[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30283-30289]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12296]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9674-6]

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the Stratospheric
Ozone Protection Program: Recent Posting to the Applicability
Determination Index (ADI) Database System of Agency Applicability
Determinations, Alternative Monitoring Decisions, and Regulatory
Interpretations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces applicability determinations,
alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that
EPA has made under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); and
the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: An electronic copy of each EPA
response letter posted on the Applicability Determination Index (ADI)
database system is available on the Internet through the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The document
may be located by control number, date, author, subpart, or subject
search. For questions about the ADI or this notice, contact Maria
Malave at EPA by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical questions about the individual
applicability determinations or monitoring decisions, refer to the
contact person identified in the individual EPA response letters and
memoranda, or in the absence of a contact person, refer to the author
of the document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The General Provisions to the NSPS in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 60 and the General Provisions to the NESHAP in
40 CFR part 61 provide that a source owner or operator may request a
determination of whether certain intended actions constitute the
commencement of construction, reconstruction, or modification. EPA's
written responses to these inquiries are commonly referred to as
applicability determinations. See 40 CFR 60.5 and 61.06. Although the
part 63 NESHAP [which includes Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards] and section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
regulations contain no specific regulatory provision providing that
sources may request applicability determinations, EPA also responds to
written inquiries regarding applicability for the part 63 and section
111(d) programs. The NSPS and NESHAP also allow sources to seek
permission to use monitoring or recordkeeping that are different from
the promulgated requirements. See 40 CFR sections 60.13(i), 61.14(g),
63.8(b)(1), 63.8(f), and 63.10(f). EPA's written responses to these
inquiries are commonly referred to as alternative monitoring decisions.
Furthermore, EPA responds to written inquiries about the broad range of
NSPS and NESHAP regulatory requirements as they pertain to a whole
source category. These inquiries may pertain, for example, to the type
of sources to which the regulation applies, or to the testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting requirements contained in the
regulation. EPA's written responses to these inquiries are commonly
referred to as regulatory interpretations.
    EPA currently compiles Agency-issued NSPS and NESHAP applicability
determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory
interpretations, and posts them on the web-based Applicability
Determination Index (ADI) at www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html. The ADI is an electronic index containing over
three thousand EPA letters and memoranda pertaining to the
applicability, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements of
the NSPS, NESHAP, and stratospheric ozone regulations (at 40 CFR part
82). The letters and memoranda may be searched by date, office of
issuance, subpart, citation, control number, or by keywords.
    Today's notice comprises a summary of forty-four such documents
added to the ADI on April 25, 2012. The subject and header of each
letter and memorandum are listed in this notice, as well as a brief
abstract of the letter or memorandum. Complete copies of these
documents may be obtained from the ADI through the OECA Web site at:
www.epa.gov/compliance/monitoring/programs/caa/adi.html.

Summary of Headers and Abstracts

    The following table identifies the database control number for each
document posted on the ADI database system on April 25, 2012; the
applicable category; the subpart(s) of 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63 (as
applicable) covered by the document; and the title of the document,
which provides a brief description of the subject matter. We have also
included an abstract of each document identified with its control
number after the table. These abstracts are provided solely to alert
the public to possible items of interest and are not intended as
substitutes for the full text of the documents. This notice does not
change the status of any document with respect to whether it is ``of
nationwide scope or effect'' for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act. For example, this notice does not make an applicability
determination for a particular source into a nationwide rule. Neither
does it purport to make any document that was previously non-binding
into a binding document.

                                  ADI Determinations Uploaded on April 25, 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Control No.                    Categories                Subparts                    Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A110002............................  Asbestos NESHAP.......  M......................  Demolition of Residential
                                                                                Structures.

