[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61609-61610]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0616; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANM-6]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Pendleton, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will amend Class E airspace at Pendleton, OR.
Decommissioning of the Foris Non-Directional Radio Beacon (NDB) at
Eastern Oregon Regional Airport at Pendleton has made this necessary
for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations

at the airport. This action also reflects the new name of the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On July 20, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at
Pendleton, OR (75 FR 42012). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace, extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface, at Eastern Oregon Regional Airport at Pendleton,
Pendleton OR. Decommissioning of the Foris NDB at Eastern Oregon
Regional Airport at Pendleton has made this action necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. This action
will also change the name of the airport from Pendleton Municipal
Airport to Eastern Oregon Regional Airport at Pendleton.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies
controlled airspace at Eastern Oregon Regional Airport at Pendleton,
Pendleton, OR.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Pendleton, OR [Modified]

Eastern Oregon Regional Airport at Pendleton, OR
    (Lat. 45[deg]41'42'' N., long. 118[deg]50'29'' W.)
Pendleton VORTAC
    (Lat. 45[deg]41'54'' N., long. 118[deg]56'19'' W.)
Hermiston, Hermiston Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 45[deg]49'42'' N., long. 119[deg]15'33'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 10.5-mile radius of lat. 45[deg]41'30'' N., long.
118[deg]47'24'' W., and within 4 miles each side of the Pendleton
VORTAC 254[deg] radial extending from the 10.5-mile radius to 10.9
miles west of the VORTAC, and within 8.3 miles north and 4.3 miles
south of the 090[deg] bearing from the Eastern Oregon Regional
Airport at Pendleton extending from the 10.5-mile radius to 20.7
miles east of the Eastern Oregon Regional Airport at Pendleton, and
within a 4.3-mile radius of the Hermiston Municipal Airport, and
within 2.2 miles each side of the Pendleton VORTAC 300[deg] radial
extending from the 4.3-mile radius to the Pendleton VORTAC; that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within
9.6 miles northeast and 6.1 miles southwest of the Pendleton VORTAC
137[deg] radial extending from the 10.5-mile radius to 43.5 miles
southeast of the VORTAC, and within 8.7 miles south and 6.1 miles
north of the Pendleton 254[deg] radial extending from the 10.5-mile
radius to 28.8 miles west of the VORTAC, and within 8.3 miles north
and 4.3 miles south of the Pendleton 273[deg] radial extending from
the 10.5-mile radius to 16.1 miles west of the VORTAC, and within
5.3 miles southwest and 7.9 miles northeast of the Pendleton
310[deg] radial extending from the 10.5-mile radius to 26.1 miles
northwest of the VORTAC, and within 4.3 miles northwest of the
025[deg] radial and 4.3 miles southeast of the 049[deg] radial
extending from the 10.5-mile radius to the 30.5-mile radius of the
Pendleton VORTAC, and that airspace within the 27.9-mile radius of
the Pendleton VORTAC extending clockwise from the southeast edge of
V-536 to the northeast edge of V-298.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 23, 2010.
Lori Andriesen,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-24792 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4695-4697]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01705]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94030; File No. SR-NYSE-2022-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Rule 7.31 To Provide for Inside Limit Orders and Make Other
Conforming Changes

January 24, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 18, 2022, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31 to provide for Inside
Limit Orders and make other conforming changes. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to
add new Rule 7.31(a)(3) to provide for Inside

Limit Orders and to make other conforming changes in connection with
the addition of this new order type on the Exchange.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(a)(3) would define an Inside Limit Order as a
Limit Order that is to be traded at the best price obtainable without
trading through the NBBO. Proposed Rule 7.31(a)(3)(A) would provide
that, on arrival, a marketable Inside Limit Order to buy (sell) would
be assigned a working price of the NBO (NBB) and would trade with all
sell (buy) orders on the Exchange Book priced at or below (above) the
NBO (NBB) before routing to the NBO (NBB) on an Away Market. Once the
NBO (NBB) is exhausted, the Inside Limit Order to buy (sell) would be
displayed at its working price and be eligible to trade with incoming
sell (buy) orders at that price. When the updated NBO (NBB) is
displayed, the Inside Limit Order to buy (sell) would be assigned a new
working price of the updated NBO (NBB) and would trade with all sell
(buy) orders on the Exchange Book priced at or below the updated NBO
(NBB) before routing to the updated NBO (NBB) on an Away Market. Such
assessment would continue at each new NBO (NBB) until the order is
filled, no longer marketable, or the limit price is reached. Once the
Inside Limit Order is no longer marketable, it would be ranked and
displayed on the Exchange Book.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(a)(3)(B) would provide that an Inside Limit
Order may not be designated as a Limit IOC Order but may be designated
as a Limit Routable IOC Order. An Inside Limit Order to buy (sell)
designated as a Limit Routable IOC Order would trade with sell (buy)
orders on the Exchange Book priced at or below (above) the NBO (NBB),
and the quantity not traded would be routed to the NBO (NBB). Any
unfilled quantity of the Inside Limit Order not traded on the Exchange
or an Away Market would be cancelled.
    Proposed Rule 7.31(a)(3) is substantially based on rules providing
for Inside Limit Orders on the NYSE's affiliated exchanges NYSE
American LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), NYSE
Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago''), and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National'') (collectively, the ``Affiliated Exchanges''), with one
exception.\4\ The Exchange does not propose to adopt a version of NYSE
American Rule 7.31E(a)(3)(B), NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(a)(3)(B), NYSE
Chicago Rule 7.31(a)(3)(B), or NYSE National Rule 7.31(a)(3)(B) with
respect to designating an Inside Limit Order as a Primary Until 9:45
Order or a Primary Until 3:55 Order because the latter order types are
not offered on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE American Rule 7.31E(a)(3); NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-
E(a)(3); NYSE Chicago Rule 7.31(a)(3); and NYSE National Rule
7.31(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes conforming changes to Rule 7.31(d)(1),
Rule 7.37(a)(4), and Rule 104(b)(6) to reflect the introduction of
Inside Limit Orders as follows:
     Rule 7.31(d)(1) currently defines the Reserve Order. The
Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(d)(1) to provide that a Reserve
Order is a Limit Order or Inside Limit Order with a quantity of the
size displayed and with a reserve quantity of the size that is not
displayed. This proposed change is consistent with NYSE American Rule
7.31E(d)(1), NYSE Arca Rule 7.31-E(d)(1), NYSE Chicago Rule 7.31(d)(1),
and NYSE National Rule 7.31(d)(1).
     Rule 7.37(a) specifies that an Aggressing Order will be
matched for execution against contra-side orders in the Exchange Book
as provided for in Rule 7.37(b), subject to the provisions of Rule
7.37(a)(1) through (4). Rule 7.37(a)(4) currently provides that Market
Orders will be executed at prices that are equal to or better than the
NBBO. The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.37(a)(4) to provide that
Inside Limit Orders will also be executed at prices that are equal to
or better than the NBBO, consistent with the parameters of the Inside
Limit Order as set forth in proposed Rule 7.31(a)(3). This proposed
change is based on NYSE American Rule 7.37E(a)(4), NYSE Arca Rule 7.37-
E(a)(4), NYSE Chicago Rule 7.37(a)(4), and NYSE National Rule
7.37(a)(4).
     The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 104(b)(6), which
specifies the orders and modifiers that DMM units are not permitted to
enter. The Exchange proposes to add Inside Limit Orders to Rule
104(b)(6) as an order type that DMM units may not enter.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive change to Rule
104(b)(6) to replace the reference to ``Buy Minus Zero Plus
Instructions'' with ``Last Sale Peg Orders'' to reflect the updated
terminology used in its rules for such order type. See, e.g., Rule
7.31(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would provide
enhanced opportunities for trading by adding a new order type and would
promote consistency between the Exchange's rules and the rules of its
Affiliated Exchanges governing the same order type. In addition,
because the purpose of an Inside Limit Order is to assess away market
displayed interest on a price-by-price basis, thereby slowing down the
routing of such order rather than simultaneously routing the order to
away markets at potentially multiple prices, the order would be routed
to the market participant with the best displayed price, and any
unfilled portion would not be routed to the next best price level until
all quotes at the current best bid or offer are exhausted. Accordingly,
the Inside Limit Order would offer market participants an opportunity
to obtain improved executions by waiting for changes to the NBBO.
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date by
Trader Update. Subject to approval of this proposed rule change, the
Exchange anticipates that the proposed changes will be implemented in
February 2022.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, because it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market because it would make an additional order type available on the
Exchange. Moreover, the Inside Limit Order would offer market
participants opportunities to obtain better execution prices because it
would wait and adjust for changes to the NBBO (i.e., the order would be
routed to the market participant with the best displayed price, and any
unfilled portion would not be routed to the next best price level until
all quotes at the current best bid or offer are exhausted). The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market, as
well as protect investors and the public interest, because it is based
on the rules of the Affiliated Exchanges and would therefore promote
market quality by providing uniformity and continuity across the
Affiliated exchanges with respect to the same order type.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rules would promote competition because they would provide
for an additional order type on the Exchange, thereby offering
additional trading opportunities for market participants. The Exchange
further believes that the proposed rules would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate because they are
designed to provide its members with consistency across the Affiliated
Exchanges, thereby enabling the Exchange to compete with unaffiliated
exchange competitors that similarly operate multiple exchanges on the
same trading platforms.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

