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

Draft

April 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" \h \z \t "Heading 1,1,Heading 7,1,Exec Sum,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573958"  Executive Summary	ES-  PAGEREF _Toc164573958 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573959"  1.	Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc164573959 \h  1-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573960"  1.1	Background	  PAGEREF _Toc164573960 \h  1-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573961"  1.2	Scope of the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc164573961 \h  1-3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573962"  1.3	Organization of the Report	  PAGEREF _Toc164573962 \h  1-3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573963"  2.	Overview of the Proposed Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc164573963 \h  2-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573964"  2.1	Tier 1 – Existing and Designated Uses	  PAGEREF _Toc164573964 \h  2-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573965"  2.2	Tier 2 – Protection of High Quality Waters	  PAGEREF _Toc164573965 \h  2-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573966"  2.3	Tier 3 – Protection of ONRWs	  PAGEREF _Toc164573966 \h  2-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573967"  3.	Baseline for the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc164573967 \h  3-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573968"  3.1	Water Quality Standards	  PAGEREF _Toc164573968 \h  3-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573969"  3.2	NPDES-Permitted Dischargers	  PAGEREF _Toc164573969 \h  3-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573970"  3.3	Potentially Affected Facilities	  PAGEREF _Toc164573970 \h  3-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573971"  3.4	Antidegradation Reviews	  PAGEREF _Toc164573971 \h  3-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573972"  4.	Economic Impact of the Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc164573972 \h  4-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573973"  4.1	Potential Number of Antidegradation Requests	  PAGEREF _Toc164573973 \h  4-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573974"  4.2	Antidegradation Analysis Requirements	  PAGEREF _Toc164573974 \h  4-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573975"  4.2.1	Financial Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc164573975 \h  4-2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573976"  4.2.2	Determination of Importance	  PAGEREF _Toc164573976 \h  4-4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573977"  4.3	Potential Costs of the Review	  PAGEREF _Toc164573977 \h  4-5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573978"  4.3.1	Facility Review Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc164573978 \h  4-5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573979"  4.3.2	EQB Review Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc164573979 \h  4-6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573980"  5.	Results	  PAGEREF _Toc164573980 \h  5-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573981"  5.1	Total Annual Costs	  PAGEREF _Toc164573981 \h  5-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573982"  5.2	Uncertainties of the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc164573982 \h  5-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573983"  6.	References	  PAGEREF _Toc164573983 \h  6-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573984"  Appendix A.	Facility Antidegradation Review Cost Calculations	  PAGEREF _Toc164573984 \h  A-1

List of Exhibits

  TOC \h \z \t "Exhibit Title,1" \c "Figure"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573985"  Exhibit 3-1.  Potentially Affected Individual NPDES Permitted Dischargers in Puerto Rico	  PAGEREF _Toc164573985 \h  3-1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573986"  Exhibit 4-1.  Estimated Cost per Facility to Prepare Antidegradation Review (2007 $)	  PAGEREF _Toc164573986 \h  4-6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc164573987"  Exhibit 5-1.  Limitations of the Analysis	  PAGEREF _Toc164573987 \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 proposing 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule establishes antidegradation methods that are the same as the existing antidegradation implementation methods for Puerto Rico waters.  Thus, while not in regulation, the proposed 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 proposed rule.

Because the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule could be $14,500 to $32,900.

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule.

Note that EPA is only proposing to promulgate water quality standards, and, under this proposed 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 proposed rule.  These estimates could over- or understate actual impacts.