1000027............................  NSPS..................  Da.....................  Utility Boiler Combustion
                                                                                Determination.
1000028............................  NSPS..................  VVa....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
1000029............................  NSPS..................  NNN....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
1000030............................  NSPS..................  Ce, Ec.................  Applicability of
                                                                                Exemptions Under Subpart
                                                                                Ce.
1000031............................  NSPS..................  WWW....................  Control System Operation
                                                                                and Monitoring Deadlines.
1000032............................  NSPS..................  VVa....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
1000033............................  NSPS..................  AAa....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
1000034............................  NSPS..................  NNN....................  Alternative Monitoring and
                                                                                Performance Test Waiver
                                                                                Request.
1000035............................  NSPS..................  H......................  Alternative Quality
                                                                                Assurance Proposal.
1000036............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Opacity Monitoring
                                                                                Alternative.
1000037............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
1000038............................  NSPS..................  WWW....................  Gas Collection and Control
                                                                                System Design Plan
                                                                                Change.
1000039............................  NSPS..................  OOO....................  Performance Test Waiver.
1000040............................  NSPS..................  KKKK...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
1000041............................  NSPS..................  H......................  Alternative Quality
                                                                                Assurance Procedure.
1000042............................  NSPS..................  LL, Y..................  Test Waivers and
                                                                                Reductions in Test
                                                                                Duration.
1000043............................  NSPS..................  UUU....................  Performance Test Waiver.
1000044............................  NSPS..................  BBBB, Cb, Eb...........  Resource Recovery Facility
                                                                                Capacity Increase.
M100029............................  MACT..................  RRR....................  Alternative Testing,
                                                                                Monitoring, and
                                                                                Recordkeeping
                                                                                Requirements.
1000045............................  NSPS..................  J......................  Emergency Flare at
                                                                                Hydrogen Reformer
                                                                                Facility.
1000047............................  NSPS..................  WWW....................  Effect of Permit on Design
                                                                                Capacity.
1000048............................  NSPS..................  KKK....................  Alternative Monitoring.
1000049............................  NSPS..................  DD.....................  Single Source
                                                                                Determination for Grain
                                                                                Elevators.
M100031............................  MACT..................  T......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Method.
M100032............................  MACT..................  GGG....................  Time Period Adjustment for
                                                                                Periodic Reports.
1000050............................  NSPS..................  A......................  Rationale for Including
                                                                                Labor Costs in
                                                                                Reconstruction under
                                                                                NSPS.
M110001............................  MACT..................  RRRR...................  Surface Coating of Metal
                                                                                Furniture.
1100002............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Alternative Testing
                                                                                Frequency.
M110002............................  MACT..................  JJJJ...................  Restricted HAP Emissions
                                                                                at Single Coating Line.
1100003............................  NSPS..................  VVV....................  Coating of Paper
                                                                                Substrate.
1100004............................  NSPS..................  F, GG..................  Alternative Test Frequency
                                                                                Requirement.
M110003............................  MACT..................  X......................  Recycling of Lead-
                                                                                Containing Cathode Ray
                                                                                Tube Glass.
1100006............................  NSPS..................  OOO....................  Performance Test Waiver.
M110005............................  MACT..................  MMMM...................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Method.
M110006............................  MACT..................  EEE....................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Method.
1100007............................  NSPS..................  KKK....................  Criteria for Natural Gas
                                                                                Processing Plant.
M110007............................  MACT..................  HHHHHH.................  Spray-Applied Coating
                                                                                Operations.
M110008............................  MACT..................  EEEE...................  Application of NESHAP
                                                                                standards to Tanks.
1100008............................  NSPS..................  Dc.....................  Physically Derating
                                                                                Boilers.
1100009............................  NSPS..................  Db.....................  Alternative Test Frequency
                                                                                Requirements.
1100010............................  NSPS..................  Dc.....................  Alternative Recordkeeping
                                                                                and Reporting.
1100011............................  NSPS..................  J......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
1100012............................  NSPS..................  J......................  Alternative Monitoring
                                                                                Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstracts

Abstract for [A110002]

    Q: Does the EPA consider the residential structures in Youngstown,
Ohio to be affected by any part of the Asbestos NESHAP? Additional
detailed discussion was provided by an enclosure with a copy of a
recent EPA letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
available under ADI Control Number A110001.
    A: EPA has consistently interpreted the Asbestos NESHAP, subpart M,
as applying to the mass demolition of residential structures. While the
regulation has a residential building exemption provision, EPA has
interpreted this exemption as being inapplicable when numerous
residential buildings are being demolished for reasons of public
health, welfare, and safety, as part of a single project, or if such
residences meet the definition of an installation.

Abstract for [1000027]

    Q: Is a utility boiler that is capable of combusting more than 250
mmBtu per hour heat input from natural gas as well as landfill gas
subject to NSPS subpart Da if it primarily burns landfill gas?
    A: Yes. The utility boiler is subject to NSPS subpart Da since it
is capable of combusting more than 250 mmBtu per hour heat input of
fossil fuel and meets the other applicability criteria in section
60.40Da(a).

Abstract for [1000028]

    Q: Does EPA approve the use of sensory means (i.e., visual,
audible, or olfactory) as an acceptable alternative to the use of EPA
Method 21 for the identification of leaks from equipment in acetic acid
and/or acetic anhydride service for equipment subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart VVa at the BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. facility in
Hawkins County, Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA finds that the proposed alternative is acceptable.
Monitoring results indicate that leaks from equipment in acetic acid
and/or acetic anhydride service are more easily identified through
sensory means than by using Method 21 because of the physical
properties (i.e., high boiling

point, high corrosivity, and low odor threshold) of acetic acid and
acetic anhydride.

Abstract for [1000029]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring procedure (AMP) that
consists of monitoring the inlet scrubbing liquid temperature, flow
rate, and acid content in lieu of the requirements in section
60.663(e)(1) for an acid scrubber at the Eastman Chemical Company in
Kingsport, Tennessee subject to NSPS subpart NNN?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP request consisting of
monitoring the inlet scrubbing liquid temperature and flow rate and
identifying exceedances of these parameters based on a three-hour
rolling average period, and acid content for the acid scrubber subject
to NSPS subpart NNN.