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

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay to allow the
Exchange to implement the proposal when the technology associated with
the proposed change is available, which is anticipated to be less than
30 days from the date of this filing. The Exchange states that waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to provide a new order
type that would provide opportunities for improved executions and
promote consistency with the rules of its Affiliated Exchanges. The
Commission notes that the operation of the proposed order type is
substantively similar to that of order types offered by the Exchange's
affiliates. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Accordingly, the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2022-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2022-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2022-05, and should be submitted on
or before February 18, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01705 Filed 1-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 57307-57308]
[DOCID:fr05no09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10828-007]

Fairfax County Water Authority; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

October 29, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations,
18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Commission has
reviewed an application, filed January 15, 2009, to surrender the
project license for the Occoquan River Hydroelectric Project, FERC
Project No. 10828. The Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the
environmental impacts of the proposed license surrender,
decommissioning of hydroelectric facilities, and various dam safety
related repairs, and concludes that approval of the application, with
appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment. The project is located on the Occoquan River in
Prince William and Fairfax Counties, Virginia.
    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Energy Projects,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission). A copy of the EA is
attached to a Commission order titled ``Order Modifying and Accepting
Surrender of License'' issued October 29, 2009, and is on file with the
Commission and available for public inspections. The EA may also be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26631 Filed 11-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 16772-16773]
[DOCID:fr05ap07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[IC07-2A-001, FERC FORM 2A]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

March 30, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information
collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and extension of this information collection requirement.
Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission received one comment from an entity in response to an
earlier Federal Register notice of January 8, 2007 (72 FR 763-764) and
has provided a response to the commenter in its submission to OMB.
Copies of the submission were also submitted to the commenter.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by May 4,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the OMB Control No. as a point of

reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-395-
4650. A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, ED-34,
Attention: Michael Miller, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Comments may be filed either in paper format or electronically. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For
paper filings an original and 14 copies, of such comments should be
submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and should
refer to Docket No. IC07-2A-001.
    Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in
WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII format. To
file the document, access the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
 and click on ``Make an E-Filing,'' and then follow the

instructions for each screen. First time users will have to establish a
user name and password. The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of
comments. User assistance for electronic filings is available at 202-
502-8258 or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should not be
submitted to this e-mail address.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For user assistance, contact
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

    The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the
following:

    1. Collection of Information: FERC Form 2A ``Annual Report of
Nonmajor
    Natural Gas Companies''
    2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    3. Control No.: 1902-0030
    The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and extend the
expiration date for an additional three years with no changes to the
existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is
mandatory.
    4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the
information is necessary for the Commission to carry out its
responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) 15 U.S.C. 717. The FERC Form 2-A is a financial
and operating report for natural gas rate regulation for nonmajor
pipeline owners. A ``nonmajor'' pipeline owner is one that has combined
gas sales for resale and has gas transported or stored for a fee that
exceeds 200,000 Dth but which is less than 50 million Dth, in each of
the three previous calendar years. Under the Form 2-A, the Commission
investigates, collects and records data, and prescribes rules and
regulations concerning accounts, records and memoranda as necessary to
administer the NGA. The Commission is empowered to prescribe a system
of accounts for jurisdictional gas pipelines and after notice and
opportunity for hearing, may determine the accounts in which particular
outlays and receipts will be entered, charged or credited.
    FERC staff uses the data in the continuous review of the financial
condition of jurisdictional companies, in various rate proceedings and
in the Commission's audit program. FERC Form 2-A data are also used to
compute annual charges which are assessed against each jurisdictional
natural gas pipeline and which are necessary to recover the
Commission's annual costs. The annual charges are required by section
3401 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986.
    The annual financial information filed with the Commission is a
mandatory requirement submitted in a prescribed format which is filed
electronically and on paper. The Commission implements these filing
requirements in 18 CFR Parts 158, 201, 260.2 and 385.2011.
    5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently
comprises 43 companies (on average) subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
    6. Estimated Burden: 4,945 total hours, 43 respondents (average), 1
response per respondent, and 115 hours per response (average).
    7. Estimated Cost Burden to respondents: 4,945 hours/2080 hours per
years x $117,321 per year = $290,369. The cost per respondent is equal
to $6,753.

    Statutory Authority: Statutory provisions of sections 205 (a)
and (e) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6320 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Economic Analysis of Antidegradation Implementation Methods for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

August 2007

Prepared for:

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Prepared by:

Science Applications International Corporation

11251 Roger Bacon Drive

Reston, VA  20190

GSA Contract Number: GS-10F-0076J

SAIC Project Number: 01-0834-04-0562

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "2-3" \t "Heading 1,1,Heading 7,1,Exec Sum,1"  Executive
Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc174939628 \h  1

1.	Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc174939629 \h  1-1

1.1	Background	  PAGEREF _Toc174939630 \h  1-1

1.2	Scope of the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc174939631 \h  1-3

1.3	Organization of the Report	  PAGEREF _Toc174939632 \h  1-3

2.	Overview of the Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc174939633 \h  2-1

2.1	Tier 1 – Existing and Designated Uses	  PAGEREF _Toc174939634 \h
2-1

2.2	Tier 2 – Protection of High Quality Waters	  PAGEREF _Toc174939635
\h  2-1

2.3	Tier 3 – Protection of ONRWs	  PAGEREF _Toc174939636 \h  2-2

3.	Baseline for the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc174939637 \h  3-1

3.1	Water Quality Standards	  PAGEREF _Toc174939638 \h  3-1

3.2	NPDES-Permitted Dischargers	  PAGEREF _Toc174939639 \h  3-1

3.3	Potentially Affected Facilities	  PAGEREF _Toc174939640 \h  3-2

3.4	Antidegradation Reviews	  PAGEREF _Toc174939641 \h  3-2

4.	Economic Impact of the Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc174939642 \h  4-1

4.1	Potential Number of Antidegradation Requests	  PAGEREF _Toc174939643
\h  4-1

4.2	Antidegradation Analysis Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc174939644 \h
4-1

4.2.1	Financial Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc174939645 \h  4-2

4.2.2	Determination of Importance	  PAGEREF _Toc174939646 \h  4-4

4.3	Potential Costs of the Review	  PAGEREF _Toc174939647 \h  4-5

4.3.1	Facility Review Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc174939648 \h  4-5

4.3.2	EQB Review Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc174939649 \h  4-6

5.	Results	  PAGEREF _Toc174939650 \h  5-1

5.1	Total Annual Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc174939651 \h  5-1

5.2	Uncertainties of the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc174939652 \h  5-1

6.	References	  PAGEREF _Toc174939653 \h  6-1

Appendix A.	Facility Antidegradation Review Cost Calculations	  PAGEREF
_Toc174939654 \h  A-1

List of Exhibits

  TOC \t "Exhibit Title" \c  Exhibit 3-1.  Potentially Affected
Individual NPDES Permitted Dischargers in Puerto Rico	  PAGEREF
_Toc48792978 \h  3-1

Exhibit 4-1.  Estimated Cost per Facility to Prepare Antidegradation
Review	  PAGEREF _Toc48792979 \h  4-6

Exhibit 5-1.  Limitations of the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc48792980 \h  5-1

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BLS			Bureau of Labor Statistics

CAFO			Concentrated animal feeding operation

CPP			Continuing Planning Process

CWA		Clean Water Act

ENR		Engineering News Record

EPA		Environmental Protection Agency

EQB		Environmental Quality Board

MPS		Municipal preliminary screener

NPDES		National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ONRW		Outstanding natural resource water

PCS		Permit compliance system

POTW		Publicly owned treatment works

PRWQSR		Puerto Rico Water Quality Standard Regulation

WQA			Water Quality Area

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating water
quality standards that would establish methods to implement Puerto
Rico’s existing antidegradation policy for waters of the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.  This report presents EPA’s analysis of potential
costs associated with the final rule.  Specifically, the report provides
estimates of potential incremental costs that direct point source
dischargers and the Commonwealth may experience as a result of the final
rule.