In addition, the proposed 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 proposed 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 Proposed Rule

EPA’s proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule may be minimal.  However, this section describes the types of impacts that could be associated with implementing the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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   i

Draft – April 2007

ES- PAGE   1

Draft – April 2007                                     Executive Summary

 PAGE   1-3

Draft – April 2007	                    1. Introduction

 PAGE   2-2

Draft – April 2007	                    2. Overview of the Proposed Rule

 PAGE   3-3

Draft – April 2007	                    3. Baseline for the Analysis

 PAGE   4-6

Draft – April 2007	                     4. Economic Impact of the Rule

 PAGE   5-2

Draft – April 2007	                   5. Results

 PAGE   6-2

Draft – April 2007	                   6.  References

 PAGE   A-5

Draft – April 2007	           Appendix A.  Facility Antidegradation Review Cost Calculations

M

N

Š

‹

Œ

©

ª

«

¬

½

Á

Â

Ü

Ý

Þ

ß

à

á

â

ã

ä

9

:

L

M

â

J

¯

&

'

(

B

C

D

G

H

I

J

K

L

h

i

j

k

m

n

‹

Œ

§

$§

¨

©

¬

®

¯

°

±

Í

Î

Ï

Ð

Ó

Ô

ù

ú

û

j¸

j;

j¬

j/

j

ŔȀ⮖̀Ĵ혈픆ᗿ딋ꄐ贕礚攟․䀆

-

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

)

*

+

,

-

.

/

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

:

;

<

<

=

>

?

@

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Y

Z

[

\

]

^

_

`

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

p

q

r

s

t

u

v

v

w

x

y

z

{

|

}

~

€

‚

ƒ

„

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

‹

Œ

Ž

‘

’

“

“

”

•

–

—

˜

™

š

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

¡

¢

£

¤

¥

¦

§

¨

©

ª

«

¬

®

¯

°

°

±

²

³

´

µ

¶

·

¸

¹

º

»

¼

½

¾

¿

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

Æ

Ç

È

É

Ê

Ë

Ì

Í

Í

Î

Ï

Ð

Ñ

Ò

Ó

Ô

Õ

Ö

×

Ø

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

Þ

ß

à

á

â

ã

ä

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

ê

ë

ì

í

î

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

ø

ù

ú

û

ü

ý

þ

ÿ

-

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

)

)

*

+

,

-

.

/

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

:

;

<

=

>

?

@

A

B

C

D

E

F

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

[

\

]

^

_

`

a

b

c

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

p

q

r

s

t

u

v

w

x

y

z

{

|

}

~

€

€

‚

ƒ

„

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

‹

Œ

Ž

‘

’

“

”

•

–

—

˜

™

š

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

¡

¢

£

¤

¥

¦

§

¨

©

ª

«

¬

®

¯

°

±

²

³

´

µ

¶

·

¸

¹

º

º

»

¼

½

¾

¿

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

Æ

Ç

È

É

Ê

Ë

Ì

Í

Î

Ï

Ð

Ñ

Ò

Ó

Ô

Õ

Ö

×

×

Ø

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

Þ

ß

à

á

â

ã

ä

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

ë

ì

í

î

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

ô

õ

ö

÷

ø

ù

ú

û

ü

ý

þ

ÿ

-

!

"

#

#

$

%

&

'

(

)

*

+

,

-

.

/

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

:

;

<

=

>

?

@

@

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

[

\

]

]

^

_

`

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

p

q

r

s

t

u

v

w

x

y

z

z

{

|

}

~

€

‚

ƒ

„

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

‹

Œ

Ž

‘

’

“

”

•

–

—

—

˜

™

š

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

¡

¢

£

¤

¥

¦

§

¨

©

ª

«

¬

®

¯

°

±

²

³

´

´

µ

¶

·

¸

¹

º

»

¼

½

¾

¿

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

Æ

Ç

È

É

Ê

Ë

Ì

Í

Î

Ï

Ð

Ñ

Ñ

Ò

Ó

Ô

Õ

Ö

×

Ø

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

Þ

ß

à

á

â

ã

ä

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

ë

ì

í

î

î

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

ø

ù

ú

û

ü

ý

þ

ÿ

-

!

"

#

$

%

&

'

(

)

*

+

,

-

-

.

/

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

:

;

<

=

>

?