Abstract for [1000030]

    Q: Is guidance that EPA provided to the Department of Health and
Human Services on the applicability of exemptions in NSPS subpart Ec
for two types of units, including a unit that combusts both non-
infectious animal waste and waste used in research and, a unit when a
portion of the medical/infectious waste combusted also meets the
definition of pathological waste, in an April 15, 1999, letter still
valid?
    A: Yes. Since the definitions of terms used in the exemptions in
NSPS subpart Ec did not change when the rule was revised on October 6,
2009, the guidance on these two units provided in the April 15, 1999,
letter is still valid.

Abstract for [1000031]

    Q1: Does the Pecan Row Landfill located in Valdosta, Georgia have
60 days after waste has been in place for 5 years if active, or 2 years
if closed, or at final grade to begin monitoring and operating each
early installed well, which is the deadline for installing wells
pursuant to section 60.7(55(b) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW?
    A1: Yes. The 60 days timeline for installing wells is also the
deadline for starting operational parameter monitoring for these wells,
since 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW does not require that monitoring be
conducted prior to the gas collection well installation deadline.
    Q2: If monitoring of these wells is already being conducted on a
monthly basis prior to the 5-year/2-year timeline and exceedances of
the pressure, temperature, and oxygen and/or nitrogen concentration are
measured, when does the Pecan Row Landfill have to initiate corrective
action and re-monitoring as prescribed in 40 CFR section 60.755(a)(3)
and 40 CFR section 60.755(a)(5)?
    A2: Only monitoring results obtained on or after the gas collection
well installation deadline would trigger the requirement for corrective
action under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. When exceedances of operating
parameter limits in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW are detected during the
monitoring required under 40 CFR section 60.755(a)(3) and 40 CFR
section 60.755(a)(5), a first attempt at correcting the exceedance must
be made within five calendar days.

Abstract for [1000032]

    Q: Does EPA approve the proposed sensory means (i.e., visual
audible, or olfactory) in lieu of EPA Method 21 for the identification
of leaks from equipment in propionic acid service, acetic acid/acetic
anhydride service, diketene service, acetic acid service, and methyl
iodide service for equipment subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa at
the Eastman Chemical Company in Kingsport, Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposal for equipment in propionic acid
service, acetic acid/acetic anhydride service, diketene service, and
acetic acid service, sensory means (i.e., visual, audible, or
olfactory) to identify equipment leaks where 40 CFR part 60, subpart
VVa requires the use of EPA Method 21, because of their physical
properties (i.e., high boiling point, high corrosivity, and low odor
threshold). For indoor equipment in methyl iodide service, the use of a
system of continuous monitors which was approved by EPA as alternative
monitoring under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV is acceptable as an
alternative under 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa.

Abstract for [1000033]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring proposal
(AMP) submitted for two electric arc furnaces subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart AAa at Nucor Steel, Inc. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves the AMP request to adjust
dampers in the direct-shell evacuation (DEC) system based upon the
amount of visible flame detected in the DEC ductwork is an alternative
to using a fixed damper position since emissions are likely to vary
significantly over each 30 to 40 minute scrap melting batch cycle.
Since the AMP is likely to improve the performance of the particular
Matter (PM) control system, it is acceptable provided the optical set
point for the camera is based upon conditions during a performance test
where compliance with the applicable PM and opacity limits is
demonstrated.

Abstract for [1000034]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring proposal (AMP) to use
monitoring and testing provisions from NSPS subpart RRR at 40 CFR
section 60.703(c)(1) and (c)(2) as alternative monitoring for the
provisions of NSPS subpart NNN at 40 CFR section 60.663(c)(1) and
(c)(2) and an initial performance test waiver requested for three
distillation columns subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart NNN at the BP
Amoco Chemical Company facility in Decatur, Alabama?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 60.13(i), EPA approves the AMP
and PT waiver, which are consistent with previous EPA AMP approvals for
NSPS subpart NNN facilities.

Abstract for [1000035]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to substitute quarterly cylinder gas
audits for annual relative accuracy test audits on the sulfur dioxide
continuous emission monitor (CEMS) installed at the convertor inlet in
order to address safety concerns at the Lucite sulfuric acid plant in
Memphis, Tennessee?
    A: EPA cannot make a determination until the necessary information
listed in the EPA response letter is provided.

Abstract for [1000036]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring proposal
(AMP) for rental package boilers subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db
to provide a backup source of steam in the event of a shutdown or
reduced capacity at other boilers at the Rayoneir Performance Fibers,
LLC facility in Fernandina Beach, Florida?
    A: EPA conditionally approves the AMP request for use of visible
emission observations using EPA Method 9 in lieu of opacity monitoring
for any of the rental package boilers provided they have an annual
capacity factor of 10 percent or less, which is the criteria for
infrequent operation.