Background

On December 16, 2003, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) submitted a
revised draft of its consolidation of antidegradation implementation
methods.  The EQB intended to promulgate the methods as part of the
Puerto Rico Water Quality Standard Regulation (PRWQSR) to consolidate
the existing antidegradation implementation methods “either explicitly
or by reference, into one document so that it is readily accessible to
the public and the regulated community.”

On June 17, 2004, EQB submitted its final revised consolidation
document.  On July 9, 2004, EPA sent a letter to EQB stating that the
revised antidegradation methods meet the requirements of 40 CFR
§131.12(a).  However, on February 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court of
Puerto Rico issued an Opinion and Order ordering EPA to prepare and
publish new or revised water quality standards for antidegradation
implementation methods for Puerto Rico because the document is not a
regulation.

Method

The final rule establishes antidegradation methods that are the same as
the existing antidegradation implementation methods for Puerto Rico
waters.  Thus, while not in regulation, the implementation methods are
already in place in Puerto Rico, and this action imposes no new
requirements or costs on any person or entity.  Nonetheless, EPA
estimated the potential impacts that may be associated with the
implementation of Puerto Rico’s antidegradation policy, as established
in regulation by the final rule.

Because the final rule only applies to point source dischargers, EPA
only evaluated potential impacts to existing facilities requesting an
increase in an effluent limit, and any new facilities expected to
discharge to surface waters.  To date, few facilities have requested an
increase in discharge, and only 8 new facilities have been brought
online since 2001.  EPA Region 2 estimates that Puerto Rico has
performed five antidegradation reviews in the last five years.
Therefore, EPA estimated that the EQB would receive one antidegradation
review request per year.

As part of an antidegradation review request, facilities may need to
prepare preliminary engineering analyses of pollution control
alternatives, and a financial analysis for which EPA provides guidance
and a workbook.  The decision to grant or deny a discharge request rests
with the EQB.  EPA estimated the cost of preliminary engineering
analyses and financial analysis as a percentage of potential capital
control costs, which it based on estimates that it prepared for economic
analyses of recent water quality standards actions.  Preliminary
engineering and financial analysis costs could range between $10,200 and
$79,200 for major facilities, and between $800 and $6,300 for minor
facilities.  Assuming that each type of facility (e.g., major municipal,
minor municipal, major industrial, and minor industrial) is equally
likely to request an antidegradation review, the average cost per
facility could range from $9,200 to $27,600.  In addition, EPA estimated
an average administrative cost of approximately $5,300 per EQB
antidegradation review.

Results

Potential costs to point source facilities associated with the final
rule can be estimated by multiplying the potential number of
antidegradation reviews per year by the average cost of an
antidegradation review.  The total annual costs to point source
dischargers could range from $9,200 to $27,600 per year.

The EQB may also incur annual costs to review the requests.  Assuming
that the EQB would spend approximately 140 hours per antidegradation
review to analyze the information in the request and respond to public
comments, EPA estimated that it could cost the EQB approximately $5,300
per review.  Thus, total annual costs of the final rule could be $14,500
to $32,900.

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating water
quality standards that would establish methods to implement Puerto
Rico’s existing antidegradation policy for waters in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.  This report presents EPA’s analysis of potential
costs associated with the final rule.  Specifically, the report provides
estimates of potential incremental costs that direct point source
dischargers and the Commonwealth may experience as a result of the final
rule.

1.1	Background

Section 303 (33 U.S.C. 1313) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires
States and authorized Tribes to adopt water quality standards for waters
of the United States within their applicable jurisdictions.  Such water
quality standards must include, at a minimum: (1) designated uses for
all water bodies within their jurisdictions, (2) water quality criteria
necessary to protect the most sensitive of the uses, and (3)
antidegradation provisions consistent with the regulations at 40 CFR
131.12.

EPA also requires that authorized entities identify implementation
methods to provide three levels of water quality protection under their
antidegradation policy.  The first level of protection at 40 CFR
131.12(a)(1) requires the maintenance and protection of existing
in-stream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect
these existing uses.  Existing uses are defined as those uses actually
attained on or after November 28, 1975.  This first level of protection
is the baseline of water quality protection for all waters of the United
States.

The second level of protection is for high-quality waters.  EPA defines
high-quality waters in 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2) as those where the quality of
the water exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water.  The
quality of these waters is to be maintained and protected unless the
authorized entity finds, after public participation and
intergovernmental review, that allowing lower water quality is necessary
to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in
which the waters are located.  In permitting this, the authorized entity
is to assure that the resultant water quality remains adequate to fully
protect existing uses.  Further, the authorized entity must assure that
all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements are implemented for
all new and existing point sources, and all cost-effective and
reasonable best management practices are implemented for nonpoint source
control.

Finally, EPA designates the third and highest level of protection for
Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRWs).  If an authorized entity
determines that the characteristics of a water body constitute an
outstanding National resource, such as waters of National and State
parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or
ecological significance, those characteristics must be maintained and
protected (see 40 CFR 131.12(a)(3)).

In addition to requiring States and authorized Tribes to have an
antidegradation policy, 40 CFR 131.12 requires States to identify
methods for implementing such a policy.  Such methods are not required
to be contained in the State’s regulation, but as they inform EPA’s
judgment regarding whether the State’s antidegradation policy is
consistent with the Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.12, they are
subject to EPA review.  Where the State chooses to make such methods
part of its water quality standards regulations, section 303(c)(3) of
the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations require them to be
submitted to EPA for review.  When a State or authorized Tribe chooses
to develop such methods as guidance or outside of regulation, EPA
reviews the methods either in connection with the State or Tribe’s
submission of an amendment to its antidegradation regulations under CWA
section 303(c)(3) or under its discretionary authority to review
existing water quality standards under CWA section 303(c)(4).

In August 1990, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico adopted revisions to the
Puerto Rico Water Quality Standards Regulation (PRWQSR).  The revisions
were sent to EPA Region 2 on September 21, 1990, with the caveat from
the Chairman of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) that the
transmittal may not be final because EQB planned to hold additional
public hearings on November 1, 1990, regarding certain aspects of the
revisions.  Therefore, EPA did not act on these revisions immediately.
From 1991 to 1993, EPA Region 2 worked with the EQB on a series of
subsequent draft revisions to the PRWQSR.  The requisite certification
from the Commonwealth’s Secretary of Justice was ultimately submitted
to EPA on February 25, 2002.  Upon receipt of this certification, EPA
took final action on all new and revised provisions of the 1990 PRWQSR
on March 28, 2002.  These revisions included revisions to the Puerto
Rico antidegradation policy.

Prior to October 2001, Puerto Rico had antidegradation implementation
methods set forth in a document known as its Continuing Planning Process
(CPP).  In October 2001, EPA commenced work with the Puerto Rico EQB to
enhance the antidegradation implementation methods.  However, on
February 20, 2002, CORALations, American Littoral Society, and the
American Canoe Association filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico alleging, among other things, that a
letter from a EPA Region 2 Division Director to the EQB had triggered a
mandatory duty under section 303(c)(4) of the CWA for EPA to prepare and
propose regulations for Puerto Rico setting forth a revised water
quality standard for antidegradation implementation methods.

On December 16, 2003, EQB submitted a revised draft of its consolidation
of antidegradation implementation methods with the intent to promulgate
the consolidation as a regulation as part of the PRWQSR to consolidate
the existing antidegradation implementation methods “either explicitly
or by reference, into one document so that it is readily accessible to
the public and the regulated community.”

