[Federal Register: October 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62388-62394]
[DOCID:fr25oc06-4]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022; FRL-8233-9]
RIN 2050-AG33

NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Amendment)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is amending the effective date of the standard for
particulate matter for new cement kilns that burn hazardous waste. EPA
promulgated this standard as part of the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for hazardous waste combustors
that were issued on October 12, 2005, under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act. EPA agreed to reconsider the standard and proposed to change
it on March 23, 2006 (71 FR 14665). This amendment suspends the
obligation of new cement kilns to comply with the particulate matter
standard until EPA takes final action on this proposal. This amendment
does not affect other standards applicable to new or existing hazardous
waste burning cement kilns.

DATES: The final rule is effective on October 25, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022. All documents in the docket are listed on
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information the disclosure of which 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 in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ

EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, EPA West
Building, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004
(See note below). This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The HQ EPA
Docket Center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
docket materials.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to visit the Public Reading Room to
view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at  http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
 for current information on docket status, locations and

telephone numbers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Frank Behan at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Solid Waste (MC: 5302P), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The regulated categories
and entities affected by the NESHAP include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                       NAICS code       SIC code      Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................          327310            3241  Cement manufacturing, clinker
                                                                                production.
Federal government............................  ..............  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.................  ..............  ..............  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be impacted by this
action. This table lists examples of the types of entities EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your
facility, company, business, organization, etc., is affected by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.1200. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Worldwide Web (www). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's final rule will also be available on the
www at http://www.epa.gov/hwcmact.

    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), judicial review of today's amendment to the NESHAP for hazardous
waste combustors is available only on the filing of a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of today's publication of this final rule. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are subject to
today's notice may not be challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:

I. Summary of Final Rule
II. Background
III. Basis for Amended Effective Date
IV. Good Cause Findings
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review

I. Summary of Final Rule

    EPA is issuing a final rule to amend the effective date of the
standard for particulate matter for new cement kilns that burn
hazardous waste. The effect of this action is to suspend the obligation
of new cement kilns to comply with the particulate matter standard that
was issued on October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59402), under section 112 of the
CAA, and set forth in Sec.  63.1220(b)(7)(i). EPA is codifying this
amendment by amending Sec. Sec.  63.1206(a)(1)(ii)(B) and
63.1220(b)(7)(i).
    Under this amended rule, cement kilns that were constructed or
reconstructed after April 20, 2004, are temporarily relieved of the
obligation to comply with the replacement particulate matter standard
of 0.0023 gr/dscf, corrected to 7 percent oxygen, under Sec.
63.1220(b)(7)(i).\1\ However, such sources instead must comply with a
particulate matter standard of 0.15 kg/Mg dry feed, which was the
standard applicable to new cement kilns prior to the promulgation of
the replacement standard (i.e., the standard set forth in Sec.
63.1220(b)(7)(i) as promulgated in the October, 2005 rule). This action
does not affect any other standards applicable to new (or existing)
cement kilns. It also does not affect the standards for other hazardous
waste combustor source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this notice all concentration-based standards with units
of gr/dscf are corrected to 7% oxygen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This amendment of the effective date shall take effect immediately
upon publication in the Federal Register, and will remain in effect
until EPA takes final action on the proposal to revise the particulate
matter standard under Sec.  63.1220(b)(7)(i). After EPA takes final
action on the particulate matter standard, a cement kiln constructed or
reconstructed after April 20, 2004, will be subject to the particulate
matter standard set forth in Sec.  63.1220(b)(7)(i).

II. Background

    The final maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
for hazardous waste combustors, implementing section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act, were published on October 12, 2005 (70 FR 59402). They
are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE. These standards include
limits for particulate matter, which is a surrogate for certain
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals. The particulate matter standard
for new hazardous waste burning cement kilns is 0.0023 gr/dscf.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The particulate matter standard is used as a surrogate to
control five HAP metals including antimony, cobalt, manganese,
nickel, and selenium. In addition, the particulate matter standard
is a surrogate control for all non-mercury HAP metals in the raw
materials and auxiliary fuels. 69 FR at 21221.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of the hazardous waste combustor final rule,
the Administrator received petitions for reconsideration of this
standard pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA from Ash Grove
Cement Company (AGCC) and the Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
(CKRC).\3\ Under this section of the CAA, the Administrator shall
initiate reconsideration proceedings if the petitioner can show that it
was impracticable to raise an objection to a rule within the public
comment period or that the grounds for the objection arose after the
public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AGCC's petition for reconsideration is docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0022-0516 and the petition of CKRC is docket item EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0022-0520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners AGCC and CKRC requested that EPA reconsider the
particulate matter standard for new cement kilns. They stated that the
final standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf was not properly noticed and was
derived using unrepresentative test data from the Ash Grove Cement
Chanute (AGCC Chanute) plant, resulting in an unachievable standard. To
support their position, the petitioners provided additional performance
data from the AGCC Chanute plant, the cement kiln whose performance was
the basis for the standard. On March 23, 2006, we published a proposed
rule granting reconsideration of the particulate matter standard for
new cement kilns and proposed a revised standard. See 71 FR 14665. In
the proposal we agreed that there was legitimate confusion regarding
whether we would base the new source standard on emissions data from
the Ash Grove Cement Chanute plant, and that also, there was no
practical opportunity for commenters to address this issue during the
public comment period. We also stated that ``it appears that the
promulgated new source standard for particulate matter for cement kilns
is overly stringent in that it does not fully reflect the variability
of the best performing source over time (the ``emission control that is
achieved in practice,'' using the language of section 112(d)(3))''. 71
FR at 14668. Therefore, we proposed a revised particulate matter
standard for new cement kilns of 0.0069 gr/dscf. Eleven public comment
letters were submitted in response to the proposal, including a request
to extend the comment period by two weeks that was granted in a
subsequent notice on April 13, 2006 (71 FR 19155).
    Pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, EPA also issued an
administrative stay of the 0.0023 gr/dscf standard on March 23, 2006
(71 FR 14655). The administrative stay was in effect for three months,
the maximum allowable under this section of the CAA, from March 23,
2006 to June 23, 2006. The administrative stay was based on our initial
determination that the petitions for reconsideration (for the
particulate matter standard for new cement kilns) appear to have merit
and that there is a potential environmental detriment associated with
requiring immediate compliance with the current standard of 0.0023 gr/
dscf (71 FR at 14655).

