IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 1 EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER IMPACTS CHAPTER 7 _________________________________________________________________________________

As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, EPA must complete an analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the hazardous waste combustion ( HWC) maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) replacement standards. This chapter is divided into several sections that assess the potential impacts of the rulemaking with respect to the following issues:

$ Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the rulemaking on small entities;

$ Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and lowincome populations residing near combustion facilities;

$ Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the HWC MACT replacement standards on the health of children exposed to emissions from combustion facilities;

$ Joint impacts of other EPA rules: discusses how other rules together with the HWC MACT replacement standards will likely affect the universe of facilities regulated by the standards;

$ Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the replacement standards with respect to unfunded mandates;

$ Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their communities;

$ Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty; IEc DRAFT: May 2005 1 Small entities include small businesses, small governments, and small nonprofit organizations.

2 The size eligibility provisions and standards identified by the Small Business Administration ( SBA) can be found in 13 CFR 121.201, revised as of January 1, 2005. Additional revisions implemented during 2005 do not affect the size eligibility requirements for any of the industries included in this assessment.

7 2 $ Regulatory takings: discusses the potential for regulatory takings to occur under the auspices of the HWC MACT replacement standards;

$ Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the HWC MACT replacement standards on energy use, supply, and distribution;

$ Civil Justice: considers steps taken to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden associated with the HWC MACT replacement standards;

$ Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation: discusses implementation of the HWC MACT replacement standards in a manner that promotes " cooperative conservation" among the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In addition, this chapter addresses a limited number of other impacts associated with the standards.

ASSESSMENT OF SMALL ENTITY IMPACTS The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996 requires federal agencies to consider impacts on " small entities" throughout the regulatory process. 1 Under these laws, agencies must analyze regulations to determine if they will have a " significant economic impact on a substantial number" of small entities. If a regulation is found to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, further analysis must be performed to determine what can be done to lessen the impact. This section summarizes whether the HWC MACT replacement standards will adversely impact small entities; Appendix H contains the full assessment.

The first step in screening facilities for potential impacts is to identify those combustion facilities that are small businesses. The two factors that determine whether a facility ( or its parent company) is considered a small business are the size of its workforce and the revenues associated with its annual sales. The Small Business Administration ( SBA) determines the level at which a business is considered small for each North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) code. 2 After identifying small businesses in the HWC MACT universe, we calculate site specific compliance costs associated with the HWC MACT replacement standards as a percentage of annual gross revenue; we IEc DRAFT: May 2005 3 Corporate entity data obtained from ReferenceUSA, Dun and Bradstreet, company websites, and company financial documents.

4 These estimates are based on combustion pricing and alternative fuel costs and reflect a conservative assumption that cement kilns and LWAKs would use coal as an alternative fuel, which is less expensive than natural gas. Combustion prices are from the Hazardous Waste Resource Center at < www. etc. org/ costsurvey8. cfm> and alternative fuel pricing information is from U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, " Quarterly Coal Report October December 2004," March 2005.

7 3 use this figure as the basis for our assessment of small entity impacts. This is a conservative approach primarily because it relies on an upper bound estimate of engineering costs that assumes all facilities upgrade to comply with the standards, regardless of cost ( as opposed to the market adjusted estimate of social costs, which reflects facilities' selection of less costly waste management options, if feasible). In addition, the analysis assumes that commercial facilities do not attempt to offset their costs by increasing their prices. In practice, commercial combustion facilities might mitigate their own compliance costs by increasing prices. Similarly, non commercial facilities may mitigate compliance costs by changing their waste management practices ( e. g., send waste offsite) rather than upgrading their facilities.

Given the capital intensity of cement production, commercial incineration, and many of the industries ( e. g., chemicals) that own and operate on site incinerators, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces ( HAPFs), it is not surprising that few hazardous waste combustion facilities meet the definition of a small business. Among the 145 facilities in the HWC MACT universe, only eight are owned by or are classified as small businesses ( Exhibit 7 1). Four of these facilities are liquid boilers, two are on site incinerators, one is a cement kiln, and one is a lightweight aggregate kiln ( LWAK). Three of the eight facilities are part of larger corporations ( e. g., they have parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, or additional branches) and annual sales for the eight facilities and affiliated corporate entities range from approximately $ 49 million to $ 996 million. 3 Complete information was not available on the size of one non U. S. parent company, 3V Incorporated, which was therefore assumed to be small.