On June 17, 2004, EQB submitted its final revised consolidation
document.  This document, however, was not in rule.  On July 9, 2004,
EPA sent a letter to EQB stating that the revised antidegradation
methods meet the requirements of 40 CFR §131.12(a).  However, on
February 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico issued an
Opinion and Order, ordering EPA to prepare and publish new or revised
water quality standards for antidegradation implementation methods for
Puerto Rico.

1.2	Scope of the Analysis

The final rule would establish antidegradation methods that are the same
as the existing antidegradation implementation methods for Puerto Rico
waters.  Thus, while not in regulation, the implementation methods are
already in place in Puerto Rico, and this action imposes no new
requirements or costs on any person or entity.  Nonetheless, EPA
estimated the potential impacts that may be associated with the
implementation of Puerto Rico’s antidegradation policy, as established
in regulation by the final rule.

Note that EPA is only promulgating water quality standards, and, under
this final rule, the ultimate impacts will depend on the outcome of each
antidegradation review.  Thus, EPA has estimated only the potential
costs of completing the reviews that would be required under the final
rule.  These estimates could over- or understate actual impacts.

In addition, the final rule only applies to point source dischargers.
Therefore, EPA only evaluated potential impacts to point source
dischargers.

1.3	Organization of the Report

This report is organized as follows:  Section 2 provides an overview of
the final rule and the alternatives considered.  Section 3 describes the
baseline conditions for the analysis.  Section 4 provides estimates of
the potential economic impacts of the rule, and Section 5 presents the
results and discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.   Overview of
the Rule

EPA’s final rule is the same as Puerto Rico’s existing
antidegradation implementation methods.  Currently, Puerto Rico must
issue a certification under Section 401 of the CWA for any federally
issued permit that the permit complies with Puerto Rico’s water
quality standards.  This includes any National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by EPA under CWA Section 402
and any permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material issued by
the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the CWA or Section 10
of the River and Harbors Act.  Thus, the final rule would require that
an antidegradation review commence with the submission of a CWA Section
401 water quality certification request.

In conducting an antidegradation review, the Water Quality Area (WQA) of
EQB would first be required to determine which level of antidegradation
applies:

Tier 1 – impaired waters and waters for which attainment of applicable
water quality standards has been or is expected to be, achieved through
implementation of effluent limitations more stringent than
technology-based controls

Tier 2 – waters with quality better than the mandatory minimum level
to support the CWA goals of propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife and
recreation in and on the waters; identified on a parameter-by-parameter
basis.

Tier 3 – waters classified as SA (coastal and estuarine waters of high
quality and/or exceptional ecological or recreational valued) or SE
(surface waters and wetlands of exceptional ecological valued) in the
PRWQSR, as amended, or any other water designated by Resolution of the
Governing Board of EQB; waters that are recreationally or ecologically
important, unique, or sensitive.

2.1	Tier 1 – Existing and Designated Uses

For Tier 1 waters, EQB would need to determine if a discharge would
lower the water quality to the extent that it would no longer be
sufficient to protect and maintain the existing and designated uses of
that waterbody.  When a waterbody is impaired and on the 303(d) list or
the assimilative capacity of a waterbody is not sufficient to ensure
maintenance of water quality standards, then the WQA would not be
allowed an increase in pollutant concentrations in the waterbody.

2.2	Tier 2 – Protection of High Quality Waters

To verify that a waterbody is a high quality water for a parameter of
concern, the WQA would need to evaluate and determine:

existing water quality

projected water quality

that the existing and designated uses of the waterbody will be fully
maintained and protected in the event of a lowering of water quality.

In order for the EQB to allow lowering of water quality in high quality
waters, the applicant would need to show and justify the necessity for
such lowering of water quality.

2.3	Tier 3 – Protection of ONRWs

The EQB would be able to designate a water as an ONRW through a
resolution.  Additionally, any interested party would be able to
nominate a specific water to be classified as an ONRW and the Governing
Board of EQB would make the final determination.  Under the final rule,
the existing characteristics of Class SA and SE waters shall not be
altered, except by natural causes, in order to preserve the existing
natural phenomena.  In addition, no point source discharge would be
allowed in ONRWs.Baseline for the Analysis

This section describes the existing conditions in Puerto Rico with
respect to NPDES dischargers and antidegradation review applications
that provide the basis for estimating the incremental costs of the final
rule.

3.1	Water Quality Standards

All waters in Puerto Rico are classified in one of five designated use
categories.  Coastal and estuarine waters are designated as Class SA,
SB, or SC waters, and surface waters (or inland waters) are classified
as SD or SE waters:

Class SA – includes bioluminiscent lagoons and bays and any other
coastal or estuarine waters of exceptional quality of high ecological
value or recreational; applicable to the waters 500 meters seaward of
the physical and geographical limits of the bodies of water under this
classification

Class SB – includes the coastal and estuarine waters not classified
under sections as SA or SC waters, and lagoons not classified under any
other class; applicable from the zone subject to the ebb and flow of
tides (mean sea level) up to 500 meters seaward from said zone (beyond
this limit, the next less restrictive classification applies to a
maximum of 10.3 nautical miles seaward

Class SC – includes Mayaguez Bay from Punta Guanajibo to Punta
Algarrobo, Yabucoa Port, Guayanilla and Tallaboa Bays from Cayo Parguera
to Punta Verraco, Ponce Port from Punta Carenero to Punta Cuchara, and
San Juan Port from the mouth of Río Bayamón to Punta El Morro

Class SD – includes all inland waters, except designated as Class SE

Class SE – includes Laguna Tortuguero, Laguna Cartagena and any other
surface water bodies of exceptional ecological value.

3.2	NPDES-Permitted Dischargers

Exhibit 3-1 provides a summary of facilities that are currently
permitted to discharge to Puerto Rico surface waters.  There are a total
of 265 facilities, 71% of which are minor dischargers.

Exhibit 3-1.  Potentially Affected Individual NPDES Permitted
Dischargers in Puerto Rico

Standard Industrial Classification	Number of Facilities

	Majors	Minors

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing

2	Agricultural Production – Livestock and Animal Specialties	-	1

Construction

15	General Contractors and Operative Builders	-	3

Manufacturing

20	Food and Kindred Products	2	5

21	Tobacco Products	-	1

28	Chemicals and Allied Products	8	2

29	Petroleum and Coal Products	6	-

32	Stone, Clay, and Glass Products	3	-

34	Fabricated Metal Products	-	2

36	Electronic and Other Electronic Equipment	1	-

Transportation and Public Utilities

49	Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services; except 4952	12	107

4952	Sewerage Services (POTWs)	37	28

Wholesale Trade

50	Wholesale Trade ( Durable Goods	1	-

51	Wholesale Trade ( Nondurable Goods	3	3

Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

65	Real Estate	-	1

Services

70	Hotels and Other Lodging Places	-	3

79	Amusement and Recreational Services	-	2

80	Health Services	1	-

82	Educational Services	-	18

84	Museums, Botanical, Zoological Gardens	-	2

Public Administration

91	Executive, Legislative and General Government, except Finance	-	1

92	Justice, Public Order, and Safety	-	1

97	National Security and International Affairs	1	1

99	Nonclassifiable Establishments	-	5

	No SIC Code (blank in PCS)	-	3

Total  	76	189

(-( = none

Sources: U.S. EPA (2007) and U.S. EPA Region 2 (2007).

Facility information in EPA’s permit compliance system (PCS) database
has not been updated since June 2003.  However, it indicates that 80% of
facilities (only 60% of majors) discharge to inland surface waters.

3.3	Potentially Affected Facilities

In the case of Tier 1 waters, EQB would make a determination as to
whether a discharge would lower water quality such that it would no
longer be sufficient to protect and maintain the existing and designated
uses of that water body.  For Tier 2 waters, EQB would evaluate the
existing and protected quality of the receiving water on a
parameter-by-parameter basis.  Under this approach, EQB would determine
whether water quality is better than the applicable criteria for a
specific parameter or pollutant that would be affected by a new
discharge or an increase in an existing discharge of the pollutant.  For
example, if dissolved oxygen levels are at 7 mg/L and the criterion is 5
mg/L, that water body would be high quality for dissolved oxygen, but
may not necessarily be high quality for another parameter.  In addition,
no point source discharges would be allowed to Tier 3 waters.