@

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

[

\

]

^

_

`

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

g

h

i

j

k

l

m

n

o

p

q

r

s

t

u

v

w

x

y

z

{

|

}

~

€

‚

ƒ

„

„

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

‹

Œ

Ž

‘

’

“

”

•

–

—

˜

™

š

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

¡

¡

¢

£

¤

¥

¦

§

¨

©

ª

«

¬

®

¯

°

±

²

³

´

µ

¶

·

¸

¹

º

»

¼

½

¾

¾

¿

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

Æ

Ç

È

É

Ê

Ë

Ì

Í

Î

Ï

Ð

Ñ

Ò

Ó

Ô

Õ

Ö

×

Ø

Ù

Ú

Û

Û

Ü

Ý

Þ

ß

à

á

â

ã

ä

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

ë

ì

í

î

ï

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

ø

ø

ù

ú

û

ü

ý

þ

ÿ


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57503-57505]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22738]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0760: FRL-9901-02-Region 10]

Revision to the Washington State Implementation Plan; Approval of
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets and Determination of Attainment for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Standard; Tacoma-Pierce County
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a request submitted by the Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology) dated November 28, 2012, to establish
motor vehicle emission budgets for the Tacoma-Pierce County fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area to meet
transportation conformity requirements. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the
construction of new highways, must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent
with) the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA requires federal
actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to ``conform to'' the
goals of the SIP. This means that such actions will not cause or
contribute to violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), worsen the severity of an existing violation, or delay timely
attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
    Under the Transportation Conformity Rule, the EPA can approve motor
vehicle emission budgets based on the most recent year of clean data if
the EPA approves the request in the rulemaking that determines that the
area has attained the NAAQS for which the area is designated
nonattainment. In September 2012, the EPA finalized an attainment
finding for the Tacoma-Pierce County PM2.5 nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as ``Tacoma-Pierce County Area'' or ``the
area''). This finding, also called a clean data determination, was
based upon quality-assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient
air monitoring data showing that the area had monitored attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 data available
in the EPA's Air Quality System. This action updates the previous
finding of attainment with more recent 2010-2012 data and approves
motor vehicle emission budgets under the Transportation Conformity
Rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0760. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On November 28, 2012, Ecology submitted a request for the EPA to
approve motor vehicle emission budgets for the Tacoma-Pierce County
area to meet transportation conformity requirements. As described in 40
CFR 93.109(c)(5) of the Transportation Conformity Rule, the EPA can
approve motor vehicle emission budgets if the EPA approves the request
in a rulemaking that determines that the area has attained the NAAQS
for which the area is designated nonattainment. An explanation of the
CAA requirements and implementing regulations that are met by this
action, a detailed explanation of the revision, and the EPA's reasons
for approving it were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking on
July 18, 2013, and will not be restated here. See 78 FR 42905. The
public comment period for this proposed rule ended on August 19, 2013.
The EPA did not receive any comments on the proposal.

II. Final Action

    The EPA has determined, based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured data meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part
50, appendix N, that the Tacoma-Pierce County area is currently
attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained in the
proposal for this action, the EPA has determined that the following
attainment-related planning requirements are not applicable for so long
as the area continues to attain the PM2.5 standard: The part
D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration
pursuant to CAA section 189(a)(1)(B), the reasonably available control
measures (RACM) provisions of CAA section 189(a)(1)(C), the reasonable
further progress (RFP) provisions of CAA section 189(c), and related
attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP and contingency measure provisions
requirements of subpart 1 of CAA section 172. This action does not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3).
In conjunction with this finding of attainment, the EPA is approving
the motor vehicle emission budgets shown below in Table 1 below. The
EPA is approving the motor vehicle emission budgets pursuant to 40 CFR
93.109(c)(5)(iii), as described in the Transportation Conformity Rule
and the preamble of the Transportation Conformity Restructuring
Amendments (77 FR 14982, March 14, 2012).