III. Basis for Amended Effective Date

    Although we proposed to revise the particulate matter standard for
new cement kilns to 0.0069 gr/dscf from 0.0023 gr/dscf in response to
the petitions for reconsideration, the

October 12, 2005 final rule provides that the promulgated particulate
matter standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf takes effect upon publication.
Without today's amendment of this provision, all cement kilns that were
constructed or reconstructed after April 20, 2004, would have been
required to comply immediately with the 0.0023 gr/dscf emission
standard. While there are no cement kilns operating that were
constructed or reconstructed after April 20, 2004 (and thus already
complying with the 0.0023 gr/dscf standard) currently, there are a
number of cement plants that are in various stages of constructing new,
lower emitting and more energy-efficient kilns to replace older cement
kilns. Comments submitted by these cement companies affirm that the
promulgated particulate matter standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf, if left in
effect during the reconsideration proceedings, could adversely affect
the construction of these new kilns. As discussed in Section IV below,
we have found that such delays, if they were to occur, would result in
adverse environmental and energy impacts (e.g., increased emissions of
particulate matter and increased consumption of fossil fuels such as
coal). Therefore, we conclude it is appropriate to amend the effective
date of the particulate matter standard for new cement kilns until we
conclude the reconsideration proceedings.
    We are mindful that there would be no need to amend the effective
date of the new source particulate matter standard for cement kilns if
it seemed likely that we would affirm the promulgated standard of
0.0023 gr/dscf at the conclusion of the reconsideration process. Based
on a preliminary, non-cursory evaluation of public comments submitted
in response to the proposed rule to revise the particulate matter
standard, we continue to believe that a MACT floor level of 0.0023 gr/
dscf is not representative of the performance of any single best
performing cement kiln source in our emissions data base, properly
taking normal operating variability into account. Therefore, while not
a final determination, our preliminary review of public comments
provided during the reconsideration proceedings has not persuaded us
that a revision of the particulate matter standard for new cement kilns
is unnecessary. We will, of course, consider objectively all
information submitted during the reconsideration process and make a
final determination in the near future as to the need to revise this
standard.
    Our preliminary view is that an emissions standard of 0.0023 gr/
dscf for particulate matter is not an appropriate standard for new
cement kilns either as a MACT floor or as a beyond-the-floor
standard.\4\ First, a level of 0.0023 gr/dscf does not appear to be an
achievable MACT floor level based on available particulate matter
emissions data from the AGCC Chanute plant, the cement kiln on whose
performance that standard was based. Available performance data for
AGCC Chanute include emissions data from 2001-2002 (the basis of the
promulgated MACT floor of 0.0023 gr/dscf) and additional emissions data
from 2003-2005 submitted by petitioner AGCC during reconsideration
proceedings (the basis for identifying another cement plant as the
single best performing source in the reconsideration proposed rule that
led EPA to propose a MACT floor of 0.0069 gr/dscf). As discussed below,
it is our view that these emissions data show that the AGCC Chanute
source does not routinely achieve a standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf. In
fact, our review of the AGCC Chanute data led us to identify another
cement plant as the single best performing source in the March 23, 2006
reconsideration proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the notice of proposed rulemaking for a discussion of
how we selected representative data for each source so that the
single best performing source could be identified and how we
calculated the MACT floor levels for particulate matter. 69 FR at
21223-233 (April 20, 2004). The proposed rule also describes how
emissions variability was accounted for, including the use of a
``universal variability factor'' that was used only for the
particulate matter standard to address long-term variability in
particulate matter emissions of sources using fabric filters. See
also 70 FR at 59436-450. In developing MACT standards, we must also
consider beyond-the-floor control options that are more stringent
than the floor level taking into consideration not only emission
performance but also the cost of achieving the emission reductions,
any health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. CAA
section 112(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter to the March 23, 2006 proposed rule stated that the
emissions data of AGCC Chanute from 2003-2005 reflect unnecessary bag
leakage and ineffective maintenance, and, therefore, the test data
submitted during reconsideration proceedings for AGCC Chanute should
not be accepted as representative of routine performance. The commenter
also states that a standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf would be readily
achievable by AGCC Chanute (and other cement kilns) through, among
other things, an effective preventative maintenance program that
includes the use of bag leak detection systems to identify and correct
bag leaks when they first occur.\5\ However, the commenter provides no
evidence that an ineffective preventative maintenance program is
responsible for the variability seen in the additional emissions data
from 2003-2005 as compared to the 2001-2002 data. Without a basis to
exclude the data, we tentatively believe these additional data must not
be excluded from the MACT floor analysis because they reflect the
normal variability of the source over time. As discussed in the
reconsideration proposed rule, if these data are considered, then AGCC
Chanute's performance clearly shows that an emission level of 0.0023
gr/dscf is not an appropriate MACT floor for new cement kilns because
it does not fully reflect the source's emission variability (71 FR at
14669). We also tentatively reject the commenter's argument that AGCC
Chanute could routinely achieve a MACT floor of 0.0023 gr/dscf if its
baghouse (fabric filter) were better maintained by monitoring emissions
with a bag leak detection system. The argument suggests that AGCC
Chanute could have maintained the performance achieved in 2001-2002
through improved monitoring and a better preventative maintenance
program. We disagree that the commenter's argument is even relevant
when identifying a MACT floor because whether AGCC Chanute could
operate better (achieve lower emissions over time) with different
equipment, such as a bag leak detection system, is a beyond-the-floor
issue. As the commenter acknowledges, AGCC Chanute is not equipped with
a bag leak detection system. For purposes of a MACT floor, we must
identify the single best performing source and identify an emission
level that reflects ``the emission control that is achieved in practice
by the best controlled source.'' Section 112(d)(3). Therefore, a MACT
floor of 0.0023 gr/dscf for particulate matter would not be justifiable
based on theoretical performance of a differently-equipped AGCC Chanute
plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0542.01, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, a level of 0.0023 gr/dscf does not appear to be an
achievable MACT floor level based on available particulate matter
emissions data from any other cement kiln source in our emissions data
base. As presented in the support document to the reconsideration
proposed rule, we are not in possession of any emissions data from a
cement kiln achieving this level, accounting for normal performance
variability.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Reconsideration of the New Source Particulate Matter
Standards for Cement Kilns,'' March 2006, Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, an emissions standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf for particulate
matter is not likely an appropriate beyond-the-floor standard for new
cement kilns. In

