[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53938-53940]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0056]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0056 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0056), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0056, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0056, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds ``such exemption
would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications
of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will
achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advisory criteria states the following:
    If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic
seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require
anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to
control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical
Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-
year period or more.
    As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria
as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a
CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or
more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified

Medical Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and
medical best practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.'' Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has
published additional notices granting requests from individuals for
exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Mitchell A. Bowles

    Mr. Bowles is a 37-year-old class C driver in Georgia. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2010. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2012. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Bowles receiving an exemption.

Michael C. Davis, Jr.

    Mr. Davis is a 31-year-old class B CDL holder in South Carolina. He
has a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since
1999. He stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 2001. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Davis receiving an exemption.

Richard E. Davis

    Mr. Davis is a 47-year-old class A CDL holder in California. He has
a history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2002.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2002. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Davis receiving an exemption.

Nicolas Donez Jr.

    Mr. Donez is a 54-year-old class R driver in Colorado. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since August 2001. He
stopped taking anti-seizure medication in 2002. His physician states
that he is supportive of Mr. Donez receiving an exemption.

Scott D. Engleman

    Mr. Engleman is a 54-year-old class CM driver in Pennsylvania. He
has a diagnosis of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2008. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2008. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Engleman receiving an exemption.

Everett J. Letourneau

    Mr. Letourneau is a 46-year-old class D driver in Minnesota. He has
a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2010. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2010. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Letourneau receiving an exemption.

Jason D. Lewis

    Mr. Lewis is a 42-year-old class C driver in California. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2008. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2012. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Lewis receiving an exemption.

Johnny L. Ricks

    Mr. Ricks is a 54-year-old class B CDL holder in Georgia. He has a
history of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1998. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 1998. His physician states that she is supportive of Mr.
Ricks receiving an exemption.

Isaac E. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers is a 32-year-old class B CDL holder in Illinois. He has
a history of
    a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 2009. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2009. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Rogers receiving an exemption.

Donald J. Smith

    Mr. Smith is a 34-year-old Class B CDL holder in New York. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2009. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2011. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Smith receiving an exemption.

Lucas T. Sorey

    Mr. Sorey is a 25-year-old class A CDL holder in North Carolina. He
has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2010. He was
gradually tapered off medication, which was discontinued in 2017. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Sorey receiving an
exemption.

Ronald E. Wagner

    Mr. Wagner is a 46-year-old class D driver in Ohio. He has a
history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2003. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2011. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Wagner receiving an exemption.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates
section of the notice.

    Issued on: October 17, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-23326 Filed 10-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13642-13644]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06396]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0090]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Delaware Bay and River to restrict and protect
vessel traffic during the transit of two Post-Panamax gantry cranes to
the Port of Philadelphia. This action is intended to protect mariners
and vessels from the hazards associated with the transportation of
these large cranes. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless a vessel meets the stated requirements or is
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 30, 2018
through March 31, 2018. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from March 20, 2018 through March 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0090 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 Petty Officer Edmund Ofalt, Waterways Management Branch,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule due to the short time period between when
Sector Delaware Bay received complete details of this operation, March
8, 2018, and the date when this safety zone needs to go into effect by.
It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an
NPRM before issuing this rule because we must establish this safety
zone by March 20, 2018 to ensure the safety of persons and vessels
participating in or transiting near the transit operations.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to mitigate the hazards presented to
safety of life in the Delaware Bay and River presented by the transit
of equipment of this size.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231.
    The COTP Delaware Bay has determined that potential hazards are
associated with the transit of the motor vessel (M/V) ZHEN HUA 16
beginning when the vessel arrives at the Delaware Bay Pilot's Station.
There will be a continuing safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard
radius of the vessel until it is moored at Greenwich Terminal in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary traveling safety zone in the
Delaware River and Bay in order to facilitate the delivery of two post-
Panamax gantry cranes to the Greenwich Terminal in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The safety zone includes all navigable waters within 200
yards of the M/V ZHEN HUA 16 during its transit from the Delaware Bay
Pilot's Station to Greenwich Terminal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Enforcement of the safety zone will begin when the M/V ZHEN HUA 16
arrives at the Delaware Bay Pilot's Station and terminate when the
vessel completes mooring operations at the Greenwich Terminal in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The anticipated date of arrival for the M/V
ZHEN HUA 16 at the Delaware Bay Pilot's Station is March 20, 2018, with
alternate dates of March 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, or 26, 2018. The exact
timeframe that will be required to complete the transit is unable to be
known in advance, but the Coast Guard estimates that it may take up to
48 hours to complete the journey from the Delaware Bay Pilot's Station
to Greenwich Terminal (with additional time possibly needed to complete
mooring).
    To ensure a safe transit between the station and the terminal, the
vessel may stop in a designated anchorage area, as set forth in 33 CFR
110.157, for a short time if necessary due to weather and tidal
requirements. The safety zone will remain in place during any time the
vessel spends anchored. Vessels may transit through the safety zone
while the M/V ZHEN HUA 16 is anchored in a designated anchorage area if
they meet the following requirements: Transit through the safety zone
at the minimum safe speed to reduce wake and maintain steerage, and,
except for towing vessels designated as assist tugs and operating in
such capacity, do not overtake, meet, or otherwise pass any other
unmoored or unanchored vessel while transiting through the safety zone.
Vessels which do not meet all of the requirements listed above are
prohibited from entering or transiting the safety zone without prior
approval of the COTP Delaware Bay. Vessels requesting to enter or
transit the safety zone may contact the Sector Delaware Bay Command
Center via VHF-FM channel 16. The Coast Guard anticipates that most
vessels will be able to freely transit around the safety zone and will
not need to seek permission to enter the zone while the M/V XHEN HUA 16
is underway.
    There will be a pre-designated safety vessel escorting the ZHEN HUA
16 while it is underway to monitor the flow of traffic and inform
mariners that the gantry crane transit is in progress.
    The Coast Guard will be establishing a second safety zone through a
separate rulemaking to ensure the safety of vessels and persons
transiting the area during offloading operations once the vessel
reaches the terminal.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the short duration
of the rule. The rule also allows for vessels to transit through the
safety zone while the M/V XHEN HUA 16 is in a designated anchorage if
certain requirements are met, and the Coast Guard anticipates that most
vessels will be able to freely transit around the safety zone and will
not need to seek permission to enter the zone while the M/V XHEN HUA 16
is underway. For these reasons the impact on waterway traffic is
expected to be minimal.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a moving safety zone lasting only the duration of transit from the
Delaware Bay Pilot's station to Greenwich Terminals and a stationary
safety zone, which allows vessels to transit if certain requirements
are met, lasting approximately six days. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  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.T05-0090 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0090   Safety Zones; Delaware River, Philadelphia PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters within 200 yards of the M/V ZHEN HUA 16