Abstract for [1000037]

    Q: Does EPA approve an alternative opacity monitoring proposal
(AMP) for a boiler at a new medium density fiberboard plant to monitor
control device operating parameters for the scrubber located downstream
of the boiler, instead of a continuous opacity monitory system (COMS)
subject to NSPS subpart Db at the Uniboard USA,

LLC facility located in Moncure, North Carolina?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the AMP request because NSPS subpart Db
allows a particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring system
to be used as an alternative to a COMS. Therefore, the proposal to
monitor scrubber operating parameters in lieu of installing COMS is not
acceptable.

Abstract for [1000038]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposed gas collection and control system
(GCCS) design plan change, consisting of three potential control
options, in order to meet the design considerations in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, for the Sampson County Disposal (SCD) Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill in Roseboro, North Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposed GCCS design plan because it does
not conflict with any of the design requirements of NSPS subpart WWW.
The analysis provided by SCD demonstrates that the proposed approach
for controlling emissions when new waste is placed on top of waste that
has been in place for five years or more will be more effective than
the two other potential control options evaluated.

Abstract for [1000039]

    Q: Does EPA approve a waiver request to conduct a particulate
emission test on the dust collector that controls emissions from the
new crusher subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO at Industrial
Materials, Incorporated?
    A: EPA conditionally approves the waiver of particulate
concentration testing request for the crusher. The proposed waiver
would be acceptable if no visible emissions are detected during any of
the 240 individual readings made during the initial opacity performance
test conducted on the crusher. This determination is based upon the
opacity test results and the margin of compliance during previous
testing conducted on the aragonite screening operation that uses the
same type of control device.

Abstract for [1000040]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to extend a previous custom fuel
monitoring plan to four new stationary gas turbines subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart KKKK at BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC located in
Spartanburg, South Carolina?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the proposal to use the existing custom fuel
monitoring schedule for the new turbines based upon the low sulfur
content found in 63 fuel samples analyzed between January 2003 and July
2009.

Abstract for [1000041]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposal to substitute quarterly cylinder gas
audits for annual relative accuracy test audits (RATA) on the sulfur
dioxide (SO2) continuous emission monitor system (CEMS)
installed at the convertor inlet to address concerns regarding the high
SO2 concentration at the convertor inlet for the Lucite
sulfuric acid plant in Memphis, Tennessee?
    A: No. EPA does not approve the proposed alternative because it
does not allow for a comprehensive assessment of the CEMS performance.
Although the proposed alternative is not acceptable, the response
provides details regarding another alternative quality assurance
testing procedure that allows the company to determine the RATA of the
convertor inlet CEMS without sampling the gas stream at this site, that
would be acceptable to EPA and addresses Lucite concerns with high
SO2 concentration at the convertor inlet.

Abstract for [1000042]

    Q: Does EPA approve the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation's (TDEC) request for authority to approve shorter visible
emission observation times for 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL facilities
when no opacity readings are above the standard and no more than three
readings are equal to the standard during the first hour of
observations and for authority to waive visible emission testing
requirements if no opacity is detected on the exterior of the building
during a 75-minute observation period for 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL
facilities located inside buildings?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request for authority to approve shorter
VE observation times and to waive, pursuant to 40 CFR part 60.8(b)(4),
the requirement to conduct VE testing inside buildings is acceptable
under the terms outlined in TDEC's June 29, 2009, request letter. This
response is based on a previous determination for a facility located in
Tennessee and the similarity between these proposals and provisions in
NSPS subpart OOO, requiring that future requests be submitted to EPA
for individual reviews will slow down approval without adding any value
to the process. Therefore, the TDEC request for authority to process
such requests in the future is acceptable.

Abstract for [1000043]

    Q: Does EPA approve a proposed performance test waiver for two
spray dryers in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU at the
Stonepeak Ceramics, Incorporated facility located in Crossville,
Tennessee?
    A: Yes. EPA approves the request because the results of particulate
matter (PM) testing conducted on Spray Dryer No. 1 and opacity
observations made on Spray Dryers No. 1 through No. 3 provide adequate
assurance of compliance with the PM limit for Spray Dryers No. 2 and
No. 3.

Abstract for [1000044]

    Q: What NSPS regulation(s) will the Bay County Resource Recovery
Facility in Panama City, Florida be subject to after its charging
capacity is increased from 245 to 255 tons per day?
    A: Based upon the documentation provided, EPA cannot conclusively
determine which of two potentially NSPS subparts applicable to large
municipal waste combustors (i.e., subpart Cb applies if constructed on
or before September 20, 1994, or subpart Eb applies if constructed
after September 20, 1994, or for which modification or reconstruction
is commenced after June 19, 1996), the facility will be subject to
following the throughput increase. In order to determine whether a
modification has occurred under NSPS and determine rule applicability,
it will be necessary to determine whether the cost of the changes made
in order to achieve the throughput increase constitute a capital
expenditure. The facility would be subject to NSPS subpart Ec if the
cost of the changes constitutes a capital expenditure, and the facility
would be subject to NSPS subpart Cb if the cost of the changes does not
constitute a capital expenditure.

