480 True 106 135,936 gal/ yr 0.9790 Dimethyl Aniline 39,000 44,166 True 106 1,077,468 gal/ yr 7.75 dimethyl aniline, xylenes 16,400 147,211 True 106 1,077,468 gal/ yr 7.75 xylenes, dimethyl aniline 16,400 147,211 True 108 5 gal/ min 17.41 Epichlorohydrin 15,000 287,232 False 130 15,000 gal/ yr 0.1080 xylenes 300,000 37,489 False 130 3 gal/ min 11.36 benzene 360,000 4,664,241 True 136 21,256 gal/ yr 0.1531 toluene 224,404 39,738 False 136 3,334 gal/ yr 0.024 methyl chloride, methanol 136,698 3,797 False 136 83 gal/ yr 0.000598 methylene chloride, MIBK 30,580 21 False 136 390 gal/ yr 0.00281 MIBK 242,331 787 False 136 368 gal/ yr 0.00265 toluene 27,876 85 False 136 29,308 gal/ yr 0.2111 toluene 228,416 55,771 False 138 24,000 gal/ yr 0.1728 acrylonitrile 63,063 12,609 True 143 3,200,000 gal/ yr 23.05 toluene 10,000 266,589 True 147 20,000 gal/ yr 0.1440 benzyle chloride 10,000 1,666 False 153 1 gal/ min 1.893 methyl methacrylate 103,650 38,547 False 153 1 gal/ min 2.271 methyl methacrylate 59,120 33,192 False 153 8 gal/ min 28.77 methyl methacrylate 19,000 48,504 False 155 6,000 gal/ yr 0.0432 acetaldehyde 70,000 3,499 False HAP concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmw and less than 10,000 ppmw 10 484,000 gal/ yr 3.486 toluene 2,700 10,887 False 10 167,000 gal/ yr 1.203 toluene, xylenes 9,900 13,773 False 10 388,000 gal/ yr 2.794 toluene 3,300 10,667 False 10 2,362,000 gal/ yr 17.01 toluene 1,300 25,581 False 10 2,826,000 gal/ yr 20.35 toluene, xylenes 6,400 150,676 False 10 1,540,000 gal/ yr 11.09 toluene, methanol 8,700 111,617 False 10 166,000 gal/ yr 1.20 methanol, toluene 4,700 6,500 False 10 265,000 gal/ yr 1.91 xylenes 7,900 17,441 False 10 649,000 gal/ yr 4.67 toluene, methanol 8,500 45,957 False 10 216,000 gal/ yr 1.56 methanol, MIBK, xylenes 9,800 17,635 False 10 180,000 gal/ yr 1.30 chlorobenzene 6,800 10,197 False 11 2,000,000 gal/ yr 14.4 naphthalene, toluene, xylenes 3,752 62,507 False 19 300,000 gal/ yr 2.16 xylenes 5,000 12,496 True 20 400,000 gal/ yr 2.88 xylenes 5,000 16,662 False 21 346,988 gal/ yr 2.50 xylenes 5,000 14,454 False 22 192,771 gal/ yr 1.39 xylenes 5,000 8,030 False A 14 Facility # Flow rate Units Flow ( L/ min) HAP name HAP Conc ( ppmw) Load ( lb/ yr) Already controlled? 23 192,771 gal/ yr 1.39 xylenes 5,000 8,030 False 24 260,000 gal/ yr 1.87 xylenes 5,000 10,830 True 34 744,000 gal/ yr 5.36 toluene 5,000 30,991 True 35 200,000 gal/ yr 1.44 methanol, MEK 8,000 13,329 False 36 1,400,000 gal/ yr 10.1 xylenes 3,400 39,655 True 45 36 gal/ min 136.3 methyl methacrylate, methyl chloride, methanol, toluene 4,821 759,954 False 54 2,556,000 gal/ yr 18.4 toluene 1,700 36,199 False 54 454,400 gal/ yr 3.27 toluene 1,000 3,786 False 54 10,800,000 gal/ yr 77.8 toluene 1,700 152,955 False 54 1,164,240 gal/ yr 8.38 toluene 1,700 16,489 False 54 4,614,400 gal/ yr 33.2 styrene 1,000 38,442 False 54 283,500 gal/ yr 2.04 toluene 1,700 4,015 False 57 25 gal/ min 94.6 ethyl acrylate 1,000 73,179 False 57 25 gal/ min 94.6 methyl methacrylate 1,000 73,179 False 58 20,000,000 gal/ yr 144.0 naphthalene, o toluidine, xylenes 2,051 341,734 True 63 40 gal/ min 151.4 nitrobenzene, ethylbenzene, methanol, xylenes 5,200 249,527 False 63 35 gal/ min 132.5 methanol, ethylbenzene, xylenes 1,100 46,187 False 63 40 gal/ min 151.4 ethylbenzene, methanol, nitrobenzene, xylenes 5,200 197,127 False 63 35 gal/ min 132.5 methanol, ethylbenzene, xylenes 1,100 36,482 False 63 40 gal/ min 151.4 methanol, ethylbenzene, nitrobenzene, xylenes 5,200 366,805 False 63 35 gal/ min 132.5 methanol, ethylbenzene, xylenes 1,100 67,894 False 63 175,748 gal/ yr 1.27 MEK 1,000 1,464 False 63 577,180 gal/ yr 4.16 MEK 2,000 9,617 False 63 380,451 gal/ yr 2.74 MEK 2,000 6,339 False 63 1,340,643 gal/ yr 9.66 MEK 2,000 22,338 False 63 396,531 gal/ yr 2.86 MEK 1,500 4,955 False 63 4,285,400 gal/ yr 30.9 MIBK 5,000 178,506 False 92 400,000 gal/ yr 2.88 toluene 3,800 12,663 False 92 700,000 gal/ yr 5.04 toluene 3,000 17,495 False 105 44 gal/ min 165.6 MEK 4,074 562,354 False 106 144,321 gal/ yr 1.04 dimethyl aniline, xylenes 9,800 11,783 True 106 274,536 gal/ yr 1.98 xylenes, methanol 8,900 20,355 True 109 140,000 gal/ yr 1.01 xylenes 5,800 6,765 False 109 788,000 gal/ yr 5.68 xylenes 2,597 17,049 False 128 25 gal/ min 94.6 ethylene dichloride 8,000 875,745 True 133 6,700,000 gal/ yr 48.3 methanol, acrylonitrile 8,240 459,933 True A 15 Facility # Flow rate Units Flow ( L/ min) HAP name HAP Conc ( ppmw) Load ( lb/ yr) Already controlled? 153 9 gal/ min 33.3 methyl methacrylate 3,856 36,230 False