while the vessel is transiting from the Delaware Bay Pilot's Station to
Greenwich Terminal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general safety zones
regulations in subpart C of this part and except for as described in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section, vessels may not enter, remain in, or
transit the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section
unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter or remain in the zone, unless
moored or anchored outside the main navigational channel, contact the
COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM Channel 16. Those in the
safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to
them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessels may transit the safety zone described in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section without permission from the COTP if all of the
following criteria are met:
    (i) The M/V ZHEN HUA 16 is anchored in a designated anchorage as
defined in 33 CFR 110.157.
    (ii) Vessels maintain the minimum safe speed to reduce wake and
maintain steerage.
    (iii) Except towing vessels designated as assist tugs and operating
in such capacity, no vessel may meet, overtake or otherwise pass
another unmoored or unanchored vessel within the safety zone.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. Enforcement of the safety zone will begin
when the M/V ZHEN HUA 16 arrives at the Delaware Bay Pilot's Station
and terminate when the vessel completes mooring operations at the
Greenwich Terminal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The anticipated date
of arrival for the M/V ZHEN HUA 16 at the Delaware Bay Pilot's Station
is March 20, 2018, with alternate dates of March 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, or
26, 2018. The exact timeframe that will be required to complete the
transit is unable to be known in advance, but the Coast Guard estimates
that it may take up to 48 hours from arrival at Delaware Bay Pilot's
Station until complete mooring at Greenwich Terminal.

    Dated: March 20, 2018.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2018-06396 Filed 3-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 162)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48879-48883]
[DOCID:fr22au06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[EPA-R10-OAR-2006-0377; FRL-8212-2]

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Consistency Update for
Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule-consistency update.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a portion of the Outer Continental
Shelf (``OCS'') Air Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources
located within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries must be updated
periodically to remain consistent with the requirements of the
corresponding onshore area (``COA''), as mandated by section 328(a)(1)
of the Clean Air Act (``the Act''). The portion of the OCS air
regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS
sources in the State of Alaska. The intended effect of approving the
OCS requirements for the State of Alaska is to regulate emissions from
OCS sources in accordance with the requirements onshore. The change to
the existing requirements discussed below is proposed to be
incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations and is
listed in the appendix to the OCS air regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 21,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R10-OAR-2006-0377, by one of the following methods:
    A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http: //http://www.regulations.gov: Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments;
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: Natasha Greaves, Federal and Delegated Air Programs Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Mail Stop: AWT-107, Seattle, WA 98101;
    D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10,
Attn: Natasha Greaves (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101, 9th Floor. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2006-0377. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'') or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous

access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
 your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http: //http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy during normal business hours at the

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Natasha Greaves, Federal and Delegated
Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: AWT-107,
Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
    Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
II. EPA's Evaluation
    What Criteria Were Used To Evaluate Rules Submitted To Update 40
CFR Part 55?
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal
Government
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background Information

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    On September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,\1\ which
established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in
order to attain and maintain Federal and State ambient air quality
standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the
Act. Part 55 applies to all OCS sources offshore of the States except
those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.
Section 328 of the Act requires that for such sources located within 25
miles of

a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same as would
be applicable if the sources were located in the COA. Because the OCS
requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore
requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) requires that EPA update the
OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and the preamble to the final rule
promulgated September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further background
and information on the OCS regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Sec.  55.12 of the OCS rule, consistency reviews will
occur (1) at least annually; (2) upon receipt of a Notice of Intent
under Sec.  55.4; or (3) when a State or local agency submits a rule to
EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in part 55. This
proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of a Notice
of Intent on March 22, 2006 by Shell Offshore, Inc. of Houston, Texas.
Public comments received in writing within 30 days of publication of
this proposed rule will be considered by EPA before publishing a final
rule.
    Section 328(a) of the Act requires that EPA establish requirements
to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of
States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements.
To comply with this statutory mandate, EPA must incorporate applicable
onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This limits EPA's
flexibility in deciding which requirements will be incorporated into
part 55 and prevents EPA from making substantive changes to the
requirements it incorporates. As a result, EPA may be incorporating
rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of EPA's State
implementation plan (``SIP'') guidance or certain requirements of the
Act.
    Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of State or local
rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may
ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion
in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of
the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be
approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

II. EPA's Evaluation

What Criteria Were Used To Evaluate Rules Submitted To Update 40 CFR
Part 55?

    In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA reviewed the rules submitted for
inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to the
attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality
standards or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed
expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that
they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also evaluated
the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12
(e). In addition, EPA has excluded administrative or procedural
rules,\2\ and requirements that regulate toxics which are not related
to the attainment and maintenance of federal and state ambient air
quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each COA which has been delegated the authority to implement
and enforce part 55, will use its administrative and procedural
rules as onshore. However, in those instances where EPA has not
delegated authority to implement and enforce part 55, as in Alaska,
EPA will use its own administrative and procedural requirements to
implement the substantive requirements. See 40 CFR 55.14 (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
Review. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly
set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without
the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already
apply in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS
rules have created an adverse material effect. As required by section
328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS
requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 55, and by extension this update to the rules,
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0249. Notice of OMB's
approval of EPA Information Collection Request (``ICR'') No. 1601.06
was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2006 (71 FR 10499-
10500). The approval expires January 31, 2009.
    As EPA previously indicated (70 FR 65897-65898 (November 1, 2005)),
the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collection of
information under 40 CFR part 55 is estimated to average 549 hours per
response. 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 and are identified on
the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') generally requires an
agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject
to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule implements requirements
specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress

in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy
discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply in the COA, and EPA
has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules have had a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the
existing OCS requirements to make them consistent with rules in the
COA. Therefore, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 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 of 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.
    Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector 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. This rule implements requirements specifically and explicitly set
forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act without the
exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. These OCS rules already apply
in the COA, and EPA has no evidence to suggest that these OCS rules
have created an adverse material effect. As required by section 328 of
the Clean Air Act, this action simply updates the existing OCS
requirements to make them consistent with rules in the COA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Orders 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (4 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 proposed 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. This rule implements
requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the Congress in
section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of any policy
discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act,
this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them consistent
with current COA requirements. This rule does not amend the existing
provisions within 40 CFR part 55 enabling delegation of OCS regulations
to a COA, and this rule does not require the COA to implement the OCS
rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: 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 rule 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 and thus does not have ``tribal
implications,'' within the meaning of Executive Order 13175. This rule
implements requirements specifically and explicitly set forth by the
Congress in section 328 of the Clean Air Act, without the exercise of
any policy discretion by EPA. As required by section 328 of the Clean
Air Act, this rule simply updates the existing OCS rules to make them
consistent with current COA requirements. In addition, this rule does
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law. Consultation with Indian tribes is therefore
not required under Executive Order 13175. Nonetheless, in the spirit of
Executive Order 13175 and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and tribes, EPA specifically solicits
comments on this proposed rule from tribal officials

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``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 Executive Order 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.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
In addition, the

Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportional risk to
children.