Abstract for [M100029]

    Q1: Does EPA approve Aleris International's request under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart RRR to use the weight into the feed hopper as the
weight fed into the chip dryer during testing at IMCO Recycling of
Michigan LLC located in Coldwater, Michigan?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves Aleris International's request for
determining the chip dryer feed/charge weight during testing for the
hopper feeder and chip dryer under MACT subpart RRR since their
existing configuration does not allow separate weighing of the feed/
charge into the chip dryer.
    Q2: Does EPA approve Aleris International's request under 40 CFR
part 63, subpart RRR to maintain records of the chip dryer feed weight
using shift length recordkeeping at IMCO Recycling of Michigan LLC
located in Coldwater, Michigan?

    A2: No. EPA does not approve Aleris International's request under
MACT subpart RRR for shift length recordkeeping for normal operations
The recordkeeping method to measure the chip dryer feed/charge weight
in twelve-hour shift blocks during normal operations is appropriate for
unblended truckloads only.

Abstract for [1000045]

    Q: Will EPA confirm that Linde's new flare located at the hydrogen
reformer facility at the Citgo refinery in Romeoville, Illinois is not
subject to the NSPS subpart J because it is an ``emergency flare?''
    A: No. EPA cannot confirm that Linde's flare is not subject to 40
CFR part 60, subpart J. Linde would need to provide additional
information, as indicated in the EPA response letter, before EPA can
conclude that the gases released from safety relief valves during
upsets at the plant are process gas or fuel gas, and if they are fuel
gas, whether they are limited to extraordinary situations.

Abstract for [1000047]

    Q: How is ``design capacity'' as defined in 40 CFR section 60.751,
determined for the Marquette County Solid Waste Landfill in Marquette,
Michigan?
    A: EPA has determined Marquette Landfill's current design capacity
must include the capacity of Cells 0A, 0B, 1, 2, 3 and 4 designated
under Marquette's most recent operating and construction permits issued
by the State, plus any in-place waste not accounted for in these
permits per 40 CFR section 60.751.

Abstract for [1000048]

    Q: Does EPA approve waivers for the Reference Methods for testing
flare tip heat content and testing flare tip velocity for the non-
assisted flare in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK at the
Velma Gas Plant located near Velma, Oklahoma?
    A: Yes. EPA accepts the use of Gas Processors Association Method
2261 for determining compliance with the 200 BTU/cf standard at 40 CFR
section 60.18(c)(3)(ii). Based on the engineering analysis provided,
EPA grants a performance test waiver under 40 CFR section 60.78(b)(4)
for the determination of exit velocity under 40 CFR section
60.18(f)(4).

Abstract for [1000049]

    Q1: Should two grain elevators being operated at two different
locations approximately 2.1 miles apart and owned by DeBruce Grain Inc.
(DeBruce), in Abilene, Kansas be permitted and regulated as one
facility under NSPS, and does 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD apply?
    A1: The Kansas Department of Health and Environment may reasonably
use its discretionary permitting authority to find that these two
facilities could be treated as one source for purposes of a NSR/PSD and
Title V permitting. However, EPA concludes that 40 CFR part 60, subpart
DD does not apply to either of the two DeBruce facilities because
neither exceeds the 2.5 million bushel storage capacity threshold.

Abstract for [M100031]

    Q: Will EPA approve modifications to the EPA 2009 approved
alternative monitoring plan in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart
T for two continuous web cleaning lines to address changes to the 84
inches and 60 inches lines at the Alcoa Mill Products Davenport
facility (Alcoa) in Bettendorf, Iowa?
    A: Yes. EPA conditionally approves revisions to the 2009
alternative monitoring plan to replace specific monitoring requirements
on the 84 inches and 60 inches lines, provided the conditions in the
response letter are met.

Abstract for [M100032]

    Q: Does EPA approve modifications to adjust the semiannual
reporting periods to coincide with the facilities Title V and
Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP reporting periods for Sigma-Aldrich
Manufacturing, LLC located in St. Louis, Missouri in accordance with 40
CFR section 63.9(i)?
    A: Yes. EPA will approve reporting periods to allow for the
submission of the Title V semi-annual report to be submitted on or
before the first of April and October for each respective reporting
period.

Abstract for [1000050]

    Q: What is the rationale of including labor costs in the fixed
capital cost associated with reconstruction under NSPS?
    A: In order to have a fair comparison of costs between the
reconstructed facility and the comparable new facility, any labor costs
associated with refurbishing the old parts and installing the new and
refurbished parts of the reconstructed existing facility must be
included with the cost of the reconstructed facility's new components.
Labor costs, similar to those associated with giving the reconstructed
facility its new life, would be included in the cost of a comparable
new facility. Adequate comparison of the costs on both sides of the
equation is impossible without the inclusion of labor costs on the
``reconstructed'' side.