the reconsideration proposal, we evaluated a beyond-the-floor standard
of 0.0035 gr/dscf and proposed that such a standard would not be
justified.\7\ This analysis was based on improved baghouse performance
that evaluates improved bag material and a lower gas to cloth ratio. We
also reached that conclusion in the final rule whereby we rejected
adopting a beyond-the-floor standard of 0.0012 gr/dscf.\8\ While we are
not able to quantify the costs here (because the MACT floor level has
yet to be determined), the previous analyses indicate that a beyond-
the-floor standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf is not likely to be warranted. We
will, of course, make a final determination as to the appropriateness
of a beyond-the-floor standard for new cement kilns during the
reconsideration process in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ USEPA, ``Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT
Standards, Reconsideration of the New Source Particulate Matter
Standards for Cement Kilns,'' March 2006, Section 4.1.2.
    \8\ USEPA, ``Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards,
Volume III: Selection of MACT Standards,'' September 2005, Section
11.3.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Good Cause Findings

    Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (which
applies to this action pursuant to the final sentence of CAA section
307(d)(1)) provides that, when any agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. Similarly, under section
553(d) of the APA, an agency may find that there is good cause to make
the rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
    We have determined that there is good cause for making today's
amendment final without prior proposal and opportunity for public
comment for several reasons. First, this amendment removes potential
impediments to significant environmental and energy savings by allowing
continued construction of new cement kilns that burn hazardous waste.
As noted in the petitions for reconsideration of AGCC and CKRC, at
least three companies are in various stages of constructing new, lower
emitting and more energy-efficient kilns to replace older cement
kilns.\9\ Declarations made by representatives of these companies are
that the companies could choose not to burn hazardous waste at these
kilns and instead comply with the more lenient standards for
particulate matter applicable to non-waste burning kilns, should the
current particulate matter standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf be included in a
permit.\10\ Using the AGCC's Foreman plant as an example, we estimate
that emissions of particulate matter would increase by approximately 77
tons per year at the Foreman plant should AGCC decide to abandon plans
to burn hazardous waste at the new preheater/precalciner kiln.\11\
Continental Cement Company and Keystone Cement Company also are
planning to construct new cement kilns. If all three companies
abandoned plans to build the new lower-emitting cement kilns, then
particulate matter emissions would potentially increase by over 200
tons per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For example, AGCC is replacing its three older wet process
cement kilns at its Foreman, Arkansas plant with a new preheater/
precalciner kiln. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0523, page 3.
Information related to plans of Continental Cement Company and
Keystone Cement Company to build new cement kilns can be found in
docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0521, Appendices F and G,
respectively.
    \10\ Declarations made by representatives of AGCC, Continental
Cement Company, and Keystone Cement Company are available in the
docket. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022-0521, Appendices F, G,
and H.
    \11\ For purposes of this estimate, it was assumed that the new
preheater/precalciner kiln would be designed to 0.0034 gr/dscf,
which is the design level for the standard that we proposed for new
hazardous waste burning cement kilns on March 23, 2006 (71 FR
14665). The particulate matter standard for new cement kilns that do
not burn hazardous waste is 0.15 kg/Mg dry feed, which equates to
approximately 0.04 gr/dscf, corrected to 7% oxygen, for a preheater/
precalciner kiln. Section 63.1343(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There also may be environmental detriment if the amendment is not
issued because the companies building new cement kilns could experience
construction and permitting delays. This detriment would result because
the existing higher-emitting and less efficient cement kilns would
(assuming delay) continue to operate for a longer period of time (i.e.,
operation of the new cement kilns replacing the older kilns would be
postponed). We estimate that emissions of particulate matter would
increase by approximately 60 tons at the Foreman plant should AGCC
experience a 1-year delay in initiating operation of their new
preheater/precalciner kiln.\12\ Delays at Continental Cement Company
and Keystone Cement Company would result in annual increases in
particulate matter emissions of 27 tons and 30 tons, respectively.
Thus, if all three companies experienced a one-year delay in building
the new lower-emitting cement kilns, then particulate matter emissions
would increase by approximately 117 tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We estimate emissions of particulate matter from Ash Grove
Cement's three wet process kilns at 85 tons per year. See USEPA,
``Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Replacement Standards,
Volume V: Emissions Estimates and Engineering Costs,'' September
2005, Appendix C. For purposes of this estimation, we assumed that
the new preheater/precalciner kiln would be designed to 0.0034 gr/
dscf, which is the design level for the standard that we proposed
for new hazardous waste burning cement kilns on March 23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also find that amending the rule's effective date yields
substantial energy savings. A typical wet process cement kiln requires
approximately 5-6 million Btu of energy to make one ton of clinker
product, while the more thermally-efficient preheater/precalciner kilns
require 3 million Btu of energy. One wet process cement kiln annually
producing 500,000 tons of clinker would consume approximately 105,000
tons of coal (assumes that all energy is derived from coal). However, a
more thermally-efficient preheater/precalciner kiln would require
57,000 tons of coal per year, which equates to an annual energy savings
of nearly 50,000 tons of coal per kiln as compared to a wet process
kiln. Thus, a delay in the start-up of the new kilns or outright
abandonment of its construction would result in the increased use of
several hundred thousand tons of coal per year.
    It is also important to note that while this amendment temporarily
relieves newly constructed or reconstructed cement kilns of the
obligation to comply with the replacement standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf,
there are no cement kilns currently in operation that are subject to
the replacement standard. That is, there are no new cement kilns that
are currently complying with the replacement standard of 0.0023 gr/dscf
for particulate matter, and thus no kilns that will actually emit
particulate matter at higher levels. Thus, although the less stringent
particulate matter standard that was applicable to new cement kilns
prior to the promulgation of the replacement standards will be in
effect as a result of today's amendment, this will not lead to an
actual increase in particulate matter emissions.
    We also note that the issue of the rule's effective date has
essentially already been subject to robust public comment through the
grant of reconsideration and proposal to amend the rule. Thus, this is
not a situation where the public is presented with a final rule without
having opportunity to address the issues involved in the action.
    Finally, we note that we expect this amendment to be in effect for
only a short time. We estimate that the amendment will remain in effect
for less than 1-year while the rulemaking to revise the particulate
matter standard for new cement kilns is concluded. We intend to take
final action on