Under the Agency Preferred Approach, none of the small hazardous waste combustion facilities are likely to incur costs greater than one percent of sales ( Exhibit 7 1). We conclude that neither a substantial number of facilities nor a substantial fraction of the affected industries will face significant adverse impacts. In addition, for the cement kiln and LWAK facilities, estimated compliance costs may be offset, at least partially, by revenues and fuel savings associated with waste received from boilers and industrial furnaces that stop burning hazardous waste in response to the HWC MACT replacement standards. The combined revenues and fuel savings associated with this additional waste range from $ 223 per ton to $ 1,140 per ton ( in year 2002 dollars), depending on the specific characteristics of the waste. 4 Taking these savings into account, our model predicts that systems at just two of the small hazardous waste combustion facilities will exit the hazardous waste market in response to the replacement standards, indicating that offsite waste management costs for IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 4 these systems are likely to be less than their potential compliance costs. In summary, this analysis indicates that the HWC MACT replacement standards would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small hazardous waste combustion facilities.

SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Facility Name/ Parent Companya EPA ID Combustor Type Corporate Entity Annual Salesb ( dollars) Total Compliance Costs ( Agency Preferred Approach) c ( dollars) Costs As a Percentage of Sales ( CPS)

Reilly Industries, Inc. IND000807107 Liquid Boiler $ 329,600,000 $ 431,500 0.13%

Rubicon, Inc. LAD008213191 Liquid Boiler $ 465,000,000 $ 715,100 0.15%

Continental Cement Company MOD054018288 Cement Kiln $ 52,400,000 $ 65,600 0.13%

Thermalkem ( Norlite); subsidiary of United Oil Recovery NYD080469935 LWAK $ 51,300,000 $ 28,200 0.05%

3V, Inc. d SCD980500052 Liquid Boiler $ 62,600,000 $ 121,100 0.19%

Velsicol Chemical Corporation TND007024664 On Site Incinerator $ 150,000,000 $ 17,300 0.01%

Resolution Performance Products LAD980622104 On Site Incinerator $ 996,000,000 $ 41,700 0.00%

Merisol USA, LLC TXD008106999 Liquid Boiler $ 67,300,000 $ 286,600 0.43%

Notes: a Except in the case of Norlite, the name of each facility's parent company is the same as the name of the facility itself. b Corporate entity data obtained from ReferenceUSA, Dun and Bradstreet, company websites, and company financial documents. c Compliance costs represent upper bound engineering costs that assume facilities upgrade to comply with standards. d 3V, Incorporated is an Italian owned company with facilities in the United States, Italy, and several other countries. Employment in the U. S. is at least 270 people, and overall employment worldwide is likely over 500 people ( the small business size threshold). However, we included this facility as a small business because we were unable to confirm its total employment. Available sales data are for the single facility in South Carolina. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 5 As stated in Executive Order 12898, a minority is an individual who is a member of one of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

6 The HWC MACT replacement standards may yield disproportionate employment impacts for minority and low income populations. Because Executive Order 12898 does not address these impacts, we do not assess the distribution of employment gains and losses associated with the replacement standards.

7 We analyze minority and low income populations at the " block group" level, the most specific data available, because it best illustrates changes in minority populations between one and five miles from facilities. We use " block" level data for Puerto Rico minority populations since block group level data is not available for the Commonwealth.

8 The available U. S. Census 2000 block and block group level data do not provide the race of individuals of Hispanic origin. Likewise, they do not differentiate between Hispanic and non Hispanic White populations. Therefore we calculate minority populations as follows: first, we sum the populations of Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and multi racial individuals as well as individuals of other races. Next, we multiply the number of individuals of Hispanic origin by 47.89 percent, the percentage of Hispanic individuals nationwide that are White, before adding this population to the total minority population in order to prevent the doublecounting of non White individuals of Hispanic origin and thus overestimate minority populations. The minority population percentage equals the total minority population divided by the total population in a given area.

9 To analyze low income populations, we use data from table P87 of the U. S. Census 2000. Table P87 provides information on the total number of individuals living below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level in 1999, based on the Social Security Administration's official poverty definition. Poverty thresholds vary according to family size and ages of members and are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The same thresholds are used throughout the United States.

10 ArcMap version 9.0 GIS software, produced by ESRI, Inc.

7 5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS Executive Order 12898, " Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations" ( February 11, 1994), requires federal agencies to identify disproportionately large and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low income populations. 5 Among other actions, the agencies are directed to improve research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and low income communities. 6 To comply with this executive order, we assess whether the HWC MACT replacement standards will have disproportionate effects on minority or low income populations. We analyze minority and low income populations living within one and five mile radii of hazardous waste combustion facilities using 2000 U. S. Census Bureau block and block group level data and ArcMap version 9.0.7,8,9,10 We compare the percentages of minority individuals and low income populations living in proximity to the different types of facilities to national averages. Due to the concentration of combustion facilities in the Gulf region ( 34 percent of facilities in the HWC MACT universe are IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 6 located in Louisiana and Texas), we also assess minority and low income populations living within one and five mile radii of combustion facilities in Louisiana and Texas, since these individuals are more likely to be exposed to emissions from multiple facilities.