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

    This proposed 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 a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable laws
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 decided not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    As discussed above, this rule implements requirements specifically
and explicitly set forth by the Congress in section 328 of the Clean
Air Act, without the exercise of any policy discretion by EPA. As
required by section 328 of the Clean Air Act, this rule simply updates
the existing OCS rules to make them consistent with current COA
requirements. In the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards and in light of the fact
that EPA is required to make the OCS rules consistent with current COA
requirements, it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to
use voluntary consensus standards in this action. Therefore, EPA is not
considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes
comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically,
invites the public to identify potentially-applicable voluntary
consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in
this regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Continental shelf, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 14, 2006.
Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed
to be amended as follows:

PART 55--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Section 328 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) as
amended by Public Law 101-549.

    2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) to
read as follows:

Sec.  55.14  Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25
miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) State of Alaska Requirements Applicable to OCS Sources,
December 3, 2005.
* * * * *
    3. Appendix A to CFR part 55 is amended by revising paragraph
(a)(1) under the heading ``Alaska'' to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 55--Listing of State and Local Requirements
Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State

* * * * *
    Alaska
    (a) * * *
    (1) The following State of Alaska requirements are applicable to
OCS Sources, December 3, 2005, Alaska Administrative Code--
Department of Environmental Conservation. The following sections of
Title 18, Chapter 50:

Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management

18 AAC 50.005. Purpose and Applicability of Chapter (effective 1/18/
97)
18 AAC 50.010. Ambient Air Quality Standards (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.015. Air Quality Designations, Classification, and Control
Regions (effective 1/18/97) except (d)(2)

Table 1. Air Quality Classifications

18 AAC 50.020. Baseline Dates and Maximum Allowable Increases
(effective 1/18/97)

Table 2. Baseline Dates

Table 3. Maximum Allowable Increases

18 AAC 50.025. Visibility and Other Special Protection Areas
(effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.030. State Air Quality Control Plan (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.035. Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by
Reference (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.040. Federal Standards Adopted by Reference (effective 1/
18/97) except (b), (c) (d), and (g)
18 AAC 50.045. Prohibitions (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.050. Incinerator Emissions Standards (effective 1/18/97)

Table 4. Particulate Matter Standards for Incinerators

18 AAC 50.055. Industrial Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment
(effective 1/18/97) except (a)(3) through (a)(9), (b)(4) through
(b)(6), (e) and (f)
18 AAC 50.065. Open Burning (effective 1/18/97) except (g) and (h)
18 AAC 50.075. Wood-Fired Heating Device Visible Emission Standards
(effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.080. Ice Fog Standards (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.085. Volatile Liquid Storage Tank Emission Standards
(effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.090. Volatile Liquid Loading Racks and Delivery Tank
Emission Standards (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.100 Nonroad Engines (effective 10/1/04)
18 AAC 50.110. Air Pollution Prohibited (effective 5/26/72)

Article 2. Program Administration

18 AAC 50.200. Information Requests (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.201. Ambient Air Quality Investigation (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.205. Certification (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.215. Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods (effective 1/18/
97)

Table 5. Significant Impact Levels (SILs)

18 AAC 50.220. Enforceable Test Methods (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.225. Owner-Requested Limits (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.230. Preapproved Emission Limits (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.235. Unavoidable Emergencies and Malfunctions (effective
1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.240. Excess Emissions (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.245. Air Episodes and Advisories (effective 1/18/97)

Table 6. Concentrations Triggering an Air Episode

Article 3. Major Stationary Source Permits

18 AAC 50.301. Permit Continuity (effective 10/1/04)
18 AAC 50.302. Construction Permits (effective 10/01/04)
18 AAC 50.306. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits
(effective 10/01/04) except (e)

18 AAC 50.311. Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits
(effective 10/01/04)
18 AAC 50.316. Preconstruction Review for Construction or
Reconstruction of a Major Source of Hazardous Air Pollutants
(effective 10/01/04) except (c)
18 AAC 50.326. Title V Operating Permits (effective 10/01/04) except
(j)(1), (k)(3), (k)(5), and (k)(6)
18 AAC 50.345. Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit
Conditions (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.346. Construction and Operating Permits: Other Permit
Conditions (effective 10/01/04)

Table 7. Emission Unit or Activity, Standard Permit Condition

Article 4. User Fees

18 AAC 50.400. Permit Administration Fees (effective 1/18/97) except
(a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(6), (i)(2), (i)(3), (m)(3) and (m)(4)
18 AAC 50.403. Negotiated Service Agreements (effective 1/29/05)
except (8) and (9)
18 AAC 50.405. Transition Process for Permit Fees (effective 1/29/
05)
18 AAC 50.410. Emission Fees (effective 1/18/97)
18 AAC 50.499. Definition for User Fee Requirements (effective 1/29/
05)

Article 5. Minor Permits

18 AAC 50.502. Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection (effective
10/1/04) except (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(5)
18 AAC 50.508. Minor Permits Requested by the Owner or Operator
(effective 10/1/04)
18 AAC 50.509. Construction of a Pollution Control Project without a
Permit (effective 10/1/04)
18 AAC 50.540. Minor Permit: Application (effective 10/1/04)
18 AAC 50.542. Minor Permit: Review and Issuance (effective 10/1/04)
except (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), and (d)
18 AAC 50.544. Minor Permits: Content (effective 10/1/04)
18 AAC 50.546. Minor Permits: Revisions (effective 10/1/04)
18 AAC 50.560. General Minor Permits (effective 10/1/04) except (b)

Article 9. General Provisions

18 AAC 50.990. Definitions (effective 1/18/97)
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E6-13860 Filed 8-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 1 316b Phase II Cost Module 4.0 Fish Barrier Nets Fish barrier net can be used where improvements to impingement performance is needed. Because barrier nets can be installed independently of intake structures, there is no need to include any costs for modifications to the existing intake or technology employed. Costs are assumed to be the same for both new and existing facilities. Barrier nets can be installed while the facility is operating. Thus, there is no need to coordinate barrier net installation with generating unit downtime .