reconsideration of the particulate matter standard for new cement kilns
as expeditiously as possible. When that work is completed, the kilns
currently under construction will be responsible for meeting the
standard in the revised rule prior to commencing operation. We do not
anticipate that any of those new kilns will ever operate subject to the
previous replacement standard.
    Given the possibility of environmental detriment, the lack of
environmental prejudice, the previous opportunity for public comment on
the issues involved, and the likely short duration of this amendment,
we find that there is good cause to amend the rule's effective date
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) without prior notice or opportunity to
comment. We also find, for the same reasons, that good cause exists
under APA section 553(d)(3) to make this amendment effective upon
publication in the Federal Register rather than 30 days later.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO. Consequently, this
action was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review under EO 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule (70 FR
59402, October 12, 2005) were submitted to and approved by OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and assigned OMB
control number 2050-0171. An Information Collection Request (ICR)
document was prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1773.08) and a copy may be
obtained from Susan Auby by mail at Office of Environmental Information
Collection Strategies Division (ME-2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy may also be downloaded from the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/icr.

    Today's action does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. Because there is no additional burden on the industry as a result
of the final rule amendments, the ICR has not been revised.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is primarily engaged in cement manufacturing as defined by NAIC code
327310 with less than 750 employees (for the entire corporation); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in the field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any new, more stringent requirements on new
source, small cement manufacturing entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that the final rule amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any one year. Furthermore, section 202 does not apply
to rules for which EPA invokes an exemption under section 553(b)(1)(B)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, as is being done in this action.
Thus, today's action is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA. EPA has also determined that the final rule amendments contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Thus, the final rule amendments are not

subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA no new
enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action
contains no requirements that are more stringent than in the October
2005 final rule. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.

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

    ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
    Today's final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not
meet either of these criteria. The rule simply amends the effective
date of a standard while EPA takes final action on the proposed rule
(71 FR 14665 (March 23, 2006)).

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not
an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule (69 FR 21198), Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''),
Pub. L. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review

    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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must
be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As discussed in
Section IV above, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefore, and established an effective date of October 25,
2006. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subject in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 19, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 63.1206 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(1)
and adding new paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(B)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1206  When and how must you comply with the standards and
operating requirements?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * * (1) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of
your hazardous waste combustor after April 20, 2004, you must comply
with the new source emission standards under Sec. Sec.  63.1219,
63.1220, and 63.1221 and the other requirements of this subpart by the
later of October 12, 2005 or the date the source starts operations,
except as provided by paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(B)(2) and (a)(1)(ii)(B)(3)
of this section. The costs of retrofitting and replacement of equipment
that is installed specifically to comply with this subpart, between
April 20, 2004, and a source's compliance date, are not considered to
be reconstruction costs.
* * * * *
    (3) Temporary particulate matter standard under Sec.  63.1220 for
new

cement kilns. You are not required to comply with the particulate
matter standard specified under Sec.  63.1220(b)(7)(i) until EPA takes
final action with regard to the particulate matter standard pursuant to
reconsideration proceedings. If you start up a new or reconstructed
hazardous waste burning cement kiln as defined by this subpart, you
must not emit particulate matter in excess of 0.15 kg/Mg dry feed, as
determined according to the requirements under Sec.  63.1204(b)(7)(i)
through (iii).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 63.1220 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(7)(i) to read
as follows:

Sec.  63.1220  What are the replacement standards for hazardous waste
burning cement kilns?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) Except as provided by Sec.  63.1206(a)(1)(ii)(B)(3) and
paragraph (b)(7)(iii) of this section, particulate matter emissions in
excess of 0.0023 gr/dscf corrected to 7 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-17897 Filed 10-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                     MEMORANDUM

      Tetra Tech, Inc.
      10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
      fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

      TO:		Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA
      FROM:		Tim Havey and Kelly Meadows
      DATE: 		June 23, 2008

      SUBJECT:	California Offshore Intake Structures with Velocity Caps

      Cooling water intake structures located in deeper offshore waters may offer impingement and/or entrainment (I&E) reductions when compared with a similar intake structure located at the shoreline. I&E reductions may be achieved through the intake's location in less productive, less sensitive areas of the water body, although this is somewhat dependent on local aquatic life and physical characteristics. When compared with a shoreline intake, an offshore location may reduce overall I&E rates but may also alter the I&E species profile.

      Any impingement reductions realized by the intake's physical location are increased by the velocity cap, which changes the intake water vector from vertical to horizontal, thus enabling larger fish to detect the current and escape. Impingement reductions observed at velocity cap facilities along the southern California Bight have been generally been significant, with overall reductions ranging from 65 to 95 percent. These reduction values must be qualified, however, based on the methods used to collect and analyze the samples as well as the species on which the reduction is calculated. Earlier studies, such as the 1958 El Segundo Generating Station report, tended to focus on commercially and recreationally important species only, leaving aside forage and non-use species that were presumed to be of little value.

      Velocity cap performance may vary significantly based on temporal or local factors. Significant diurnal fluctuations in impingement rates have been observed with nighttime performance often well below daytime values.  At Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS), for example, observed impingement rates were 12 to 37 percent higher during nighttime collection.

      In addition, there are several factors that may influence velocity cap effectiveness and may be unique to southern California's facilities:

      *       It is worth noting that coastal waters along the southern California Bight are subject to short and long-term periodic shifts in ocean temperatures that can affect the number and composition of species potentially affected by the intake. Two major climatic factors, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), can significantly raise or lower water temperatures compared with long-term averages. During the El Niño phase of the ENSO, warmer waters from the south generally replace the cooler water of the California Current along the bight. During the La Niña phase, the pattern may shift and result in colder than normal temperatures.