3.4	Antidegradation Reviews

Puerto Rico’s existing antidegradation implementation methods are the
same as the antidegradation implementation methods set forth in the
final rule.  To date, few facilities have requested an increase in
discharge, and only 8 new facilities have been brought online since
2001.  EPA Region 2 estimates that Puerto Rico has performed five
antidegradation reviews in the last five years.

Economic Impact of the Rule

Given that similar antidegradation implementation methods already apply
to Puerto Rico waters, the incremental costs associated with the final
rule may be minimal.  However, this section describes the types of
impacts that could be associated with implementing the methods, and
provides estimates of the potential magnitude of those impacts.

4.1	Potential Number of Antidegradation Requests

EPA Region 2 indicates that is has received five antidegradation review
requests within the last five years, or approximately one request per
year.  This frequency includes antidegradation reviews for both existing
and new facilities.  EPA assumed that each type of facility (e.g., major
municipal, minor municipal, major industrial, and minor industrial) is
equally likely to request an antidegradation review.

4.2	Antidegradation Analysis Requirements

In conducting an antidegradation review as part of the Section 401
certification process, EQB would first determine which level of
antidegradation applies based upon a review of existing water quality
data, and other required information, to be provided by the applicant.
Based upon this review, EQB would then determine if additional
information is necessary in order to make a determination.  The result
of this review would need to be that no cost-effective pollution
prevention alternatives and enhanced treatment techniques are available
to the entity that would eliminate or significantly reduce the extent to
which the increased loading results in a lowering of water quality.  In
addition, the review would need to show that the pollution controls
necessary to maintain the existing water quality will interfere with
economic and/or social development in the area, and that this economic
and social development is important.

As part of the review, the EQB would also prepare an intent to issue or
deny the 401 water quality certificate, and publish a notice in a
newspaper of wide circulation in Puerto Rico informing the public of its
preliminary decision and granting a public participation period of at
least 30 days.  The EQB would then address the comments received from
the interested parties, and make the final determination to issue or
deny the requested 401 certification.

EPA (1995) provides a workbook and guidelines for completing the
financial and economic and social impact analyses, and interpreting the
results.  Most of the information needed to perform these analyses is
available from easily accessible sources.  The socioeconomic indicators,
and the information required to calculate the various ratios, are often
available on the Internet or by directly contacting sources such as the
U.S. Census Bureau, Standard & Poors, Moody’s, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and State and local government agencies.  The portion of the
analysis requiring estimation of pollution control costs may be
performed by the entity if a qualified staff member is available.  A
facility may also wish to utilize a consultant to estimate the pollution
control cost and develop the financial analysis.

An antidegradation review of a proposed development that would result in
a lowering of water quality would need to address two factors.  First,
the review would need to establish that the pollution controls necessary
to maintain the high quality of water will interfere with the proposed
development.  Second, the review would need to demonstrate that the
development would be an important economic and social one.

The first factor can be addressed through a financial impact analysis.
The entity proposing to increase their loadings would need to determine
what pollution controls would be necessary to prevent lowering of water
quality.  Those controls would need to be the most appropriate and
cost-effective means of maintaining water quality.  The entity would
then calculate the annual cost of the pollution controls, which includes
the annualized capital cost, if any, as well as the annual operation and
maintenance costs.  In addition, public entities would determine how
these costs are passed on in annual household service fees.

The second factor would require an analysis of changes in social and
economic measures that would be foregone if the proposed development
that would lower water quality is not allowed.  This might include
estimates of foregone increases in tax revenue, employment, personal
income, and property values in the affected community.

4.2.1	Financial Analysis

The first step in the financial analysis is estimating potential
pollution control costs.  Then the entity would need to determine
whether or not these costs would result in a substantial impact to the
affected community.  The required financial analysis is performed
differently for public sector and private sector facilities.

Public Sector

Public sector facilities perform a preliminary analysis in which they
calculate a Municipal Preliminary Screener (MPS) value:

MPS = Average Total Pollution Control Cost per Household/Median
Household Income.

The average total pollution control cost per household is the sum of the
existing costs (i.e., current sewer rates) plus those attributable to
the proposed pollution control.  The value of the MPS is evaluated
against thresholds of 1% and 2%, and in conjunction with the secondary
test, described below.  If the MPS is less than 1%, the control
requirements are not expected to have a substantial financial impact on
households or interfere with economic development unless the secondary
test indicates a fairly weak economy.  MPS values above 2% are a strong
indicator that the impact could be substantial, and values in between
are indeterminate, placing greater emphasis on the health of the local
economy.

The secondary analysis provides an indication of a community’s
socioeconomic health and its ability to obtain financing.  Specific
indicators are used to demonstrate the debt, socioeconomic, and
financial management conditions within the community:

Debt indicators

bond rating - a measure, if available, of the credit worthiness of the
community

overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable property -
a measure of debt burden on residents within the community

Socioeconomic indicators

unemployment rate - a measure of the general economic health of the
community

median household income - a measure of the wealth of the community

Financial management indicators

property tax revenue as a percent of full market value of taxable
property - a measure of the funding capacity available to support debt
based on the wealth of the community

property tax collection rate - a measure of how well the local
government is administered.

The analyst assigns each indicator a score from 1 to 3: indicator values
judged to be weak receive a score of 1; a score of 2 is for mid-range
indicator values, and 3 is for strong indicators.  EPA (1995) provides
guidelines for assigning values to each indicator based on comparisons
to established values, or to national and State indicator values.  The
analyst then calculates a mean score, to indicate overall conditions
within the affected community.  EPA (1995) considers an average of less
than 1.5 to be weak; 1.5 to 2.5 to be mid-range; and greater than 2.5 to
be strong.

Private Sector

Private sector entities also perform primary and secondary tests.  The
primary measure of impact for private sector entities is the estimated
decline in the profit ratio [measured as pre-tax earnings (revenues
minus costs) divided by revenues] expected as a result of the proposed
pollution control expenditures.  However, unlike the financial analysis
for public sector entities, there is no established standard by which to
categorize the potential loss of profits as significant or
insignificant.  Instead, the profit ratios with and without pollution
controls can be compared with industry-wide profit ratios to evaluate
the relative strength of the entity and how incremental pollution
control costs might affect its financial strength.  However, if the
discharger was already in trouble (i.e., not profitable or profit far
below industry norms), it may not claim that substantial impacts would
incur due to compliance with water quality standards (U.S. EPA, 1995).

Three secondary measures further define the financial impact of the
pollution control project.  Liquidity indicates how easily an entity can
pay its short-term expenses, and is measured by the current ratio:

Current Ratio = Current Assets/Current Liabilities.

An entity is considered liquid if its current ratio is greater than 2.
Ratio values less than 2 indicate potential liquidity problems.  The
ratio value, however, should be compared with industry averages as well
as this rule-of-thumb value.

Solvency is a measure of how easily an entity can pay its fixed and
long-term liabilities.  Although there are various solvency ratios, EPA
(1995) recommends the Beaver’s Ratio, which is an indicator of
bankruptcy:

Beaver’s Ratio = Cash Flow/Total Liabilities.

An entity is considered solvent if its Beaver’s Ratio is greater than
0.20.  A ratio of less than 0.15 indicates insolvency and a high
bankruptcy risk.  A ratio between 0.15 and 0.20 is indeterminate, but
indicates some bankruptcy risk.

An additional solvency or leverage ratio, the debt-to-equity ratio,
provides insight into how much debt is held relative to equity, whether
additional debt can be obtained, and whether existing debt can be paid.
The term leverage refers to the use of debt to leverage equity to
acquire more assets and hopefully provide a bigger return on equity.
One of the various forms of the debt-to-equity ratio is:

Debt-to-Equity Ratio = Long-term Liabilities/Owner’s Equity.

The ratio value should be compared to similar businesses in the region
or industry averages to determine whether the entity’s degree of
leverage is typical or whether it is highly leveraged, which indicates
an increased risk of business failure as well as a higher difficulty in
borrowing to finance incremental control costs.

If these financial tests indicate that the proposed pollution controls
would have adverse financial impacts on the business entity and,
therefore, interfere with the proposed development, then an entity must
also show that the development would be of economic and social
importance to the community.