Fish Barrier Net Questionnaire EPA identified seven facilities from its database that employed fish barrier nets and sent them a brief questionnaire requesting barrier net design and cost data ( EPA 2002). The following four facilities received but did not submit a response:

Bethlehem Steel  Sparrows Point Consumers Energy Co.  J. R. Whiting Plant Exelon Corp. ( formerly Commonwealth Edison)  LaSalle County Station Southern Energy  Bowline Generating Station The following three facilities submitted completed questionnaires:

Entergy Arkansas, Inc.  Arkansas Nuclear One Potomac Electric Power Co.  Chalk Point Minnesota Power  Laskin Energy Center Net Velocity An important design criterion for determining the size of fish barrier nets is the velocity of the water as it passes through the net. Net velocity ( which is similar to the approach velocity for a traveling screen) determines how quickly debris will collect on the nets. Net velocity also determines the force exerted on the net, especially if it becomes clogged with debris. For facilities that supplied technical data, Table 4 1 presents the design intake flow ( estimated by EPA) and facility data reported in the Barrier Net Questionnaire. These data include net size, average daily intake flow, and calculated net velocities based on average and design flows. The two larger facilities have similar design net velocity values that, based on design flow, is equal to 0.06 feet per second ( fps). This value is roughly an order of magnitude lower than compliance velocities used for rigid screens in the Phase I Rule as well as design velocities recommended for passive screens. There are two reasons for this difference. One difference is rigid screens can withstand greater pressure differentials because they are firmly held in place. The second is rigid screens can afford to collect debris at a more rapid rate because they have an active means for removing debris collected on the surface.

Based on the data presented in Table 4 1, EPA has selected a net velocity of 0.06 fps ( using the design flow) as the basis for developing compliance costs for fish barrier nets. Nets tested at a high velocity (> 1.3 fps) at a power plant in Monroe Michigan clogged and collapsed. Velocities higher  2 Facility Owner Facility Name Depth* Length* Area EPA Design Flow Net Velocity at Design Flow Average Daily Flow* Net Velocity at Daily Flow Ft Ft sq ft gpm fps gpm fps PEPCO Chalk Point 30 900 27,000 762,500 0.06 500,000 0.04 Entergy Arkansas Nuclear One 20 1500 30,000 805,600 0.06 593,750 0.04 Minn. Power Laskin Energy Center 16 600 9,600 101,900 0.02 94,250 0.02 than 0.06 fps may be acceptable at locations where the debris loading is low or where additional measures are taken to remove debris. While tidal locations can have significant water velocities, the periodic reversal of flow direction can help dislodge some of the debris that collects on the nets. The technology scenario described below, for tidal waterbodies, is designed to accommodate significant debris loading through the use of dual nets and frequent replacement with cleaned nets.

Table 4 1 Net Velocity Data Derived from Barrier Net Questionnaire Data Mesh Size Mesh size determines the fish species and juvenile stages that will be excluded by the net. While smaller mesh size has the ability to exclude more organisms, it will plug more quickly with debris. The Chalk Point facility tried to use 0.5 inch stretch mesh netting and found that too much debris collected on the netting; it instead uses 0.75 inch stretch ( 0.375 inch mesh) netting ( Langley 2002). Unlike rigid screens, fish nets are much more susceptible to lateral forces which can collapse the net.

Mesh size is specified in one of two ways, either as a " bar" or " stretch" dimension. A " stretch" measurement refers to the distance between two opposing knots in the net openings when they are stretched apart. Thus, assuming a diamond shaped netting, when the netting is relaxed the distance between two opposing sides of an opening will be roughly ½ the stretch diameter. A " bar" measurement is the length of one of the four sides of the net opening and would be roughly equal to ½ the stretch measurement. The term " mesh size" as used in this document refers to either ½ the " stretch" measurement or is equal to the " bar" measurement Table 4 2 presents reported mesh sizes from several power plant facilities that either now or in the past employed fish barrier nets. An evaluation report of the use of barrier fish nets at the Bowline Plant in New York cited that 0.374 inch mesh was more effective than 0.5 inch mesh at reducing the number of fish entering the plant intake ( Hutcheson 1988). Both fish barrier net cost scenarios described below are based on nets with a mesh size of 0.375 in. ( 9.5 mm) and corresponds to the median mesh size of those identified by EPA.

Twine Twine size mostly determines the strength and weight of the fish netting. Only the Chalk Point facility reported twine size data (# 252) knotless nylon netting. Netting # 252 is a 75 lb test braided nylon twine in which the twine joints are braided together rather than knotted ( Murelle 2002). The netting used at the Bowline Power Plant was cited as multi filament knotted nylon, chosen because of its low cost and high strength ( Hutcheson 1988).  3 Facility Description Type of Measurement and Source Inch mm Inch mm Inner Net 0.75 19 Stretch ( 1) 0.375 9.5 Outer Net 1.25 32 Stretch ( 1) 0.625 15.9 Low 0.375 10 Mesh ( Bar) ( 1) 0.375 9.5 High ( preferred) 0.5 13 Mesh ( Bar) ( 1) 0.5 12.7 Laskin Energy 0.25 6.4 Mesh ( Bar) ( 1) 0.25 6.4 Bowline Point More Effective Size 0.374 9.5 Bar ( 3) 0.374 9.5 J. P. Pulliam 0.25 6.4 Stretch ( 2) 0.126 3.2 Median 0.374 9.5 ( 1): 2002 EPA Fish Barrier Survey ( 2): ASCE 1982 ( 3): Hutcheson 1988 Reported Mesh Size Entergy Arkansas Nuclear One Effective Mesh Size Chalk Point Table 4 2 Available Barrier Net Mesh Size Data Support/ Anchoring System In general, two different types of support and anchoring systems have been identified by EPA. In the simplest system the nets are held in place and the bottom is sealed with weights running the length of the bottom usually consisting of a chain or a lead line. The weights may be supplemented with anchors placed at intervals. Vendors indicated the requirement for anchors varies depending on the application and waterbody conditions. The nets are anchored along the shore and generally placed in a semi circle or arc in front of the intake. The Bowline Facility net used a v shape configuration with an anchor and buoy at the apex and additional anchors placed midway along the 91 meter length sides. In some applications anchors may not be needed at all. If the nets are moved by current or waves, they can be set back into the proper position using a boat. The nets are supported along the surface with buoys and floats. The buoys may support signs warning boaters of the presence of the net. The required spacing and size of the anchors and buoys is somewhat dependent on the size of the net and lateral water velocities. The majority of facilities investigated used this float/ anchor method of installation. This net support configuration, using weights, anchors, floats, and buoys, is the basis for compliance scenario A.

A second method is to support nets between evenly spaced pilings. This method is more appropriate for water bodies with currents. The Chalk Point Power Plant uses this method in a tidal river. The Chalk Point facility uses two concentric nets. Each has a separate set of support pilings with a spacing between pilings of about 18 feet to 20 feet ( Langley 2002). Nets are hung on the outside of the pilings with spikes and are weighted on the bottom with galvanized chain. During the winter the top of the net is suspended below the water surface to avoid ice damage but generally thick ice does not persist during the winter months at the facility location.  4 Debris Debris problems generally come in two forms. In one case large floating debris can get caught in the netting near the surface and result in tearing of the netting. In the other cases, floating and submerged debris can plug the openings in the net. This increases the hydraulic gradient across the net, resulting in net being pulled in the downstream direction. The force can become so great that it can collapse the net, and water flows over the top and/ or beneath the bottom. If the net is held in place by only anchors and weights it may be moved out of place. At the Chalk Point facility, debris that catches on the nets mostly comes in the form of jellyfish and colonial hydroids ( Langley 2002).