      Each shift has the potential to alter the species mix in the vicinity of the intake, with El Niño cycles driving cold water species further from shore and into areas where they may be affected by the intakes. Effects of El Niño/La Niña events may be magnified or moderated depending on the concurring phase of the PDO, which may take 20-30 years to complete a full cycle. Temperatures may fluctuate by 2.5° F or more during the event peaks. Comparisons between historical and current information do show differences in species abundance, although a direct correlation is difficult.

      *       Benefits of offshore intakes with respect to entrainment have not been studied in as much detail as impingement, although recent sampling efforts by several facilities offer a substantial data set from which entrainment reductions may be calculated.

      *       Several of California's southern coastal facilities with offshore intakes are located in areas with rocky substrates that support giant kelp forests. These kelp forests support larger nursery and spawning areas offshore than are generally found off the Atlantic coast.

      *       Some entrainment analyses have noted that entrainment rate comparisons between offshore and shoreline locations may not accurately reflect actual impact reductions when evaluating all taxa instead of target or relevant species. Changes in currents due to ENSO or other climatic events may result in the presence of some species that are not native to the area and are effectively "dead" despite their potential for entrainment.

      Conclusions presented by several facilities that have completed their most recent sampling analyses are typically discussed in terms of population level impacts as opposed to percentage reductions. Because the Phase II rule has been suspended, the facilities have reverted to the previous BPJ-based permitting approach. Based on EPA's 1977 guidance document, they have sought to quantify whether AEI was occurring as a result of the intake structure's operation and whether that impact was "significant." As such, performance is broadly based on whether these impacts are significant or not instead of the "percent reduction" approach used in Phase II. Nevertheless, data are available from which to calculate percentage reductions from different baseline or relative values.

      Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) -- Huntington Beach, CA

      Intake Description:
            *       Single intake located 1,500 feet from shore in Pacific Ocean
            *       Velocity cap approximately 18 feet below MLLW and 5 feet above intake riser
            *       Large marine life exclusion
            *       Intake velocity: 2.8 fps (at cap)
            *       Design flow: 517 mgd

      Velocity cap impingement studies conducted at HBGS have been among the more comprehensive and rigorous of all the southern California facilities. This is due, in part, to its selection by Southern California Edison (SCE) as a model facility to use in determining velocity cap effectiveness at its other facilities in the region, including the El Segundo, Ormond Beach and Redondo Beach generating stations. Other facilities with velocity caps (Scattergood and SONGS) have also used data collected at HBGS as part of their own effectiveness studies.

      The initial study at HBGS was conducted by the University of Washington from 1978 through 1979 and consisted of seven trial periods with 123 hourly impingement estimates as well as source water abundance estimates using hydroacoustic sampling techniques. Velocity cap performance was calculated by comparing impingement the relative impingement rates of a capped versus uncapped intake. This was done by reversing the intake and discharge locations, both of which are located offshore in the same general area. Intake tunnels were purged of any resident fish prior to testing by injecting chlorine into the tunnel.

      Results from the comparative tests showed the velocity cap was effective in reducing impingement by as much as 99% during they day but as low as 53% at night. Overall effectiveness averaged 82% for all sampling events regardless of time. As part of its NPDES permit requirements, HBGS has continued impingement monitoring during all heat treatments and representative operating periods.

      Entrainment analyses were not conducted at HBGS in the late 1970s. Rather, data collected at two other SCE facilities (Ormond Beach and SONGS) were used to extrapolate HBGS entrainment rates based on local conditions. Entrainment performance was not calculated because source water references were not developed on which any reduction could be based.

      HBGS conducted additional I&E sampling in 2003 and 2004 as part of its relicensing agreement with the state. These samples included source water abundance monitoring for both I&E at several reference monitoring stations located near the intake and along the shoreline. Because these data were considered representative of current conditions, HBGS did not collect additional data in order to comply with Phase II CDS requirements.

      Various models were used to estimate entrainment impacts relative to the source water. Depending on the target species, AEL, FH, and ETM methods were used to estimate the percent mortality (Pm), which, in turn, provided the basis for APF estimates. HBGS proposed to use this method to determine the calculation baseline and any existing design credits under Phase II.

      HBGS concluded that I&E impacts were not significant, although raw data supporting this determination were not available for review. Presumably, data collected in 2003 and 2004 would be able to show entrainment rates relative to the source water body abundance. HBGS also conducted an entrainment survival study (through condenser), but results are not yet available.
      Scattergood Generating Station (SGS) -- Los Angeles, CA

      Intake Description:
            *       Single intake located 1,600 feet from shore in Santa Monica Bay
            *       Velocity cap approximately 17 feet below MLLW
            *       Large marine life exclusion (installed February 2008)
            *       Intake velocity: 1.5 fps (at cap)
            *       Design flow: 495 mgd

      Site-specific evaluations of the SGS velocity cap's impingement performance were first conducted in the early 1970s when a storm damaged the original velocity cap. The cap was removed and, at the request of California Department of Fish and Game, left off so as to allow a comparison of impingement rates between the capped and uncapped intake. Using a biomass metric normalized to the intake flows reported during the monitoring periods, SGS estimated the velocity cap's impingement reduction effectiveness at 83% compared with the uncapped intake. As part of its NPDES permit requirements, SGS has continued impingement monitoring during all heat treatments and representative operating periods.

      The most recent velocity cap effectiveness study at SGS was conducted in 2006 as part of Phase II CDS compliance. This study again compared the performance of a capped versus uncapped intake by reversing the operating flows; i.e., the intake becomes the discharge, and vice versa. Unlike the previous analysis, the 2006 study included source water reference monitoring using hydroacoustic sampling techniques to estimate aquatic biomass abundance and distribution. Over a 12-week period, impingement data were collected under normal operating conditions (with cap) and reverse flow (without cap), alternating every two weeks. Source water characterizations were augmented with impingement sampling at reference monitoring stations along the shoreline and in the vicinity of the intake.

      Using these data as well as weekly impingement monitoring information, normalized based on intake flow, the SGS velocity cap effectiveness was calculated at 95% using a biomass metric and more than 97% based on abundance.