4.2.2	Determination of Importance

Analysis of whether a proposed development is important also differs for
public and private sector entities.  In both cases, the entity must
first identify the relevant geographical area.  For public sector
entities, this is usually the municipality served by the entity.  For
private sector entities, it is typically the area in which most of the
affected workers live and where dependent businesses are located.
However, the workbook only provides guidelines; it does not provide a
quantitative means for making a determination of importance for either
public or private sector entities.

Public Sector

EPA (1995) suggests using the following socioeconomic indicators to
determine whether or not the development would be important to the
affected community.  The analysis focuses on how each indicator would
change due to the proposed development:

Median household income

Community unemployment rate

Overall net debt as a percentage of full market value of taxable
property

Percent of households below the poverty line

Community development potential

Property values.

Private Sector

EPA (1995) suggests using the level of employment that would be gained,
as well as any potential decrease in the need for social services such
as unemployment insurance claims or subsidized housing due to the
development, as indicators of importance.  Other factors to consider
include potential impacts on local tax revenues and service fees that
might help improve the level of services throughout the area.

4.3	Potential Costs of the Review

Costs for the antidegradation policy include costs to facilities for
preparing the review material and necessary data, and costs associated
with the Commonwealth’s review of the facility information and
certification process.

4.3.1	Facility Review Costs

The cost incurred by facilities in complying with the final rule may
include the cost of a preliminary engineering analysis, and the
subsequent financial analysis for which EPA provides guidance and a
workbook.  The decision to grant or deny a discharge request rests with
the EQB.  Therefore, EPA cannot determine how the final rule might
affect such decisions.  Consequently, estimated costs represent only the
incremental costs required to complete the antidegradation review, which
would be required by the final rule.

A preliminary engineering analysis consists of an analysis of the
existing industrial processes at a facility, the treatment processes
used to treat wastes generated, and the current effluent quality.  The
analysis must identify the least-cost controls for attaining no increase
in loadings, and develop approximate costs for implementing required
controls.  Detailed design work is not required to develop these likely
cost estimates – cost estimates based on a pre-conceptual design
analysis provide sufficient information for the financial analysis.
This level of analysis could cost between 1% and 3% of the installed
cost of additional pollution controls (Spencer Engineering &
Construction Management, Inc., 2004; OTA, 1991).

Additional pollution controls necessary to prevent a lowering of water
quality could include process optimization, pollution prevention
programs, or end-of-pipe treatment technologies that target conventional
or toxic pollutants such as tertiary filtration, chemical precipitation,
and disinfection.  As an approximation of these costs, EPA used capital
control costs that it estimated could be required as a result of water
quality standards rules that it proposed or promulgated in Puerto Rico
and elsewhere (U.S. EPA, 2004; 2003a; 2003b; 2002; and 1999; see
Appendix A), escalated to 2007 dollars using the Environmental News
Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index.  (Note that the ENR index is based
on cost data from 20 cities within the continental U.S.; thus, the
historical price trend may differ in Puerto Rico.)  The potential
capital control costs for these rules averages approximately $2.64
million for major POTWs, $79,000 for minor POTWs, $751,000 for major
industrial facilities, and $209,000 for minor industrial facilities.
Thus, antidegradation review costs (which include a preliminary
engineering and financial analysis) could range between $7,500 and
$79,200 for major facilities, and between $800 and $6,300 for minor
facilities (see Exhibit 4-1).

Exhibit 4-1.  Estimated Cost per Facility to Prepare Antidegradation
Review (2007 $)

Cost	Municipal Facilities (POTWs)	Industrial Facilities	Average

	Major	Minor	Major	Minor

	Installed Controls1	$2,641,000	$79,400	$751,000	$209,100	$920,100

Low Estimate of Review Cost (1% of Installed Capital Cost)		$26,400	$800
$7,500	$2,100	$9,200

High Estimate of Review Cost (3% of Installed Capital Cost)	$79,200
$2,400	$22,500	$6,300	$27,600

1. Average capital costs to facilities that EPA identified as requiring
additional pollution controls in analyses of water quality standards
actions.  See Appendix A for detail.

Assuming that each type of facility is equally likely to request an
antidegradation review, average antidegradation review costs would range
from $9,200 to $27,600.

4.3.2	EQB Review Costs

Costs for the antidegradation provision will include the cost of the EQB
review.  EPA assumed that the EQB’s review of the engineering cost
analysis and financial impact analysis could require up to 40 hours.
The review process includes validating source data and checking
calculations, as well as evaluating the engineering design and the
conclusions regarding potential financial and community impacts.  The
EQB will also need to evaluate the information provided regarding the
importance of the proposed development to the economic and social
conditions of the affected community.

The final rule also recommends a notification and public comment period.
 Based on time estimates to review and respond to comments on an
individual permit issued to a concentrated animal feeding operation, on
average, the notification and response to comments activities could
require 100 hours of time (U.S. EPA, 2000).  Thus, the total time
requirement to process each request is potentially 140 hours.

The mean hourly wage in Puerto Rico for an environmental engineer is
$26.07 (BLS, 2005).  To account for benefits, EPA multiplied this wage
by the ratio of total compensation to wages and salaries for state and
local government workers in professional and related occupations (a
ratio of 1.4; BLS, 2007a).  EPA also escalated to 2007 dollars using the
Employment Cost Index (BLS, 2007b), lacking employment cost information
specific to Puerto Rico, although historical labor cost trends may vary
for the Territory.  Thus, the estimated hourly labor cost is $37.81, and
the review costs are approximately $5,300 (140 × $37.81).Results

This section summarizes the potential costs of the rule, and discusses
the limitations and uncertainties associated with the analysis.

5.1	Total Annual Costs

Potential costs to point source facilities associated with the final
rule can be estimated by multiplying the potential number of
antidegradation reviews per year by the average cost of an
antidegradation review.  The total annual costs to point source
dischargers could range from $9,200 to $27,600 per year.

The EQB may also incur annual costs to review the requests.  Assuming
that the EQB would spend approximately 140 hours per antidegradation
review to analyze the information in the request and respond to public
comments, EPA estimated that it could cost the EQB approximately $5,300
per review.  Thus, total annual costs of the final rule could be $14,500
to $32,900.

5.2	Uncertainties of the Analysis

There are a number of uncertainties associated with the frequency of
antidegradation review requests, how the EQB will respond to the
requests, and how facilities would respond to potential revised permit
conditions that affect the estimated costs of the rule.  These
uncertainties are described in Exhibit 5-1.

Exhibit 5-1.  Limitations of the Analysis

Limitation/Assumption	Potential Impact on Costs	Comment

Estimated costs only include cost of completing the reviews required
under the rule, and do not account for potential costs related to the
outcome of the review.  	–	The ultimate impacts will depend on the
outcome of each antidegradation review.  If a facility is denied its
request for an increase in discharge or outfall location (for a new
facility), additional costs may be incurred.  However, if the request is
denied, it is because Puerto Rico has determined that the costs
associated with maintaining water quality are not socially or
economically important.

The average annual requests for antidegradation review may be higher or
lower than estimated.

	?	If no existing dischargers ever request an increase, or no new
entities begin operation, no costs will be incurred.  However, more
frequent requests in the future could result in higher annual costs.

The State effort for antidegradation review is based on an estimate of
the average amount of time to process an individual permit, which may
over or understate the average review hours.	?	EPA used an hour estimate
from a final NPDES rule for confined animal feeding operations. The
average amount of time required to review documentation submitted for an
antidegradation review may be higher or lower.

Capital and labor costs are escalated to 2007 dollars using the ENR
Construction Cost Index and the BLS Employment Cost Index, respectively.
?	Capital and labor costs may follow different price trends than
captured by the indices used.  In general, inflation in Puerto Rico
exceeds the rate of inflation in the United States.  However, statistics
were not readily available to estimate the price trend of capital and
labor costs in Puerto Rico.

Key:   –   = Costs are potentially understated

          ?   = Affect on costs is unknown.

References

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  2005.  State Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates Puerto Rico.  Online at
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_pr.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  2007a.  Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation.  Table 4. Employer costs per hour worked for employee
compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: State and
local government workers, by occupational and industry group, December
2006, Professional and related.  Online at
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  2007b.  Table 11. Employment Cost
Index for wages and salaries, for State and local government workers, by
occupational group and industry, Professional and related.  Online at
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/eci.pdf"
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/eci.pdf .