   Table 1--2011 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the Tacoma-Pierce
         County 2006 Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                        Pollutant                           (pounds per
                                                            winter day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5...................................................           3,002
NOX.....................................................          71,598
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond

those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the State, except for non-trust land within
the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known
as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement
Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and
local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust
lands within the 1873 Survey Area and the EPA is therefore approving
this SIP on such lands. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless
provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter
dated December 11, 2012. The EPA did not receive a request for
consultation.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 18, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 3, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. Section 52.2470 is amended:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (e) by adding two new entries
``Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2008 Baseline Emissions
Inventory and SIP Strengthening Rules'' and ``Approval of Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets and Determination of Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particulate Standard'' at the end of the section with the heading
``Attainment and Maintenance Planning--Particulate Matter''
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) by removing entry ``Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) 2008 Baseline Emissions Inventory and SIP
Strengthening Rules'' and the heading ``Recently Approved Plans''

Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   State of Washington Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Attainment and Maintenance Planning--Particulate Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2008    Tacoma, Pierce             11/28/12  5/29/13, 78 FR
 Baseline Emissions Inventory and   County.                              32131.
 SIP Strengthening Rules.

Approval of Motor Vehicle          Tacoma, Pierce             11/28/12  9/19/13, [Insert
 Emission Budgets and               County.                              page number where
 Determination of Attainment for                                         the document
 the 2006 24-Hour Fine                                                   begins].
 Particulate Standard.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-22738 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 15418]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-696-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TPC 2022-03-11 Fuel and L&U
Reimbursement and Power Cost Tracker to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-697-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Sabine Pass Interim NRA
Amendment to be effective 3/11/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-698-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Empire Rate Tracker (Tracking
Supply Period 2 Rates) to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-699-000.
    Applicants: National Grid LNG LLC.
    Description: Petition for Limited Waiver of National Grid LNG, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/11/22.
    Accession Number: 20220311-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/22.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 14, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05762 Filed 3-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 50493]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR12-22-000]

Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order; Kinder Morgan Cochin
LLC

    Take notice that on August 9, 2012, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2),
Kinder Morgan Cochin LLC submitted a petition requesting that the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issue a declaratory
order approving the overall rate structure and pro-rationing rules and
other tariff terms and conditions of service for reversal and expansion
of its Cochin pipeline (Cochin Reversal Project) to bring light
condensate diluent from Kankakee, IL to Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceedings
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must
serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, August 29, 2012.

    Dated: August 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20428 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44192]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Florida; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10,
2017, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 10, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 10, 2017, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Florida resulting from Hurricane Irma beginning on September 4,
2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Florida.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance, assistance
for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A
and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas,
Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of
assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject
to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). Direct
Federal assistance is authorized.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. For a
period of 30 days from the start of the incident period, you are
authorized to fund assistance for emergency protective measures,
including direct Federal assistance, at 100 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funding for debris removal will remain at 75
percent.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Justo Hern[aacute]ndez, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Charlotte, Collier, Hillsborough, Lee, Manatee, Miami-Dade,
Monroe, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties for Individual Assistance.
    All 67 counties in the State of Florida for debris removal and
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    All areas within the State of Florida are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20134 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

Please note, that after 40+ years of smoking cigarettes, I am now tobacco free. That was accomplished without withdrawals and without weight gain.  I had tried numerous time to quit smoking using nicotene gum, patches, Wellbutrin and Chantex.  Nothing worked until I tried ecigarettes.  I have now been smoke free for 2 1/2 years and have absolutely no urge to smoke.  I am down to 1 mg nicotene from 18 mg.  However, the idea of no longer having my ecigarettes has thrown me into a panic because I know without them, I will probably go back to smoking.  Yes, they are a bit of a crutch, but a much healthier one than cigarettes.  I no longer wake up coughing.  I can workout at the gym with 20-30 year olds and keep up with most of them. Because I am now tobacco free,I now have no fewer than 5 friends that are now tobacco free because of ecigarettes.  Ecigarettes have quite literally saved my life and the lives of my friends and the lives of their friends.  If you find it necessary to regulate something, then regulate chemicals in cigarettes which tobacco companies have added to keep consumers hooked on cigarettes.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.