Several solutions are described for mitigating problems created by debris. At the Chalk Point Power Plant two concentric nets are deployed. The outer net has a larger mesh opening designed to capture and deflect larger debris so it does not encounter the inner net, which catches smaller debris. This configuration reduces the debris buildup on any one net extending the time period before net cleaning is required. Growth of algae and colonization with other organisms ( biofouling) can also increase the drag force on the nets. Periodic removal and storage out of the water can solve this problem. At Chalk Point both nets are changed out with cleaned nets on a periodic basis. This approach is considered to be appropriate for high debris locations.

Another solution is to periodically lift the netting and manually remove debris. A solution for floating debris is to place a debris boom in front of the net ( Hutcheson 1988).

Ice During the wintertime ice can create problems in that the net can become embedded in surface ice with the net subject to tear forces when the ice breaks up or begins to move. Flowing ice can create similar problems as floating debris. Ice will also affect the ability to perform net maintenance such as debris removal. Solutions include:

° Removing the nets during winter ° Drop the upper end of the net to a submerged location; can only be used with fixed support, such as pilings and in locations where thick ice is uncommon ° Installing an air bubbler below the surface. Does not solve problems with flowing ice.

Net Deployment EPA assumes that barrier nets will be used to augment performance of the existing shore based intake technology such as traveling screens. The float/ anchor supported nets are assumed to be deployed on a seasonal basis to reduce impingement of fish present during seasonal migration. The Arkansas Energy Arkansas Nuclear One Plant deploys their net for about 120 days during winter months. The Minnesota Power Laskin Energy Center, which is located on a lake, deploys the net when ice has broken up in spring and removes the net in the fall before ice forms. Thus, the actual deployment period will vary depending on presence of ice and seasonal migration of fish. For the compliance scenario that relies upon float/ anchor supported nets, a total deployment period of eight months ( 240 day) is assumed. This is equal to or greater than most of the deployment periods observed by EPA.  5 EPA notes that the Chalk Point facility currently uses year round deployment and avoids problems with ice in the winter time by lowering the net top to a location below the surface. Prior to devising this approach, nets were remove during the winter months. This option is available because the nets are supported on pilings. Thus, the surface support rope ( with floats removed) can be stretched between the pilings several feet below the surface. Therefore, a scenario where nets are supported by pilings may include year round deployment as was the case for the Chalk Point Power Plant. However, in northern climates the sustained presence of thick ice during the winter may prevent net removal and cleaning and therefore, it may still be necessary to remove the nets during this period.

4.1 Capital Cost Development Compliance costs are developed for the two different net scenarios.

Scenario A Installation at Freshwater Lake Using Anchors and Buoys/ Floats This scenario is intended for application in freshwater waterbodies where low water velocities and low debris levels occur such as lakes and reservoirs. This scenario is modeled on the barrier net data from the Entergy Arkansas Nuclear One facility but has been modified to double the annual deployment period from 120 days to 240 days. Along with doubling the deployment period, the labor costs were increased to include an additional net removal and replacement step midpoint through this period. To facilitate the mid season net replacement, the initial net capital costs will include purchase of a replacement net.

Scenario B Installation Using Pilings.

This scenario is modeled after the system used at Chalk Point. In this case two nets are deployed in concentric semi circles with the inner net having a smaller mesh ( 0.375 in) and the outer net having a larger mesh. Deployment is assumed to be year round. A marine contractor performs all O& M, which mostly involves periodically removing and the replacing both nets with nets they have cleaned. The initial capital net costs will include purchase of a set of replacement nets. This scenario is intended for application in waterbodies with low or varying currents such as tidal rivers and estuaries. Two different O& M cost estimates are developed for this scenario. In one the deployment is assumed to be year round as is the case at Chalk Point. In the second, the net is deployed for only 240 days being taken out during the winter months. This would apply to facilities northern regions where ice formation would make net maintenance difficult.

Net Costs The capital costs for each scenario includes two components, the net and the support. The net portion includes a rope and floats spaced along the top and weights along the bottom consisting of either a " leadline" or chain. If similar netting specifications are used the cost of the netting is generally proportional to the size of the netting and can be expressed in a unitized manner such as " dollars/ sq ft." Table 4 3 presents the reported net costs and calculated unit costs. While different water depths will change the general ratio of net area to length of rope/ floats and bottom weights , the differences in depth also result in different float and weight requirements. For example, a shallower net will  6 Facility Depth Length Area Component Cost/ net Cost/ sq ft ft ft sq ft Chalk Point 27 300 8,100 Replacement Net 0.675 in.* $ 4,640 $ 0.57 27 300 8,100 Replacement Net 0.375 in.* $ 4,410 $ 0.54 Calk Point ( equivalent) 10 300 3,000 Replacement Net* $ 1,510 $ 0.50 Entergy Arkansas 20 250 5,000 Replacement Net* $ 3,920 $ 0.78 Entergy Arkansas 20 1500 30,000 Net & Support Costs** $ 36,620 $ 1.22 Laskin Energy Center 16 600 9,600 Net Costs*** $ 1,600 $ 0.17 * Costs include floats and lead line or chain and are based on replacement costs plus 12% shipping. ** Costs include replacement net components plus anchors, buoys & cable plus 12% shipping *** Cost based on reported 1980 costs adjusted to 2002 dollars plus 12% for shipping. require more length of surface rope and floats and weights per unit net area but a shallower depth net will also exert less force and require smaller floats and weights.

EPA is using the cost of nets in the average depth range of 20 to 30 feet as the basis for costing. This approach is consistent with the median Phase II facility shoreline intake depth of 18 feet and median " average bay depth" of 20 feet. While nets are deployed offshore in water deeper than a shoreline intake, costs are for average depths, which include the shallow sections at the ends, and net placement can be configured to minimize depth. To see how shallower depths may affect unit costs, the costs for a shallower 10 foot net with specifications similar to the Chalk Point net ( depth of 30 feet) were obtained from the facility's net supplier. As shown in Table 4 3, the unit cost per square foot for the shallower net was less than the deeper net. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the use of shallower nets does not increase unit costs and has chosen to apply the unit costs, based on the 20 foot and 30 foot depth nets, to shallower depths.