Abstract for [M110001]

    Q: Is Connecticut (CT) Acquisitions LLC DBA Danver (Danver) located
in Wallingford, CT, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart RRRR if it uses
only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain no organic
hazardous air pollutants (HAP)?
    A: No. EPA determined that the operations at Danver currently meet
the criteria in 40 CFR section 63.4881(c)(1), i.e., surface coatings
that use only coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials that contain
no organic HAP, and are currently not subject to 40 CFR part 63,
subpart RRRR.

Abstract for [1100002]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a request to seek alternative Cylinder Gas
Audit (CGA) and Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) frequency
requirements for NOX, CO, and O2 in accordance
with 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F at Dalkia Energy Services (Dalkia)
located in Cambridge, Massachusetts?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves Dalkia's request to omit a NOX,
CO, and O2 CGA test during any calendar quarter in which the
unit is operated less than 168 unit operating hours under 40 CFR
section 60.13(i)(2). EPA also approves Dalkia's request to conduct a
RATA once every four quality assurance operating quarters instead of
once every four calendar quarters (where a quality assurance (QA)
operating quarter is defined as one in which the unit operates 168 unit
operating hours or more).
    Q2: Does EPA approve Dalkia's request to extend the annual RATA due
date?
    A2: Yes. EPA approves the alternative frequency requirements for
RATAs that allow Dalkia to follow the grace period provisions of 40 CFR
part 75, Appendix B, section 2.2.4 for CGAs and 40 CFR part 75,
Appendix B, section 2.3.3 for RATAs.

Abstract for [M110002]

    Q: Does EPA consider a single coating line operated at InteliCoat's
facility in South Hadley, Massachusetts a new facility; and if so, can
Intelicoat restrict hazardous air pollutant emissions to below major
source thresholds so it is no longer subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
JJJJ, NESHAP for paper and other web coating?
    A: No. EPA has determined that InteliCoat's single coating line
would remain an existing affected source subject to NESHAP subpart JJJJ
because it did not obtain federally enforceable

restrictions on its potential to emit hazardous air pollutants by the
first substantive compliance date of subpart JJJJ, i.e., December 5,
2005. This determination is consistent with the 1995, ``Once In Always
In'' EPA policy.

Abstract for [1100003]

    Q: Does 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV apply to a new coating line at
Koch Membrane Systems (KMS) located in Wilmington, Massachusetts if the
line coats a paper substrate?
    A: No. EPA has determined that NSPS subpart VVV will not apply
because KMS coating line will not meet the definition of polymeric
coating of supporting substrates. KMS applies polymer to a supporting
web determined to be ``paper'' due to its characteristics, which is a
substrate not regulated under this rule.

Abstract for [1100004]

    Q: Will EPA approve alternate Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA)
frequency requirements under 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B for the
NOX and CO Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) of
the combined-cycle gas turbine under 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F, for
Pawtucket Power Associates (PPA) located in Pawtucket, Rhode Island?
    A: Yes. Pursuant to 40 CFR 60.13(i)(2, EPA approves PPA's request
to follow the 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B RATA timing requirements for
both the NOX and CO CEMS.

Abstract for [M110003]

    Q1: Does EPA consider a facility that recycles lead-containing
cathode ray tube glass with uncontrolled lead emissions, almost seven
times below the emission standard, subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
X?
    A1: Yes. EPA has determined that this facility is subject to 40 CFR
part 63, subpart X based on the description of the process and the lead
emission rate. The process is considered to be recycling of ``scrap
lead and lead compounds'' which are regulated under this rule.

Abstract for [1100006]

    Q1: Will EPA approve a performance test (PT) waiver for
installations of new quarry belt conveyors conveying sand with
sufficient surface moisture, such that particulate matter emissions are
not generated in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO for
Unimin's non-metallic mineral processing facility near Kasota,
Minnesota?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the PT waiver for installations of new quarry
belt conveyors conveying the saturated material mined from below the
water table, such that there are no emissions greater than zero percent
opacity and the sand contains sufficient surface moisture.
    Q2: Can existing Method 9 test results be used in lieu of future
Method 9 performance test requirements?
    A2: Yes. EPA will allow existing Method 9 test results to be used
in lieu of future test requirements as long as the moisture content of
the material on the conveyors remains as stated.

Abstract for [M110005]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternate monitoring plan (AMP) to replace
the requirement for collecting the facial velocity of air through all
natural draft openings using a flow sensor, with measurement of static
pressure within the duct from the permanent total enclosure (PTE) to
the regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) in order to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the PTE requirements under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MMMM, Miscellaneous Metal Part MACT, at the YUSA Corporation in
Washington Court House, Ohio?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves the AMP allowing continuous measurement of
static pressure, and the correlation of these measurements with flow
rate during a Method 204 certification test, in order to demonstrate
that the average facial velocity through the natural draft openings of
the PTE remains above 200 feet per minute and to determine continuous
compliance with subpart MMMM.