[Federal Register: January 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2200-2201]
[DOCID:fr13ja06-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-166-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Penalty Revenue
Report

January 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 30, 2005, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing a penalty revenue crediting
report pursuant to section 19.6 of the general terms and conditions of
its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    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 and 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 date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest

on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 January 11, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-259 Filed 1-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 70606]
[DOCID:fr22no05-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-16-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line; Notice of Application

November 10, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2005, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251,
filed, in CP06-16-000, an application pursuant to section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing Transco to remove and abandon two combined-cycle
gas turbines totaling 13,040 horsepower as well as construct and
operate a new 10,310 horsepower simple-cycle gas-fired compressor and
additional facilities at its Compressor Station No. 50 in Evangeline
Parish, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the application which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This
filing may be also viewed on the Web at 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. For
assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Bill
Hammons, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, P.O. Box 1396,
Houston, Texas 77251,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the
comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to
intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link.
    Comment Date: December 1, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6426 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30137-30138]
[DOCID:fr25my06-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

May 19, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Request for Non-Capacity Amendment of
License.
    b. Project No: 4885-056.
    c. Date Filed: April 10, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Twin Falls Hydro Associates, L.P.
    e. Name of Project: Twin Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: South Fork Snoqualmie River, King County, Washington.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.200.
    h. Applicant Contact: Kevin Webb, Twin Falls Hydro Associates,
L.P., c/o