Table 4 3 presents costs obtained for the net portion only from the facilities that completed the Barrier Net Questionnaire. These costs have been increased by 12% over what was reported to include shipping costs. This 12% value was obtained from the Chalk Point net supplier who confirmed that the costs reported by Chalk Point did not include shipping ( Murelle 2002) The unit net costs range from $ 0.17/ sq ft to $ 0.78/ sq ft. Consultation with net vendors indicates that the barrier net specifications vary considerably and that there is no standard approach. Although no net specification data ( besides mesh size) was submitted with the Laskin Energy Center data, EPA has concluded that the data for this net probably represents lower strength netting which would be suitable for applications where the netting is not exposed to significant forces. Because the compliance cost scenarios will be applied to facilities with a variety net strength requirements, EPA has chosen to use the higher net costs that correspond to higher net strength requirements. As such, EPA has chosen to use the cost data for the Chalk Point and Arkansas Nuclear One facilities as the basis for each scenario.

Table 4 3 Net Size and Cost Data Scenario A Net Costs  7 2,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 74 371 1,857 3,714 9,284 18,568 27,852 37,136 46,420 $ 149 $ 744 $ 3,722 $ 7,445 $ 18,611 $ 37,223 $ 55,834 $ 74,445 $ 93,057 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 6,540 $ 65 $ 324 $ 1,619 $ 3,238 $ 8,096 $ 16,191 $ 24,287 $ 32,383 $ 40,478 $ 6,754 $ 7,608 $ 11,881 $ 17,223 $ 33,247 $ 59,954 $ 86,661 $ 113,368 $ 140,075 $ 1,351 $ 1,522 $ 2,376 $ 3,445 $ 6,649 $ 11,991 $ 17,332 $ 22,674 $ 28,015 Total Capital Costs $ 8,104 $ 9,130 $ 14,258 $ 20,667 $ 39,896 $ 71,945 $ 103,993 $ 136,042 $ 168,090 Net Area ( sq ft) Flow ( gpm)

Net Costs Installation Costs Fixed Installation Costs Variable Total Direct Capital Costs Indirect Costs In this scenario the net and net support components are included in the unit costs. At the Arkansas Nuclear One facility unitized costs for the net and anchors/ buoys are $ 1.22/ sq ft plus $ 0.78/ sq ft for the replacement net, resulting in a total initial unit net costs of $ 2.00/ sq ft for both nets. Because the data in Table 4 3 indicate that, if anything, unit costs for nets may decrease with shallower depths, EPA concluded that this unit cost was representative of most of the deeper nets and may slightly overestimate the costs for shallower nets.

Scenario A Net Installation costs Installation costs for Arkansas Nuclear One ( Scenario A) were reported as $ 30,000 ( in 1999 dollars; $ 32,700 when adjusted for inflation to 2002 dollars) for the 30,000 sq ft net. This included placement of anchors and cable including labor. In order to extrapolate the installation costs for different net sizes, EPA has assumed that approximately 20% ($ 6,540) of this installation cost represents fixed costs ( e. g., mobilization/ demobilization). The remainder ($ 26,160) divided by the net area results in an installation unit cost of $ 0.87/ sq ft to be added to the fixed cost.

Scenario A Total Capital Costs Table 4 4 presents the component and total capital costs for Scenario A. Indirect costs are added for engineering ( 10%) and contingency/ allowance ( 10%). Contractor labor and overhead are already included in the component costs. Because most of the operation occurs offshore no cost for sitework are included.

Table 4 4 Capital Costs for Scenario A Fish Barrier Net With Anchors/ Buoys as Support Structure Scenario B Net Costs In this scenario the net costs are computed separately from the net support ( pilings) costs. In this scenario there are two separate nets and an extra set of replacement nets for each. This, the unit costs for the nets will be two times the sum of the units net costs for each of the large and small mesh nets. As shown in Table 4 3, the unit costs for each net was $ 0.57/ sq ft and $ 0.54/ sq ft resulting in a total cost for all four nets of $ 2.24/ sq ft for the area of a single net.  8 Water Depth Total Pile Length Cost Per Pile Flow Per 20 ft Net Section Flow Per 20 ft Net Section Fixed Cost Mobilizati on Ft Ft cfs gpm 10 22.0 $ 627 12 5,386 $ 2,325 20 40.0 $ 1,140 24 10,771 $ 2,325 30 56.0 $ 1,596 36 16,157 $ 2,325 Scenario B Installation Costs Installation costs were not provided for the Chalk Point facility. Initial net installation is assumed to be performed by the O& M contractor and is assumed to be a fixed cost regardless of net size. EPA assumed the initial installation costs to be two thirds of the contractor, single net replacement job cost ($ 933).

Scenario B Piling Costs The cost for the pilings at the Chalk Point facility were not provided. The piling costs for scenario B is based primarily on the estimated cost for installing two concentric set of treated wooden pilings with a spacing of 20 ft between pilings. To see how water depth affects piling costs, separate costs were developed at water depths of 10 feet, 20 feet, and 30 feet. Piling costs are based on the following assumptions:

° Costs for pilings is based on a unit cost of $ 24.50/ ft of piling ( Costworks 2001) ° Piling installation mobilization costs are equal to $ 2,325 based on a mobilization rate of $ 46.50/ mile for barge mounted pile driving equipment ( Costworks 2001) and an assumed distance of 50 miles ° Each pile length includes the water depth plus a 6 foot extension above the water surface plus a penetration depth ( at two thirds the water depth); the calculated length was rounded up to the next even whole number ° The two concentric nets are nearly equal in length with one pile for every 20 feet in length and one extra pile to anchor the end of each net.

Table 4 5 presents the individual pile costs and intake flow for each net section between two pilings ( at 0.06 fps).

Table 4 5 Pile Costs and Net Section Flow Tables 4 6, 4 7, and 4 8 present the total capital costs and cost components for the installed nets and pilings. Indirect costs are added for engineering ( 10%) and contingency/ allowance ( 10%). Contractor labor and overhead are already included in the component costs. Because most of the operation occurs offshore no cost for sitework are included. The costs were derived for nets with multiple 20 ft sections. Because the net costs are derived such that the cost equations are linear with  9 2 4 8 12 25 50 75 100 200 6 10 18 26 52 102 152 202 402 40 80 160 240 500 1000 1500 2000 4000 400 800 1,600 2,400 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 40,000 10,771 21,542 43,085 64,627 134,640 269,280 403,920 538,560 1,077,120 $ 6,429 $ 9,165 $ 14,637 $ 20,109 $ 37,893 $ 72,093 $ 106,293 $ 140,493 $ 277,293 $ 1,380 $ 1,827 $ 2,721 $ 3,614 $ 6,519 $ 12,106 $ 17,692 $ 23,279 $ 45,624 $ 7,809 $ 10,992 $ 17,358 $ 23,723 $ 44,412 $ 84,199 $ 123,985 $ 163,772 $ 322,917 $ 1,562 $ 2,198 $ 3,472 $ 4,745 $ 8,882 $ 16,840 $ 24,797 $ 32,754 $ 64,583 $ 9,371 $ 13,190 $ 20,829 $ 28,468 $ 53,295 $ 101,039 $ 148,782 $ 196,526 $ 387,501 Net Area ( sq ft)