      Entrainment analyses at SGS were first conducted in 1978 but only focused on commercially and recreationally important species. As part of its Phase II CDS compliance requirement, SGS conducted additional entrainment monitoring in 2006. Samples were collected from the intake structure as well as several reference stations along the shoreline and in the vicinity of the intake structure. In contrast to the 1978 efforts, all taxa were identified as accurately as possible.

      Various models were used to estimate entrainment impacts relative to the source water. Depending on the target species, AEL, FH, and ETM methods were used to estimate the percent mortality (Pm), which, in turn, provided the basis for APF estimates. SGS proposed to use this method to determine the calculation baseline and any existing design credits under Phase II. An aggregate "percent reduction" value is not explicitly presented in the final report, although raw data are available from both the intake and reference stations that would enable such a determination.

      SGS bases its discussion of entrainment impacts on guidelines set forth in EPA's 1977 guidance document, which categorizes AEI as significant or insignificant relative to the known source populations. SGS concludes that the current intake's impacts are insignificant.

      El Segundo Generating Station (ESGS) -- El Segundo, CA

      Intake Description:
            *       Two intakes located 2,600 feet from shore in Santa Monica Bay (only one operational)
            *       Velocity cap approximately 15 feet below MLLW
            *       Intake velocity: 2.4 fps (at cap)
            *       Design flow: 399 mgd

      The original velocity cap effectiveness study at ESGS was conducted in 1958 and consisted of a full year of impingement monitoring before and after the velocity cap was installed. As with other earlier studies, the 1958 analysis primarily focused on commercially and recreationally important species and excluded forage and non-use species. A comparison between the before and after periods showed an impingement reduction of 95% using a biomass metric. Original data are not available and cannot be reviewed to determine relative species abundance. Source water sampling was not conducted.

      Impingement sampling was conducted in 2006-2007 as part of Phase II CDS compliance, but ESGS did not perform a site-specific analysis of its velocity cap effectiveness. Instead, it relies on extrapolations from the previous HBGS study and the more recent SGS study. The relative close proximity between ESGS and SGS would appear to support similar conclusions for velocity cap effectiveness.

      Entrainment analyses were not conducted at ESGS in the late 1970s. Rather, data collected at Ormond Beach were used to extrapolate ESGS entrainment rates based on local conditions. These data are not considered reliable for ESGS because of the distance separating the two facilities (60 miles) and the sample collection and analysis methods used that the time. Entrainment performance was not calculated because source water references were not developed on which a reduction could be based.

      ESGS did conduct additional entrainment monitoring as part of Phase II CDS compliance. Samples were collected in the intake forebay as well as at several reference monitoring stations along the shoreline and in the vicinity of the intake. Total entrainment values were estimated based on actual and design flows.

      Various models were used to estimate entrainment impacts relative to the source water. Depending on the target species, AEL, FH, and ETM methods were used to estimate the percent mortality (Pm), which, in turn, provided the basis for APF estimates. ESGS proposed to use this method to determine the calculation baseline and any existing design credits under Phase II.

      ESGS bases its discussion of entrainment impacts on guidelines set forth in EPA's 1977 guidance document, which categorizes AEI as significant or insignificant relative to the known source populations. ESGS concludes that the current intake's impacts are insignificant.
      Others

      SONGS:	Awaiting final characterization report from SCE
      Redondo:	Most data and conclusions are extrapolated from ESGS and HBGS; did not conduct a site specific velocity cap analysis
      Ormond:	Awaiting final characterization report


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29969]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Proposed Establishment of Class C Airspace at Harrisburg
International Airport, PA; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notification of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces a fact-finding informal airspace
meeting regarding a plan to establish Class C Airspace at Harrisburg
International Airport, PA. The purpose of the meeting is to solicit
aeronautical comments on the proposal's effects on local aviation
operations. All comments received during the meeting, and the
subsequent comment period, will be considered prior to the issuance of
a notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 18, 2021, from
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Comments must be received on or
before September 18, 2021.

ADDRESSES: This will be a virtual informal airspace meeting using the
Zoom teleconferencing tool. The meeting will also be available to watch
on the FAA's Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube social media channels.
    Send comments on the proposal, in triplicate, to: Matthew Cathcart,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Area, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia
Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; or via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trevor Catanese, Acting Manager,
Harrisburg Airport Traffic Control Tower, Building 511 Airport Drive,
Middletown, PA 17057. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Procedures

    The meeting will provide interested parties an opportunity to
present views, recommendations, and comments on the proposed airspace.
    (a) Registration: To attend the meeting, the public can register
here: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_XJe2ZgfQQB2Kr2;WbEIKWIw.
    (b) The meeting will be open to all persons on a space-available
basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and
participate. The meeting will be informal in nature and will be
conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA Eastern Service
Area. A representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the
planned airspace modifications.
    (c) Each participant will be given an opportunity to deliver
comments or make a presentation, although a time limit may be imposed
to accommodate closing times. Only comments concerning the plan to
establish the Harrisburg Class C airspace area will be accepted.
    (d) Each person wishing to make a presentation will be asked to
note their intent when registering for the meeting so those time frames
can be established. This meeting will not be adjourned until everyone
registered to speak has had an opportunity to address the panel. This
meeting may be adjourned at any time if all persons present have had an
opportunity to speak.
    (e) Position papers or other handout material relating to the
substance of the meeting will be accepted. Participants submitting
papers or handout materials should send them to the mail or email
address noted in the ADDRESSES section, above.
    (f) This meeting will not be formally recorded. However, a summary
of the comments made at the meeting will be filed in the rulemaking
docket.
    Information gathered through this meeting will assist the FAA in
drafting a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would be published
in the Federal Register. The public will be afforded the opportunity to
comment on any NPRM published on this matter.
    A graphic depiction of the proposed airspace modifications may be
viewed at the following URL: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/community_involvement/mdt/.