Enel North American, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA
01810.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John K. Novak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-
6076.
    j. Deadline for Filing Comments, Motions to Intervene and Protest:
June 19, 2006.
    k. Description of Application: The licensee is requesting an
amendment of license regarding the minimum flow requirements for the
bypassed reach as specified in Article 35. Currently, Article 35
requires the release of 75 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow
whichever is less August 1 through April 30 and 150 cfs or inflow
whichever is less May 1 through July 31. The licensee is requesting
that it be allowed to release 75 cfs or inflow whichever is less year
round. The results of studies conducted by the licensee indicate that
75 cfs provides adequate protection for the aquatic resources in the
bypassed reach. Implementation of the Aquatic Mitigation Plan under
Article 37 may no longer be necessary with any release of a permanent
75 cfs year round flow. The licensee has filed an application to amend
the Water Quality Certificate with the Washington Department of
Ecology.
    l. Location of the Application: The filing is available for
inspection and review at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number (excluding the last three digits) into
the ``Docket Number'' field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item
h.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers (P-4885-056). All documents (including an
original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms. Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the licensee specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comment on the described filing. A copy of the filing may be
obtained by agencies directly from the licensee. If an agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must
also be sent to the licensee's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site
at http://www.ferc.fov under e-Filing link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8027 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Effects of atrazine under low-light conditions such as when suspended
solids are present:  The herbicidal mechanism of action of atrazine
involves interruption of photosynthesis.  The enclosed study tested for
the effects of atrazine on the macrophyte Elodea canadensis under 3
light intensities, concluding that under limited light conditions, the
toxicity of atrazine is reduced or eliminated.  In the Atrazine
Ecological Monitoring Program, total suspended solids (TSS) were assayed
in all relevant samples, the results showing that runoff events
containing elevated concentrations of atrazine were typically
accompanied by elevated TSS.  The enclosed study provides evidence that
high TSS, low-light conditions likely results in a reduction of the
toxicological effects of atrazine.  The  CASM_Atrazine simulation does
not account for the reduced light conditions caused by the elevated TSS
that typically accompanying the atrazine peaks, and is therefore
overestimating the toxic effects on the aquatic community under such
conditions.  This is offered as an example of the highly conservative
nature of the model, and addresses the unnecessary application of
uncertainty factors (as discussed in Charge Questions 4 and 9ii).


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33647-33650]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14296]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0416; FRL-9317-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Determination of Attainment for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard: States of Missouri and Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to determine that the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The St. Louis metropolitan ozone
nonattainment area includes the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St.
Charles, and St. Louis as well as St. Louis City in Missouri; and the
counties of Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, and Jersey in Illinois. This
final determination is based on three years of complete, quality
assured ambient air quality monitoring data for Missouri and Illinois
for the 2008 through 2010 ozone seasons showing attainment of the NAAQS
at all ozone monitoring sites in the nonattainment area. Based on this
final determination, the obligation to submit certain ozone attainment
demonstration requirements, along with other requirements related to
the attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard are suspended.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0416. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In Region 7 contact Lachala Kemp, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas
66101 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>In Region
5 contact Edward Doty, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following questions:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the effect of this action?
III. EPA's Determination of Attainment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is making a final determination that the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA published in the Federal Register its proposed
determination for the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan nonattainment area
on February 28, 2011 (76 FR 10815). A detailed discussion of the
rationale for the determination, and the effect of the determination,
was included in the proposal. EPA received no comments on the proposed
rule. EPA's determination is based upon the most recent three years of
complete, quality assured ambient air monitoring data for Missouri and
Illinois showing that the area has attained the NAAQS during the 2008-
2010 monitoring period.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. On January 6, 2010, EPA again addressed
this 2008 revised standard and proposed to set the primary 8-hour ozone
standard within the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm, rather than at 0.075
ppm. EPA is working to complete reconsideration of the standard and
thereafter will proceed with designations. Today's rulemaking relates
only to a final determination of attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and is not affected by the ongoing process of reconsidering
the revised 2008 standard.
    The monitors and design values are displayed in Table 1. The table
summarizes the annual fourth-high daily maximum 8-hour ozone
concentrations and their 3-year (2008-2010) averages for all monitors
in the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan nonattainment area. These data
reflect peak ozone concentrations quality assured and reported by the
States of Illinois and Missouri.