Abstract for [M110006]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request to establish
the ash feed rate operating parameter limit (OPL) equal to the total
waste feed rate to the incineration system that consists of two kilns,
a secondary combustion chamber (SCC), and a waste fired boiler (WFB),
in accordance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, at Clean Harbors El
Dorado, LLC in El Dorado, Arkansas?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the request because the facility needs
to establish separate ash feed rate limit for each kiln, SCC, and WFB.
    Q2: Does EPA approve a waiver of the minimum combustion temperature
OPL in the kilns?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the minimum combustion
temperature OPL in the kiln. It has to establish separate minimum
combustion temperature OPL for each kiln.
    Q3: Does EPA approve a waiver of the feedrate limits for the liquid
waste fed to the kilns?
    A3: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the feedrate limits for
the liquid waste fed to the kilns, as that facility must establish
limits on the maximum pumpable and total (i.e., pumpable and
nonpumpable) hazardous waste feedrate for each location where hazardous
waste is fed.
    Q4: Does EPA approve a waiver of the monitoring requirements for
the minimum blowdown rate and the liquid level for the High Energy
Scrubber (HES), given that the gases enter the HES prior to the
baghouse, which is the primary particulate matter and metals removal
device?
    A4: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the monitoring
requirements for the minimum blowdown rate and the liquid level for
HES, which is required under 40 CFR sections 63.1209(m)(1)(i)(B)(1) and
(n)(3) to ensure that the solids content of the scrubber liquid does
not exceed levels established during the performance test.
    Q5: Does EPA approve a waiver of the maximum inlet temperature OPL
for the baghouse that is operated after a wet pollution control system
required under 40 CFR sections 63.1209(k)(1) and (n)(1)?
    A5: No. EPA does not approve a waiver of the maximum inlet
temperature OPL for the baghouse, which must be determined on a hourly
rolling average.

Abstract for [1100007]

    Q1: Does the fuel gas treatment unit at Atlas Pipeline Mid-
Continent, LLC Compressor Station have to sell the extracted natural
gas liquids to be considered a ``natural gas processing plant'' in
accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK?
    A1: No. EPA has determined that a facility does not have to sell
liquids to be considered a ``natural gas processing plant.''
    Q2: Does the facility have to operate at a specific temperature to
be considered ``engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids''?
    A2: No. EPA has determined there is no temperature criteria in the
rule stating that a facility has to operate at a specific temperature
to be considered ``engaged in the extraction of natural gas liquids''.

Abstract for [M110007]

    Q: Does EPA consider Rocky Mountain Reconditioning (RMR) to be
subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHHHH if it performs touch up and
repairs that only spray-applies coatings with a hand-held device with a
paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than

3.0 fluid ounces, and uses hand-held non-refillable aerosol containers?
    A: No. EPA does not consider RMR to be affected by 40 CFR part 63,
subpart HHHHHH because the definition of ``spray-applied coating
operations'' excludes coatings applied from a hand-held device with a
paint cup capacity that is equal to or less than 3.0 fluid ounces,
according to 40 CFR section 63.11180.

Abstract for [M110008]

    Q: Which tanks are subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE at the
Great Plains Synfuels Plant located in Beulah, North Dakota operated by
Dakota Gasification Company (DGC), if tar oil produced at the facility
is sold such that it no longer meets the exclusion to the definition of
``organic liquid'', according to 40 CFR section 63.2406 for onsite
fuels?
    A: EPA has determined that tanks in the distribution area where the
tar oil is shipped would be subject to the 40 CFR part 63, subpart
EEEE. EPA was unable to determine whether tanks and separators upstream
of the distribution area, which produces tar oil, are subject to the 40
CFR part 63, subpart EEEE without additional information (e.g., tank
identification, process flow diagrams), as described in the EPA
response letter.

Abstract for [1100008]

    Q1: Does EPA concur with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
that Children's Health Care's physical changes will result in derating
the boilers in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc?
    A1: Yes. EPA provides concurrence that the derate method proposed
for the boilers is acceptable, because it will consist of a permanent
physical change that cannot be easily undone and prevents boilers from
operating at a capacity greater than the derated value, and would
require a reduction of their capacity.
    Q2: Does EPA concur with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
that the derated boilers will not be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Dc?
    A2: Yes. EPA provides concurrence that the derated boilers will not
be subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db if the proposed procedures
specified in the EPA response letter are followed, including
demonstration of the maximum heat input capacity by operating the
boiler at maximum capacity for a 24-hour period.

Abstract for [1100009]

    Q: Does EPA approve adopting 40 CFR part 75 quality assurance (QA)
test schedules and grace periods as opposed to current schedule
requirements for Cylinder Gas Audits (CGAs) and Relative Test Accuracy
Audits (RATAs) under 40 CFR part 60, Appendix F for the NOX,
CO, and O2 Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at
Mystic Station in Charlestown, MA?
    A: Yes. EPA approves Mystic Station's request to omit a
NOX, CO, and O2 CGA during any calendar quarter
in which the unit is operated less than 168 unit operating hours. EPA
also approves Mystic's request to conduct a RATA once every four QA
operating quarters. Regardless of operation, Mystic Station shall
conduct a CGA for NOX, CO, and O2 at least once
every four calendar quarters as well as a RATA at least once every
eight calendar quarters. EPA also allows Mystic to follow the grace
period provisions of 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B, section 2.2.4 for CGAs
and 40 CFR part 75, Appendix B, section 2.3.3 for RATAs.