Agenda for the Meeting

--Presentation of Meeting Procedures
--Informal Presentation of the planned Class C Airspace area
--Public Presentations and Discussions
--Closing Comments

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120;
E.O.10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2021.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-11654 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11900-11904]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03993]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0078]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Sail Grand Prix 2020 Race Event; San
Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special
local regulation in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay in San
Francisco, CA in support of the San Francisco Sail

Grand Prix 2020 official practice and race periods between April 30,
2020 and May 3, 2020. This special local regulation is necessary to
ensure the safety of mariners transiting the area from the dangers of
high-speed sailing activities associated with the Sail Grand Prix 2020
race event. This proposed temporary special local regulation will
temporarily restrict vessel traffic adjacent to the city of San
Francisco waterfront in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and
Alcatraz Island and prohibit vessels and persons not participating in
the race event from entering the dedicated race and practice areas. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0078 using the Federal eRulemaking 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 Lieutenant Jennae Cotton, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On June 3, 2019, F50 League, LLC notified the Coast Guard of an
intention to conduct the ``Sail Grand Prix 2020'' event in the San
Francisco Bay. F50 League, LLC is a sailing league featuring world-
class sailors racing 50-foot foiling catamarans. The season starts in
February 2020. The event will be held in six iconic cities throughout
the world, traveling to the San Francisco Bay in May 2020. In San
Francisco, they propose to take advantage of the natural amphitheater
that the central bay and city waterfront provide.
    F50 League, LLC has applied for a Marine Event Permit to hold the
Sail Grand Prix 2020 race event on the waters of the San Francisco Bay
in San Francisco, California. The Coast Guard has not approved the
Marine Event Permit and is still evaluating the application. If the
permit is approved, however, we anticipate that a special local
regulation may be necessary to ensure public safety during the practice
and race periods. To provide adequate time for public input, we are
proposing this special local regulation prior to a decision on the
Marine Event Permit.
    Prior to drafting this notice of proposed rulemaking, the Coast
Guard solicited input from maritime stakeholders to better understand
the nature of commercial and recreational activities on the Bay and how
the proposed Sail Grand Prix 2020 race event could impact such
activities. The Coast Guard participated in both a navigation work
group and monthly public meeting of the local Harbor Safety Committee
(HSC) to meet with stakeholders to obtain information and gather
feedback on notional approaches to enacting regulation in connection
with the Sail Grand Prix 2020 race event. Additionally, the Coast Guard
has taken feedback from the Sail Grand Prix 2019 race event into
consideration for the plans associated with the Sail Grand Prix 2020
race event.
    These regulations are needed to keep persons and vessels away from
the sailing race vessels, which exhibit unpredictable maneuverability
and have a demonstrated likelihood during the simulation of racing
scenarios for capsizing. The special local regulation will help prevent
injuries and property damage that may be caused upon impact by these
fast-moving vessels. The provisions of this temporary special local
regulation will not exempt racing vessels from any federal, state, or
local laws or regulations, including Nautical Rules of the Road. The
Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
    Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has
authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed
necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05-1(i), the Commander of Coast Guard District 11
has delegated to the COTP the responsibility of issuing such
regulations.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation
associated with the Sail Grand Prix 2020 race event from 11:30 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. on each of April 30, 2020, May 1, 2020, May 2, 2020, and May
3, 2020. The areas regulated by this special local regulation will be
east of the Golden Gate Bridge, south of Alcatraz Island, west of
Treasure Island, and in the vicinity of the city of San Francisco
waterfront. The Coast Guard proposes to establish an official practice
race area, an official race area, a spectator area, and a no-loitering
area. Images of the four zones and enforcement dates and times of these
proposed regulated areas may be found in the docket.
    The proposed special local regulation would encompass all navigable
waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, within the
area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points
in the following order: 37[deg]48'18'' N, 122[deg]27'44'' W; thence to
37[deg]48'30'' N, 122[deg]27'56'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'18'' N,
122[deg]27'59'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'34'' N, 122[deg]25'36'' W;
thence to 37[deg]49'10'' N, 122[deg]25'10'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'45''
N, 122[deg]25'10'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'42'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W and
thence along the shore to the point of beginning. Located within this
footprint, there would be four separate regulated areas: Zone ``A'',
the Official Practice Box Area; Zone ``B'', the Official Race Box Area;
Zone ``C'', the Spectator Area; and Zone ``D'', the No Spectating or
Loitering Area.
    Zone ``A'', the Official Practice Box Area, would encompass all
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom,
within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and
longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]49'19'' N,
122[deg]27'19'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'28'' N, 122[deg]25'52'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]25'45'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'42''
N, 122[deg]27'00'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'51'' N, 122[deg]27'14'' W and
thence to the point of beginning. Only designated Sail Grand Prix 2020
race and support vessels would be permitted to enter Zone ``A''. Zone
``A'' would be used by the race and support vessels during the official
practice period on April 30th, 2020 and May 1st, 2020. Zone ``A'', the
Official Practice Box Area, will be enforced during the official
practices from 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on April 30, 2020 and May 1,
2020. Excluding the public from entering Zone ``A'' is necessary to
provide protection from the operation of the high-speed sailing vessels
within this area.
    Zone ``B'', the Official Race Box Area, would be marked by 12 or
more colored visual markers. The position of these markers would be
confirmed via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least three days prior to
the event. Only designated Sail Grand Prix 2020 race, support, and VIP
vessels would be