Indirect Costs Total Capital Costs Flow ( gpm) Total Piling Cost Net Costs Total Direct Costs Number of 20 ft Sections Total Number of Pilings Single Net Length ( ft)

2 4 8 12 25 50 75 100 6 10 18 26 52 102 152 202 40 80 160 240 500 1000 1500 2000 800 1600 3200 4800 10000 20000 30000 40000 21,542 43,085 86,170 129,254 269,280 538,560 807,840 1,077,120 $ 9,165 $ 13,725 $ 22,845 $ 31,965 $ 61,605 $ 118,605 $ 175,605 $ 232,605 $ 1,827 $ 2,721 $ 4,508 $ 6,296 $ 12,106 $ 23,279 $ 34,452 $ 45,624 $ 10,992 $ 16,446 $ 27,353 $ 38,261 $ 73,711 $ 141,884 $ 210,057 $ 278,229 $ 2,198 $ 3,289 $ 5,471 $ 7,652 $ 14,742 $ 28,377 $ 42,011 $ 55,646 $ 13,190 $ 19,735 $ 32,824 $ 45,913 $ 88,453 $ 170,260 $ 252,068 $ 333,875 Net Area ( sq ft) Single Net Length ( ft)

Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs Total Capital Costs Flow ( gpm) Total Piling Cost Net Costs Number of 20 ft Sections Total Number of Pilings 2 4 8 12 25 50 75 6 10 18 26 52 102 152 40 80 160 240 500 1000 1500 1,200 2,400 4,800 7,200 15,000 30,000 45,000 32,314 64,627 129,254 193,882 403,920 807,840 1,211,760 $ 9,576 $ 15,960 $ 28,728 $ 41,496 $ 82,992 $ 162,792 $ 242,592 $ 2,274 $ 3,614 $ 6,296 $ 8,977 $ 17,692 $ 34,452 $ 51,211 $ 11,850 $ 19,574 $ 35,024 $ 50,473 $ 100,684 $ 197,244 $ 293,803 $ 2,370 $ 3,915 $ 7,005 $ 10,095 $ 20,137 $ 39,449 $ 58,761 Total Capital Costs $ 14,220 $ 23,489 $ 42,029 $ 60,568 $ 120,821 $ 236,692 $ 352,563 Net Costs Total Direct Costs Indirect Costs Total Number of Pilings Single Net Length ( ft)

Flow ( gpm) Total Piling Cost Number of 20 ft Sections Net Area ( sq ft) respect to flow, the maximum number of sections shown are selected so they cover a similar flow range. Values that exceed this range can use the same cost equation.

Table 4 6 Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Net With Piling Support Structure for 10 Ft Deep Nets Table 4 7 Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Net With Piling Support Structure for 20 Ft Deep Nets Table 4 8 Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Net With Piling Support Structure for 30 Ft Deep Nets  10 Figure 4 1 presents the total capital costs for scenarios A and B from Tables 4 4 through 4 8, plotted against design flow. Figure 4 1 also presents the best fit linear equations used top estimate compliance costs. EPA notes that pilings for shallower depths costed out more, due to the need for many more pilings. Scenario B costs for 10 foot deep nets will be applied wherever the intake depth is less than 12 ft. For scenario B applications in water much deeper than 12 feet, EPA will use the cost equation for 20 foot deep nets.

3.2 O& M Costs Development Scenario A O& M Costs  Float/ Anchor Supported Nets Barrier net O& M costs generally include costs for replacement netting, labor for net inspection, repair, and cleaning, and labor for net placement and removal. The Arkansas Nuclear One facility supplied data that estimate all three components for its 1500 ft long by 20 ft deep net located on a reservoir. Net deployment, however, was for only a 120 day period. This net is installed in November and removed in March ( in place for 120 days total). Each year two 250 foot sections of the net ( one third of the total) are replaced due to normal wear and tear. EPA assumes the labor rate is similar to the estimate for traveling screen maintenance labor ($ 41.10/ hr). The reported Arkansas Nuclear One O& M labor requirements includes 3 hrs per day during the time the net is deployed for inspection & cleaning by personnel on a boat ( calculated at $ 14,800). This involves lifting and partially cleaning the nets on a periodic basis. Labor to deploy and remove the net was reported at 240 hrs ( calculated at $ 9,860). Two sections of the six total net sections were replaced annually at a cost of $ 7,830 total ( including shipping). Total annual O& M costs are calculated to be $ 32,500.

Because other facilities on lakes reported longer deployment periods ( generally when ice is not present), EPA chose to adjust O& M costs to account for longer deployment. EPA chose to base O& M costs for scenario A on a deployment period of 240 days ( approximately double the Arkansas Nuclear One facility deployment period). EPA also added costs for an additional net removal and deployment step using the second replacement net midway through the annual deployment period. The result is a calculated annual O& M cost of $ 57,200.

Scenario B O& M Costs  Piling Supported Nets Nearly all of the O& M labor for Chalk Point facility is performed by a marine contractor who charges $ 1,400 per job to simultaneously remove the existing net and replace it with a cleaned net. This is done with two boats where one boat removes the existing net followed quickly by the second that places the cleaned net keeping the open area between nets minimized . The contractors fee includes cleaning the removed nets between jobs. This net replacement is performed about 52 to 54 times per years. It is performed about twice per week during the summer and once every two weeks during the winter. The facility relies upon the contractor to monitor the net. Approximately one third of the nets are replaced each year, resulting in a net replacement cost of $ 9,050.

Using an average of 53 contractor jobs per year and a net replacement cost of $ 9,050 the resulting annual O& M cost was $ 83,250. EPA notes that some facilities that employ scenario B technology may choose to remove the nets during the winter. As such, EPA has also estimated the scenario B  11 Deploym ent Net Replaceme nt O& M Labor Model Facility O& M Fixed Cost Variable Costs Unit Variable O& M Costs Days $/ sq ft Scenario A 240 $ 7,830 $ 57,200 $ 57,200 $ 11,440 $ 45,760 $ 1.53 Scenario B 365 $ 9,050 $ 74,200 $ 83,250 $ 16,650 $ 66,600 $ 2.47 Scenario B 240 $ 9,050 $ 60,200 $ 69,250 $ 13,850 $ 55,400 $ 2.05 2,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 Net Area ( sq ft) 74 371 1,857 3,714 9,284 18,568 27,852 37,136 46,420 Scenario A 240 days $ 11,553 $ 12,006 $ 14,272 $ 17,104 $ 25,601 $ 39,762 $ 53,924 $ 68,085 $ 82,246 Scenario B 365 days $ 16,833 $ 17,566 $ 21,230 $ 25,810 $ 39,551 $ 62,451 $ 85,352 $ 108,252 $ 131,153 Scenario B 240 days $ 14,002 $ 14,612 $ 17,660 $ 21,470 $ 32,899 $ 51,949 $ 70,998 $ 90,048 $ 109,097 Flow ( gpm) O& M costs based on a deployment period of approximately 240 days by reducing the estimated number of contractor jobs from 53 to 43 ( deducting 10 jobs using the winter frequency of roughly 1 job every 2 weeks). The resulting O& M costs are shown in Tables 4 9 and 4 10.