Abstract for [1100010]

    Q1: Does EPA approve a plan for Veterans Affairs, Edith Nourse
Rogers Memorial Hospital in Bedford, Massachusetts (VA Bedford) to
track monthly natural gas and oil usage for its three dual-fuel
boilers, as opposed to daily records of fuel consumption under 40 CFR
section 60.48c(g)(1)?
    A1: Yes. EPA approves a decrease in fuel usage recordkeeping from
daily records to monthly records for VA Bedford's three boilers
conditioned on VA Bedford's use of natural gas as the primary fuel and
distillate oil with sulfur content no greater than 0.5 percent.
    Q2: May VA Bedford submit annual reports for its three dual-fueled
boilers as opposed to semiannual reports required under 40 CFR section
60.48c(j)?
    A2: No. EPA does not approve a decrease in the reporting frequency
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc because the facility received four
shipments of diesel fuel in 2007, and two shipments of diesel fuel in
2009. Therefore, because more than one shipment was received in each of
those recent years, VA Bedford must continue to submit the required
semiannual reports.

Abstract for [1100011]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring plan for a Cumene
Depropanizer Off Gas Vent Stream subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J
at the Citgo Corpus Christi East Refinery located in Corpus Christi,
Texas?
    A1: No. EPA finds that the alternative monitoring plan from March
24, 2006, is no longer valid since an exemption provided in the rule
applies to the stream. The Cumene Depropanizer Off Gas is a fuel gas
that meets the exemption requirement of 40 CFR section
60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C). Therefore, the fuel gas combustion device does not
need to meet the monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR section
60.105(a)(3) or 40 CFR section 60.105(a)(4).

Abstract for [1100012]

    Q1: Does EPA approve an alternative monitoring request for Hydrar
Process Unit Vent Streams subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart J for the
Citgo Corpus Christi East Refinery located in Corpus Christi, Texas?
    A1: No. EPA does not approve the alternative monitoring request
since the specified Hydrar vent stream fuels are fuel gases that meet
the exemption requirement of 40 CFR section 60.105(a)(4)(iv)(C).
Therefore, the fuel gas combustion device does not need to meet the
monitoring requirements of either 40 CFR section 60.105(a)(3) or 40 CFR
section 60.105(a)(4) for these specified vent streams.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
Lisa C. Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-12296 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80651-80653]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1074]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; New Year's Eve Firework Displays, Chicago River,
Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that
encompasses all waters of the Main Branch of the Chicago River between
the Michigan Avenue Highway Bridge and the west entrance to the Chicago
Harbor Lock. The safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a
portion of the Main Branch of the Chicago River from 11:30 p.m. on
December 31, 2015 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2016. This temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels
from the hazards associated with multiple barge based firework displays
for Chicago's New Year's Eve Celebration.

DATES: This rule will be effective from 11:30 p.m. on December 31, 2015
to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1074 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
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 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 doing so would be impracticable. The
final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until
there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish a
NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the
hazards associated with multiple barge based firework displays on the
Main Branch of the Chicago River.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for
a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    December 31, 2015 and January 1, 2016 Chicago's New Year's Eve
firework displays will take place from multiple barge based launch
sites on the Main

Branch of the Chicago River. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan has
determined that the firework displays will pose a significant risk to
public safety and property. Such hazards include falling debris,
flaming debris, and collisions among spectator vessels. The safety zone
is necessary to protect spectators from hazards associated with aerial
firework displays.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary
to ensure the safety of the public and the participants during
Chicago's New Year's Eve Fireworks Display on the Main Branch of the
Chicago River. This safety zone will be effective from 11:30 p.m. on
December 31, 2015 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2016. The safety zone
will encompass all waters of the Main Branch of the Chicago River
between the Michigan Avenue Highway Bridge and west entrance of the
Chicago Harbor Lock. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of
the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and effective for less than a one hour period on
December 31, 2015 and January 1, 2016. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This
rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small
entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit on a
portion of the Main Branch of the Chicago River on December 31, 2015
and January 1, 2016.
    The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the
enforcement of the zone, we will issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Public Notice of Safety Zone so vessel owners and
operators can plan accordingly.
    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 E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 the establishment of a safety zone for
the New Year's Eve firework displays on the Main Branch of the Chicago
River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this 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.

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:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 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.T09-1074 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-1074  Safety Zone; New Year's Eve Fireworks Display,
Chicago River, Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters of the the Main Branch of the Chicago
River between the Michigan Avenue Highway Bridge and the west entrance
of the Chicago Harbor Lock.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 11:30 p.m.
on December 31, 2015 to 12:15 a.m. on January 1, 2016.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or a designated
on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan to
act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or an on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. 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, Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

    Dated: December 11, 2015.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-32642 Filed 12-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P