Engineering News Record (ENR).  2007.  Recent Cost Indexes: Construction
Cost Index.  Accessed March 30, 2007 at
http://www.enr.com/features/coneco/subs/recentindexes.asp.

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).  1991.  Delivering the Goods:
Public Works

Technologies, Management, and Financing.  OTA-SET-477; NTIS Order
#PB91-197939.

Spencer Engineering & Construction Management, Inc.  2004.  City of
Ferndale USDA Rural Utilities Service Wastewater System Improvements
Financial Assistance Grant Preliminary Engineering Report.  Online at
HYPERLINK
"http://ci.ferndale.ca.us/pdf/Preliminary-Engineering-Report.pdf"
http://ci.ferndale.ca.us/pdf/Preliminary-Engineering-Report.pdf .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  2007.  Permit Compliance
System (PCS) Database.  Accessed March 2007.  Online at
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/adhoc.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  2003a.  Economic Analysis
of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Oregon.
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  2003b.  Economic Analysis
of the Proposed

Water Quality Standards Rule for Puerto Rico.  Office of Water, Office
of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.  October.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  2002.  Economic Analysis of
the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama.
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
November.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  2000.  Supporting Statement
for the Information Collection Request for the Proposed Regulatory
Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Feedlot
Effluent Limitations Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of
Water.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1999.  Economic Analysis of
the California Toxics Rule. Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology, Washington, DC. October.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1995.  Interim Economic
Guidance for Water Quality Standards, Workbook. Office of Water,
EPA-823-B-95-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2.  2007.  Excel
Spreadsheet for NPDES Permits in Puerto Rico.  Sent via email from Karen
O’Brien on March 13, 2007.

Facility Antidegradation Review Cost Calculations

This appendix describes the capital control costs that form the basis
for EPA’s estimate of the cost of an antidegradation review.  As
described in Section 4.3.1, EPA assumed that an antidegradation review
would include preliminary engineering analyses, and a financial
analysis, which could cost between 1% and 3% of the installed cost of
additional pollution controls (Spencer Engineering & Construction
Management, Inc., 2004; OTA, 1991).  Additional pollution controls
necessary to prevent a lowering of water quality could include process
optimization, pollution prevention programs, or end-of-pipe treatment
technologies that target conventional or toxic pollutants such as
tertiary filtration, chemical precipitation, and disinfection.  EPA
estimated the costs of potential controls based on estimates it prepared
for economic analyses of recent water quality standards actions,
described below.

Controls for Conventional Pollutants

EPA promulgated water quality criteria for bacteria applicable to
coastal and Great Lakes waters that specific States and Territories have
designated for swimming, bathing, surfing, or similar water contact
activities and for which the State or Territory does not have in place
EPA-approved bacteria criteria that are as protective of human health as
EPA’s 1986 recommended bacteria criteria.  EPA estimated that
facilities would optimize existing disinfection processes to comply with
the rule.  Process optimization usually involves process analysis and
process modifications.

Exhibit A-1 shows the estimated capital costs for each sample facility
that EPA estimated would likely incur control costs for compliance with
the final rule.  Capital costs are escalated to February 2007 dollars
using the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index.

Exhibit A-1.  Estimated Capital Costs for Coastal and Great Lakes Waters
Sample Facilities

Facility	Estimated Capital Control Costs (2004 $)1	Escalated Capital
Control Costs (2007 $)2

Major Municipals

Bowery Bay WPC	$4,291,000	$4,788,261

Hunt’s Point WPC	$4,291,000	$4,788,261

King County WWTP	$4,591,000	$5,123,026

Newtown Creek WPC	$9,221,000	$10,289,572

Owls Head WPC	$4,152,000	$4,633,153

Homer WWTP	$11,400	$12,721

Newport WWTF	$273,600	$305,306

Tacoma WWTP	$948,600	$1,058,528

Bird Island WWTP	$7,218,000	$8,054,455

Frank E. Van Lare WWTP 	$3,619,000	$4,038,386

Southeast WPCP	$4,617,000	$5,152,039

City of Port Clinton WWTP	$122,300	$136,473

Huron Basin STP	$98,500	$109,915

Kenosha WWTP	$1,113,000	$1,241,980

Painesville WWTP	$214,200	$239,022

Sturgeon Bay Utilities	$98,500	$109,915

Minor Municipals

Green Cove Condos	$24,600	$27,451

1. Source: U.S. EPA (2004).

2. Escalated from 2004 dollars (7061 through 3rd quarter of 2004) to
February 2007 dollars (7879.5) using ENR construction cost index.

EPA proposed to establish a new Federal use designation for primary
contact recreation use and applicable water quality criteria to protect
primary contact recreation for selected water bodies in Puerto Rico.
The proposed use designation established new bacteriological criteria
for fecal coliform and enterococci for Class SC waters (the same
criteria as Class SB waters).  EPA estimated that facilities would
optimize existing disinfection processes to comply with the rule.
Process optimization usually involves process analysis and process
modifications.

Exhibit A-2 shows the estimated capital costs for each sample facility
that EPA estimated would likely incur control costs for compliance with
the proposed rule.  Capital costs are escalated to February 2007 dollars
using the ENR construction cost index.

Exhibit A-2.  Estimated Capital Costs for Puerto Rico Sample Facilities

Facility	Estimated Capital Control Costs (2003 $)1	Escalated Capital
Control Costs (2007 $)2

Major Municipals

Puerto Nuevo RWWTP	$509,661 	$599,924

Vega Baja WWTP	$375,876 	$442,445

Minor Municipals

Guanica WWTP	$96,800 	$113,944

Fort Allen Training Annex	$66,570 	$78,360

1. Source: U.S. EPA (2003b).

2. Escalated from 2003 dollars (6694) to February 2007 dollars (7879.5)
using ENR construction cost index.

EPA proposed temperature criteria to protect salmon and bull trout life
stages in Oregon waters, an intergravel dissolved oxygen criterion that
protects salmonid spawning, and the locations and times of year (i.e.,
“when and where”) that salmon and bull trout life stages occur in
Oregon waters. EPA estimated one sample facility would need to would
install cooling towers for a portion of its flow to reduce effluent
temperatures to the necessary levels for compliance with the rule.

Exhibit A-3 shows the estimated capital costs for the sample facility.
Capital costs are escalated to February 2007 dollars using the ENR
construction cost index.

Exhibit A-3.  Estimated Capital Costs for Oregon Sample Facilities

Facility	Estimated Capital Control Costs (2004 $)1	Escalated Capital
Control Costs (2007 $)2

Major Industrials

Weyerhaeuser Paper Company	$421,500	$496,150

1. Source: U.S. EPA (2003a).

2. Escalated from 2003 dollars (6694) to February 2007 dollars (7879.5)
using ENR construction cost index.

EPA proposed to upgrade 19.4 miles of Five Mile Creek in Jefferson
County, Alabama, to a higher designated use, Fish and Wildlife (F&W).
Part of the proposed use designation established new criteria for fecal
coliforms.  EPA estimated that once in compliance with projected
baseline limits, one facility would need to implement process
optimization to achieve the incremental pollutant loading reductions
associated with a F&W use.  Process optimization usually involves
process analysis and process modifications.

Exhibit A-4 shows the estimated capital costs for the facility that EPA
estimated would likely incur control costs for compliance with the
proposed rule.  Capital costs are escalated to February 2007 dollars
using the ENR construction cost index.

Exhibit A-4.  Estimated Capital Costs for Alabama Facility Discharging
to Five Mile Creek

Facility	Estimated Capital Control Costs (2002 $)1	Escalated Capital
Control Costs (2007 $)2

Major Municipals

Five Mile Creek WWTP	$360,000	$433,869

1. Source: U.S. EPA (2002).

2. Escalated from 2002 dollars (6538) to February 2007 dollars (7879.5)
using ENR construction cost index.

Controls for Toxic Pollutants

EPA proposed to upgrade 19.4 miles of Five Mile Creek in Jefferson
County, Alabama, to a higher designated use, Fish and Wildlife (F&W).
Part of the proposed use designation established new criteria for toxic
pollutants.  EPA estimated that once in compliance with projected
baseline limits, facilities would need to implement process optimization
to achieve the incremental pollutant loading reductions associated with
a F&W use.  Process optimization usually involves process analysis and
process modifications.