EPA notes that other O& M costs reported in literature are often less than what is shown in Table 4 9. For example, 1985 O& M cost estimates for the JP Pulliam plant ($ 7,500/ year, adjusted to 2002 dollars) calculate to $ 11,800 for a design flow roughly half that of Arkansas Entergy. This suggests the scenario A and B estimates represent the high end of the range of barrier net O& M costs. Other O& M estimates, however, do not indicate the cost components that are included and may not represent all cost components.

In order to extrapolate costs for other flow rates, EPA has assumed that roughly 20% of the Scenario A and B O& M costs represent fixed costs. Table 4 9 presents the fixed and unit costs based on this assumption for both scenarios.

Table 4 9 Cost Basis for O& M Costs Table 4 10 presents the calculated O& M costs based on the cost factors in Table 4 9 and Figure 4 2 presents the plotted O& M costs and the linear equations fitted to the cost estimates.

Table 4 10 Annual O& M Cost Estimates 3.4 Nuclear Facilities Even though the scenario A costs are modeled after the barriers nets installed at a nuclear facility, the higher unit net costs cited by the Arkansas Nuclear One facility include components that are not included with the non nuclear Chalk Point nets and thus the differences may be attributed to  12 equipment differences and not differences between nuclear and non nuclear facilities. In addition, the labor rates used for scenario A and B O& M were for non nuclear facilities. Because the function of barrier nets is purely for environmental benefit, and not critical to the continued function of the cooling system ( as would be technologies such as traveling screens). EPA does not believe that a much more rigorous design is warranted at nuclear facilities. However, higher labor rates plus greater paperwork and security requirements at nuclear facilities should result in higher costs. As such, EPA has concluded that the capital costs for nuclear facilities should be increased by a factor of 1.58 ( lower end of range cited in passive screen section). Because O& M costs rely heavily on labor costs, EPA has concluded that the O& M costs should be increased by a factor of 1.24 ( based on nuclear vs non nuclear operator labor costs).

3.3 Application Fish barrier net technology will augment, but not replace, the function of any existing technology. Therefore, the calculated net O& M costs will include the O& M costs described here without any deductions for reduction in existing technology O& M costs. Fish barrier nets may not be applicable in locations where they would interfere with navigation channels or boat traffic.

Fish barrier nets require low waterbody currents in order to avoid becoming plugged with debris that could collapse the net. Such conditions can be found in most lakes and reservoirs, as well as some tidal waterbodies such as tidal rivers and estuaries. Placing barrier nets in a location with sustained lateral currents in one direction may cause problems because the section of net facing the current will continually collect debris at higher rate than the remainder of the net. In this case, net maintenance cleaning efforts must be able to keep up with debris accumulation. As such, barrier nets are suitable for intake locations that are sheltered from currents, e. g., locations within an embayment, bay, or cove. On freshwater rivers and streams only those facilities within an embayment, bay, or cove will be considered as candidates for barrier nets.. The sheltered area needs to be large enough for the net sizes described above. The fish barrier net designs considered here would not be suitable for waterbodies with the strong wave action typically found in ocean environments.

Scenario A is most suitable for lakes and reservoirs where water currents are low or almost nonexistent. Scenario B is more suitable for tidal waterbodies and any other location where higher quantities of debris and light or fluctuating currents may be encountered. In northern regions where formation of thick ice in winter would prevent access to the nets, and scenario B may be applied, the scenario B O& M costs for a 240 day deployment should be used. However, because this scenario results in reduced costs, EPA has chose to apply the scenario B 365 days deployment for all facilities in suitable waterbodies.

EPA notes that nets with net velocities higher than 0.06 fps have been successfully employed ( EPRI 1985). While such nets will be smaller than those described here, they will accumulate debris at a faster rate. Because the majority of the O& M costs are related to cleaning nets, EPA expects the increase in frequency of cleaning smaller nets will be offset by the smaller net size such that the smaller nets should require similar costs to maintain.  13 Facilities with Canals Most facilities with canals have in canal velocities of between 0.5 and 1 fps based on average flow. These velocities are an order of magnitude greater than the design net velocity used here. If nets with mesh sizes in the range considered here were placed within the canals they will likely experience problems with debris. Therefore, if barrier nets are used at facilities with canals, the net would need to be placed in the waterbody just outside the canal entrance.

References EPA. Responses to Fish Barrier Net Questionnaires. 2002.( Update memo from Candace)

Taft, E. P. " Fish Protection Technologies: A Status Report." Alden Research laboratory, Inc. 1999.

Hutcheson, J. B. Jr. Matousak, J. A. " Evaluation of a Barrier Net Used to Mitigate Fish Impingement at a Hudson River Power Plant." American Fisheries Society Monograph 4: 208 285. 1988 Murelle, D. Nylon Nets Company. Telephone Contact Report with John Sunda,. SAIC. Regarding cost and design information for fish barrier nets. November 5, 2002.

Langley, P. Chalk Point Power Station. Telephone Contact Report with John Sunda,. SAIC. Regarding fish barrier net design, operation, and O& M costs. November 4, 2002.

ASCE. Design of Water Intake Structures for Fish Protection. American Society of Civil Engineers. 1982.

EPRI. Intake Research Facilities Manual. Prepared by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl River, New York, for Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI CS 3976. May 1985.

Costworks 2001.  14 Figure 4 1 Total Capital Costs for Fish Barrier Nets y = 0.3038x + 6645.6 R 2 = 1 y = 0.1282x + 7848 R 2 = 1 y = 0.3546x + 5551.2 R 2 = 1 y = 0.2869x + 4950 R 2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 450,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 Scenario A Barrier Net Scenario B Net at 10 ft Depth Scenario B Net at 20 ft Depth Scenario B Net at 30 ft  15 Figure 4 2 Barrier Net Annual O& M Costs y = 0.0916x + 16650 R 2 = 1 y = 0.0566x + 11440 R 2 = 1 y = 0.0762x + 13850 R 2 = 1 $ 0 $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 100,000 $ 120,000 $ 140,000 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 Design Flow ( gpm)

Annual O&

M Costs Scenario A Scenario B 365 Days Scenario B 240 days  16