             Table 1--Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and 3 Year Averages in ppm for the St. Louis (MO-IL) Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2008 4th high   2009 4th high   2010 4th high     2008-2010
            State                         County                       Monitor                 (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)      average  (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois.....................  Jersey......................  Jerseyville................           0.069           0.068           0.072           0.069
                                                             17-083-1001................
                               Madison.....................  Alton......................           0.068           0.067           0.080           0.071
                                                             17-119-0008................
                                                             Maryville..................           0.070           0.074           0.074           0.072
                                                             17-119-1009................
                                                             Wood River.................           0.067           0.066           0.070           0.067
                                                             17-119-3007................
                               St. Clair...................  East St. Louis.............           0.064           0.069           0.072           0.068
                                                             17-163-0010................
Missouri.....................  Jefferson...................  Arnold West................            0.70           0.070           0.077           0.072
                                                             29-099-00019...............
                               St. Charles.................  Orchard Farm...............           0.072           0.073           0.077           0.074
                                                             29-183-1004................
                                                             West Alton.................           0.076           0.071           0.084           0.077
                                                             29-183-1002................
                               St. Louis...................  Maryland Heights...........           0.069           0.070           0.076           0.071
                                                             29-189-0014................
                                                             Pacific....................           0.064           0.064           0.069           0.065
                                                             29-189-0005................
                               St. Louis City..............  Blair Street...............           0.073           0.065           0.071           0.069
                                                             29-510-0085................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review of the 2008-2010 ozone monitoring data in the nonattainment
area shows that all sites were attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
during this period. Therefore, based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality assured ozone monitoring data, EPA is determining
that the 1997 8-hour ozone standard has been attained in the St. Louis
(MO-IL) metropolitan ozone nonattainment area.

II. What is the effect of this action?

    EPA is taking final action to determine that the St. Louis
metropolitan 8-hour ozone nonattainment area consisting of both the
Missouri and Illinois portions of the area has attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, based on this
determination, certain attainment demonstration requirements and
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning SIP
requirements related to attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS shall be
suspended as to the St. Louis nonattainment area. Under 40 CFR 51.918,
a final determination that the area has met the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard suspends the state's obligation to submit requirements related
to attainment, for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard. This action does not constitute a redesignation to attainment
under CAA section 107(d)(3), because Missouri and Illinois do not have
approved maintenance plans as required under section 175A of the CAA,
nor has EPA made a determination that the area has met the other
requirements for redesignation. The ozone classification and
designation status of the area remains moderate nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as a redesignation request and
maintenance plan are submitted to EPA and EPA determines that it meets
the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking
in the Federal Register, that the area has violated the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, the basis for the suspension of these requirements
would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address
the pertinent requirements.

III. EPA's Determination of Attainment

    EPA is taking final action to determine that the St. Louis (MO-IL)
metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997
8-hour ozone standard based on three years of complete, quality assured
ambient air quality monitoring data for Missouri and Illinois for the
2008-2010 ozone seasons. As provided in 40 CFR 51.918, based on this
determination, the requirements for Missouri and Illinois to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, and contingency measures
under section 172(c)(9), and any other planning SIP related to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the St. Louis
Metropolitan area would be suspended. This suspension of requirements
would be effective as long as the area continues to attain the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. This action addresses only the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.08 ppm, and does not address any subsequent revisions to
the standard.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final determination of attainment is based on air quality data
and would result in the suspension of certain Federal Requirements.
Accordingly, this action does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Therefore this final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this 8-hour ozone clean NAAQS data final determination
for the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan area does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 8, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 24, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    Dated: June 1, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart O--Illinois

* * * * *

0

2. Section 52.726 is amended by adding paragraph (jj) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.726  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (jj) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of June 9,
2011, that the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to
attainment of the standards for as long as the area continues to meet
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.

Subpart AA--Missouri

    2. Section 52.1342 is added to subpart AA to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1342  Control strategy: Ozone.

    Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of June 9,
2011, that the St. Louis (MO-IL) metropolitan 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918, suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to
attainment of the standards for as long as the area continues to meet
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2011-14296 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 19496]
[DOCID:fr10ap08-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-52-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
Complaint