Exhibit A-5 shows the estimated capital costs for each facility that EPA
estimated would likely incur control costs for compliance with the
proposed rule.  Capital costs are escalated to February 2007 dollars
using the ENR construction cost index.

Exhibit A-5.  Estimated Capital Costs for Alabama Facilities Discharging
to Five Mile Creek

Facility	Estimated Capital Control Costs (2002 $)1	Escalated Capital
Control Costs (2007 $)2

Major Industrials

ABC Coke	$110,000	$132,571

Sloss Industries	$260,000	$313,350

1. Source: U.S. EPA (2002).

2. Escalated from 2002 dollars (6538) to February 2007 dollars (7879.5)
using ENR construction cost index.

EPA promulgated numeric aquatic life criteria for 23 priority toxic
pollutants and numeric human health criteria for 57 priority toxic
pollutants for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries in
California.  EPA estimated that facilities would need to implement a
combination of end-of-pipe treatment controls (e.g., chemical
precipitation and GAC), process optimization, and pollution prevention
to reduce pollutant concentrations for compliance with the rule.

Exhibit A-6 shows the estimated capital costs for each sample facility
that EPA estimated would likely incur control costs under two cost
scenarios based on different implementation options that the State could
pursue.  EPA used the average cost from the two scenarios in this
analysis.  Capital costs are escalated to February 2007 dollars using
the ENR construction cost index.

Exhibit A-6.  Estimated Capital Costs for Sample Facilities in
California

Facility	High Cost Scenario	Low Cost Scenario	Average Estimated Capital
Costs (2007 $)

	Estimated Capital Control Costs (1998 $)1	Escalated Capital Control
Costs (2007 $)2	Estimated Capital Control Costs (1998 $)1	Escalated
Capital Control Costs (2007 $)2

	Major Municipals

Arcata WWTP	$569,999	$765,524	$0	$0	$765,5243

Colton WWTP	$4,230,001	$5,681,006	$800,997	$1,075,761	$3,378,384

Merced WWTP	$4,169,999	$5,600,421	$969,999	$1,302,735	$3,451,578

Riverside WPCP	$2,230,001	$2,994,952	$630,001	$846,109	$1,920,530

Sacramento Regional WWTP	$2,230,001	$2,994,952	$630,001	$846,109
$1,920,530

San Jose/Santa Clara WPCP	$2,079,999	$2,793,494	$400,000	$537,211
$1,665,353

Sunnyvale WPCP	$4,000,000	$5,372,108	$174,002	$233,690	$2,802,899

Tillman WRP	$4,460,002	$5,989,904	$1,259,995	$1,692,208	$3,841,056

Minor Municipals

Calistoga WWTP	$50,001	$67,153	$0	$0	$67,1533

Donner WWTP	$50,001	$67,153	$0	$0	$67,1533

Forestville WWTP	$74,998	$100,724	$74,998	$100,724	$100,724

San Juan Bautista WWTP	$100,002	$134,305	$50,001	$67,153	$100,729

Major Industrials

Boeing	$352,998	$474,086	$53,000	$71,180	$272,633

Dupont	$100,002	$134,305	$0	$0	$134,3053

Exxon	$630,999	$847,448	$130,997	$175,932	$511,690

Unocal	$2,530,000	$3,397,859	$0	$0	$3,397,8593

Great Lakes Chemical	$16,997	$22,828	$0	$0	$22,8283

Minor Industrials

Hunters Point Electric	$400,000	$537,211	$400,000	$537,211	$537,211

Navy Grounds	$50,001	$67,153	$0	$0	$67,1533

1. Source: U.S. EPA (2001).

2. Escalated from 1st quarter 1998 dollars (5867) to February 2007
dollars (7879.5) using ENR construction cost index.

3. Represents high cost scenario costs because facilities with zero
costs are not included in the analysis.

Summary

Exhibit A-7 shows the average capital costs for each facility type from
the rules described above.

Exhibit A-7.  Summary of Capital Control Costs for Facilities
Potentially Affected by Recent EPA WQS Actions

Facility Type	Number of Facilities	Total Capital Costs

(2007 $)	Average Capital Costs (2007 $)

Major Municipal	27	$71,303,104	$2,640,856

Minor Municipal	7	$555,512	$79,359

Major Industrial	7	$5,258,558	$751,223

Minor Industrial	3	$627,191	$209,064

 PAGE

 PAGE   iii

August 2007

ES- PAGE   1

August 2007                                              Executive
Summary

 PAGE   1-3

August 2007                                                 1.
Introduction

 PAGE   2-2

August 2007	                    2. Overview of the Final Rule

 PAGE   3-3

August 2007	                 3. Baseline for the Analysis

 PAGE   4-6

August 2007	                4. Economic Impact of the Rule

 PAGE   5-2

August 2007	          5. Results

 PAGE   6-2

August 2007	                   6.  References

 PAGE   A-5

August 2007    	           Appendix A.  Facility Antidegradation Review
Cost Calculations


Page 1 of 2 March 31, 2004 MEMORANDUM TO: EPA Air Docket OAR 2003 0012 FROM: William Charmley Office of Transportation and Air Quality U. S. EPA SUBJECT: Summary of Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association, January 14, 2004 regarding Nonroad Tier 4 Proposal for Engine Labeling Requirements On January 14, 2004, representatives from EPA and the Engine Manufacturers Association ( EMA) met at EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality headquarters in Washington, D. C. to discuss EPA's nonroad diesel Tier 4 proposal. A list of the attendees for this meeting is attached.

During this meeting, EMA indicated to EPA management that all of EMA's major concerns with the Tier 4 proposal could be resolvable to EMA's satisfaction, and that EMA had spoken with EPA staff a number of times to communicate what areas of the proposal were of concern and how those concerns could be addressed in the final rule. In addition, EMA discussed the nonroad diesel averaging, banking and trading program in general, and asked EPA for nonroad specific guidance regarding the tracking of engines under the ABT program.

attachments: Attendees List Page 2 of 2 Attachment: Attendees List EPA Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association, January 14, 2004 EMA Member Attendees Jed Mandel, EMA Rick Bishop, John Deere Tina Vujovich, Cummins Inc.

by phone  Jim Green, Caterpillar Inc.

EPA Attendees Margo Oge, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Khesha Jennings, Certification and Compliance Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Steve Silverman, Office of General Counsel Chet France, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Bill Charmley, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality by video: Cle Jackson, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality Don Kopinski, Assessment & Standards Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32015-32016]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11292]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Petition IV-2021-6; FRL-9888-01-R4]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for UOP Mobile Plant (Mobile County, Alabama)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to state operating
permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed
an Order, dated April 27, 2022, granting in part and denying in part
the petition

submitted by Greater-Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution (Petitioner)
objecting to a proposed Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permit
issued to UOP LLC for its Mobile Plant located in Mobile County,
Alabama. The Order responds to an April 2, 2021, petition requesting
that EPA object to the final operating permit No. 503-8010. This
permitting action was issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM). The Order constitutes a final action on the petition
addressed therein.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Order, the petition, and all pertinent
information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA
Region 4; Air and Radiation Division; 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8960. The Order is also available electronically at the
following address: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/UOP%20Order_4-27-22.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section,
Air Planning Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Mr. Hofmeister can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating
permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR
70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to
object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the
expiration of EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not objected on
its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the
permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public
comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner
demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the
comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, a petition for
judicial review of those parts of the Order that deny issues in the
petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice is
published in the Federal Register.
    Petitioner submitted a petition requesting that EPA object to the
proposed CAA title V operating permit no. 503-8010 issued by ADEM to
the UOP Mobile Plant. Petitioner claims: The statement of basis lacks
substantive information for adequate public review; ADEM failed to
demonstrate that monitoring requirements are consistent with respect to
applicable requirements; ADEM failed to demonstrate the source is
entitled to a permit shield; the permit fails to include underlying
citations of authority with respect to applicable permit conditions;
the permit includes synthetic minor limits that are not practically
enforceable; and ADEM failed to adequately respond to Petitioner's
comments.
    On April 27, 2022, the Administrator issued an Order granting in
part and denying in part the petition. The Order explains EPA's bases
for granting in part and denying in part the petition.

    Dated: May 20, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-11292 Filed 5-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P