permitted to enter Zone ``B''. Because of the hazards posed by the
sailing competition, excluding non-race vessel traffic from Zone ``B''
is necessary to provide protection from the operation of the high-speed
sailing vessels within this area.
    Zone ``C'', the Spectator Area, will include specified parts of the
waters immediately adjacent to racing Zone ``B'' and will be defined by
latitude and longitude points as per Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Zone
``C'' will be further divided into three additional sub-areas: Zone
``C1 East'', Zone ``C1 West'', and Zone ``C2''. Zone ``C1 East'' and
Zone ``C1 West'' would be the general spectator zones that are open to
all vessel spectators. Zone ``C2'' will be a separate designated
spectator area or areas marked by approximately four or more colored
visual markers that will be managed by marine event sponsor officials.
The designation of Zone ``C'', to include Zone ``C1 East'', Zone ``C1
West'', and Zone ``C2'', will allow spectators to observe the Sail
Grand Prix 2020 race event in a regulated area at a safe distance from
the sailing regatta occurring in Zone ``B''.
    Zone ``D'' will be the No Spectating or Loitering Area. This zone
will allow vessels to transit in and out of marinas, piers, and vessel
launching locations along the San Francisco waterfront throughout the
duration of the Sail Grand Prix event. Additionally, this zone keeps
vessel traffic moving along the northern boundary of the regulated
area, reducing any impact of recreational vessels on commercial
shipping traffic. All vessels shall maintain headway and shall not
loiter or anchor within the confines of Zone ``D''. Mariners can
transit Zone ``D'' during the Sail Grand Prix, decreasing the impact to
the San Francisco waterfront and vessel traffic lanes. All mariners
must obey the direction of the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative while transiting Zone ``D''.
    Zones ``B'', ``C'', and ``D'' will be enforced at all times during
the races, from 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on May 2, 2020 and May 3, 2020.
    The duration of the establishment of the proposed special local
regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels in these
navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled practice and
race periods. This proposed temporary special local regulation will
temporarily restrict vessel traffic adjacent to the city of San
Francisco waterfront in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and
Alcatraz Island and prohibit vessels and persons not participating in
the race event from entering the established race area. 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the special local regulation. With this
special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to maintain
commercial access to the ports through an alternate vessel traffic
management scheme. The special local regulation is limited in duration,
and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area with designated
and adequate space for transiting vessels to pass when permitted by the
COTP or a designated representative. In addition, although this rule
restricts access to the waters encompassed by the special local
regulation, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the
local waterway users will be notified in advance via public Notice to
Mariners to ensure the special local regulation will result in minimum
impact. Therefore mariners will be able to plan ahead and transit
outside of the periods of enforcement of the special local regulation,
and if they choose not to do so, they will be able to transit around
the northern side of the special local regulation. The entities most
likely to be affected are commercial vessels and pleasure craft engaged
in recreational activities.

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 will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect owners and operators of commercial vessels and
pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This
special location regulation will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons stated in
section IV.A. above. This special local regulation will be subject to
enforcement for a limited duration. When the special local regulation
is in effect, vessel traffic can pass safely around the regulated area.
The maritime public will be advised in advance of this special local
regulation via Notice to Mariners.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will 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 rule will 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 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 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 will 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 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 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 special
local regulation that will create a regulated area, divided into four
zones, of limited size and duration that includes areas for vessel
traffic to pass. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating this 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 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.

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.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35.T11-018 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T11-018   Special Local Regulation; Sail Grand Prix 2020
Race Event, San Francisco, CA

    (a) Location. The following area is subject to a temporary special
local regulation: all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from
surface to bottom, encompassed by a line connecting the following
latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]48'18'' N,
122[deg]27'44'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'30'' N, 122[deg]27'56'' W;
thence to 37[deg]49'18'' N, 122[deg]27'59'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'34''
N, 122[deg]25'36'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'10'' N, 122[deg]25'10'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'45'' N, 122[deg]25'10'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'42''
N, 122[deg]25'13'' W and thence along the shore to the point of
beginning.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section,
    (i) ``Designated representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander or ``PATCOM'', including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer on 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 special local regulation.
    (ii) Zone ``A'' means the Official Practice Box Area. This zone
will encompass all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from
surface to bottom, within the area formed by connecting the following
latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]49'19'' N,
122[deg]27'19'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'28'' N, 122[deg]25'52'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'49'' N, 122[deg]25'45'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'42''
N, 122[deg]27'00'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'51'' N, 122[deg]27'14'' W and
thence to the point of beginning.
    (iii) Zone ``B'' means the Official Race Box Area, which will be
marked by 12 or more colored visual markers within the special
regulation area designated in paragraph (a). The position of these
markers will be specified via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least
three days prior to the event.
    (iv) Zone ``C'' means the Spectator Area, which is within the
special local regulation area designated in paragraph (a) and outside
of Zone ``B'', the Official Race Box Area. Zone ``C'' will be defined
by latitude and longitude points per Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Zone
``C'' will be further divided into three additional sub-areas: Zone
``C1 East'', Zone ``C1 West'', and Zone ``C2''. Zone ``C1 East'' and
Zone ``C1 West'' will be the general spectator areas that are open to
all vessel spectators. Zone ``C2''

means the separately designated spectator area or areas marked by
approximately four or more colored buoys that will be managed by marine
event sponsor officials. Vessels shall not anchor within the confines
of Zone ``C''.
    (v) Zone ``D'' means the No Spectating or Loitering Area. This zone
will allow vessels to transit in and out of marinas, piers, and vessel
launch areas throughout the duration of the Sail Grand Prix. All
vessels shall maintain headway and shall not loiter or anchor within
the confines of Zone ``D''. Mariners can transit Zone ``D'' during the
Sail Grand Prix 2020 event, decreasing the impact of the special local
regulation to the San Francisco waterfront.
    (c) Special Local Regulation. The following regulations apply
between 11:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on the Sail Grand Prix 2020 official
practice and race days.
    (i) Only support and race vessels will be authorized by the COTP or
designated representative to enter Zone ``A'' during the official
practice days. Only support and race vessels will be authorized by the
COTP or designated representative to enter Zone ``B'' during the race
event. Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within Zone ``B''
must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Persons and vessels may request permission to
transit Zone ``B'' on VHF-23A.
    (ii) Spectator vessels in Zone ``C'' must maneuver as directed by
the COTP or designated representative. When hailed or signaled by the
COTP or designated representative by a succession of sharp, short
signals by whistle or horn, the hailed vessel must come to an immediate
stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply
with a lawful direction may result in additional operating
restrictions, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (iii) Spectator vessels in Zone ``C'' must operate at safe speeds
which will create minimal wake.
    (iv) Vessels in Zone ``D'' shall maintain headway and shall not
loiter or anchor within the confines of Zone ``D''. Vessels in Zone
``D'' must maneuver as directed by the COTP or designated
representative.
    (v) Rafting and anchoring of vessels are prohibited within Zones
``A'', ``B'', ``C'', and ``D''.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This special local regulation will be
enforced for the official practices and race events from April 30, 2020
through May 3, 2020 from 11:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. each day. At least
24 hours in advance of the first race event, the COTP will notify the
maritime community of periods during which these zones will be enforced
via Notice to Mariners and via the Coast Guard Boating Public Safety
Notice.

    Dated: February 19, 2020.
Howard H. Wright,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2020-03993 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P