April 3, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 1, 2008, the California Independent
System Operator Corporation (CAISO) filed a complaint pursuant to
section 206, 306 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e,
825e, and 825h, and section 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 18 CFR 385.206 (2007), to
modify the Transmission Control Agreement (TCA), under which the CAISO
assumes Operational Control of the transmission facilities that
constitute the ISO Controlled Grid. CAISO asserts that the TCA would be
unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory if Startrans IO,
L.L.C. (Startrans IO), is precluded from becoming a party to the TCA
and a Participating Transmission Owner (Participating TO), for the
transmission rights that it proposes to acquire from the City of Vernon
that are currently under the CAISO's Operational Control.
    The CAISO states that the complaint and all attachments have been
served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California,
the California Energy Commission, the California Electricity Oversight
Board, the Participating TOs, Startrans IO, and all parties with
effective Scheduling Coordinator Agreements under the CAISO Tariff. In
addition, the complaint and all attachments have been posted on the
CAISO Home Page.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 April 21, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-7599 Filed 4-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1106-1107]
[FR Doc No: X10-820108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61266; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-130]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by New York Stock Exchange LLC To
Establish a Trading License Fee for 2010

December 31, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 23, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``NYSE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to establish a $40,000 trading license fee
for calendar 2010. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE 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
    NYSE Rule 300(b) provides that, in each annual offering, up to 1366
trading licenses for the following calendar year will be sold annually
to member organizations at a price per trading license to be
established each year by the Exchange pursuant to a rule filing
submitted to the Commission and that the price per trading license will
be published each year in the Exchange's price list. The Exchange
proposes to establish a trading license fee for calendar 2010 of
$40,000. This is the same as the trading license fee charged in
calendar 2009.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59140, 73 FR 80488
(December 31, 2009[sic]) (SR-NYSE-2008-130).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 \5\ of the Act in general and Section
6(b)(4) \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange
believes that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable
allocation of dues, fees and other charges, as all member organizations
will be charged the same trading license fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2009-130 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-NYSE-2009-130. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\9\ all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. 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; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2009-130 and should be submitted on or before January 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-74 Filed 1-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


interrupting a switching operation, or interrupting an activity
involving another employee involved with the movement of the train
(e.g., through the use of a banner, signal, or radio communication),
the limitations on the use of electronic devices set forth in this
subpart

continue to be in effect although the train movement, switching
operation, or other activity is temporarily suspended.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2010.
Karen Rae,
Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-11484 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35992-35994]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0622]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Huron All Classic Fireworks, Huron River, Huron, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters near the East Cleveland Road in Huron, OH. The safety
zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards associated with fireworks displays
created by the Huron All Classic Fireworks event on the Huron River.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his or
her designated representative. This temporary safety zone is necessary
to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays.

DATES: This regulation is effective from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on
August 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0622 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 MSTC Allie Lee, Waterways Department, Marine Safety Unit
Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event sponsor notified the Coast
Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the comment period. Thus,
delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for the comment period
to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because it would prevent the Captain of the Port Detroit from keeping
the public safe from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks
displays.
    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. Waiting for a 30-day effective
period to run is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for
the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks
displays will be a safety concern for anyone within a 400 foot radius
of the launch site. The likely combination of recreational vessels,
darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and fireworks debris
falling into the water presents risks of collisions which could result
in serious injuries or fatalities. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone during the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone that will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. until 10 p.m. on August 3, 2019. The safety zone will encompass
all U.S. navigable waters of the Huron River within a 400 foot radius
of the fireworks launch site located at position 41[deg]23'32.5'' N
082[deg]33'7.1'' W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD 83).
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the
fireworks display. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit or his designated representative. The Captain of the
Port, Sector Detroit or his designated representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16.

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 is based on the
size, location, and duration of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be
impacted in a small designated area of the Huron River in Huron, OH for
a period of 45 minutes. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 about the safety zone and the
rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). 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 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 lasting only 45 minutes
that will prohibit entry within 400 foot radius of where the fireworks
display will be conducted. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L[60](a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0622 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0622   Safety Zone; Huron All Classic Fireworks, Huron
River, Huron, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
U.S. navigable waters of the Huron River within a 400 foot radius of
the fireworks launch site located at position 41[deg] 23'32.5'' N
082[deg]33'7.1'' W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. The regulation in this section will be
enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10 p.m. on August 3, 2019. The Captain of
the Port Detroit, or a designated representative

may suspend enforcement of the safety zone at any time.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Detroit, or his or her designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his or her
designated representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his or
her behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port
Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his or her designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his or her
designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port
Detroit or his or her designated representative.

    Dated: July 23, 2019.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2019-15898 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P