Our analysis of the demographic data yields several important findings with respect to the environmental justice impacts of the HWC MACT replacement standards:

$ Minority populations living in close proximity to combustion facilities may realize environmental and health benefits as a result of the HWC MACT replacement standards. In general, hazardous waste combustion facilities are likely to be located in areas with disproportionately high minority populations. On site incinerators, boilers, and hydrochloric production furnaces, the most prevalent facilities in the HWC MACT universe, are located in areas where the concentration of minorities is higher than the national average. Commercial incinerators, cement kilns, and LWAKs are located in areas with a disproportionately low concentration of minorities, but these facilities represent only 19 percent of the facilities in the combustion universe.

$ Low income populations may realize a significant portion of the environmental and health benefits associated with implementation of the HWC MACT replacement standards. The poverty rate in areas within one mile of hazardous waste combustion facilities is higher than the nationwide average of 12.86 percent. Among people living within one mile of boilers and HAPFs, 26.08 percent are below the Social Security Administration's poverty threshold. Among those living within one mile of on site incinerators, 19.55 percent are below the poverty threshold. Further away from hazardous waste combustion facilities, the poverty rate tends to decline. However, within a five mile radius, the reductions are small and, overall, the poverty rate among individuals in these areas is still above the national average.

$ The minority and low income populations living in close proximity to hazardous waste combustion facilities in Louisiana and Texas stand to benefit from the HWC MACT replacement standards. The minority and low income populations in these areas are disproportionately high.

$ The HWC MACT replacement standards should not have any adverse environmental or health effects on minority or low income populations. Any impacts that the rule has on these populations are likely to be positive because it would potentially reduce emissions from combustion facilities near minority and low income populations.

We further discuss these findings and our analytical methodology in the remainder of this section. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 7 Approach Our environmental justice analysis relies on demographic data to assess potential environmental and health impacts for minority and low income populations. While a risk assessment would be the preferred way to determine these impacts, the necessary resources were not available to complete such an analysis. Instead, we assess the environmental justice impacts of the HWC MACT replacement standards by examining demographic data using a " potentially exposed population" approach.

Using this approach, we analyze the characteristics of the population exposed to emissions from combustion facilities, based on population data for the area surrounding each facility. For our analysis of minority impacts, we identify the total population and the minority population living within one and five miles of each combustion facility. We then sum these data across facilities to derive nationwide estimates of the total population living within one and five miles of a combustion facility and the total minority population living in the same areas. To determine whether the number of minorities living in close proximity to a combustion facility is disproportionately high ( or low), we then divide the minority population figure by the total population figure and compare the result to the prevalence of minorities ( in percentage terms) at the national level.

We follow the same procedure for our analysis of low income populations. However, we use data for a sample of the population instead of data collected from the entire population. The Census Bureau does not collect poverty status data from all individuals but instead collects these data from a sample of the population. We assume that the individuals sampled in close proximity to each hazardous waste combustion facility are representative of the populations in these areas.

For both minority and low income populations, we examine impacts for the entire HWC MACT universe, as well as for specific types of facilities. In addition, we separately assess exposed populations in Texas and Louisiana because of the high concentration of facilities in these states. Our results are based on U. S. Census 2000 block group data for block groups with centers within oneand five mile radii of each facility.

Results We first present the results of the environmental justice analysis for minority populations living in proximity to hazardous waste combustion facilities. Following this discussion, we present the results of our analysis for low income populations living near hazardous waste combustion facilities. At the end of this section, we summarize our conclusions. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 11 U. S. Census 2000.

7 8 Minority Population Analysis The number of minorities living within one or five miles of a hazardous waste combustion facility is disproportionately high ( Exhibit 7 2). Approximately 38 percent of individuals living within one mile of facilities in the HWC MACT universe are minorities, 23 percent higher than the national prevalence of minorities ( 31 percent). 11 More than 40 percent of individuals living within five miles of hazardous waste combustion facilities are minorities.

The prevalence of minorities living in close proximity to specific types of hazardous waste combustion facilities varies by facility type, although, as a whole, facilities tend to be located in areas disproportionately populated by minorities. On site incinerators are fairly representative of the entire HWC MACT universe in this regard. Approximately 36 percent of those living within one mile and 38 percent of those living within five miles of on site incinerators are minorities, compared to 31 percent nationwide. Boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces tend to be located in areas with more highly concentrated minority populations. According to our analysis, 44 percent of those within one mile and 46 percent of those within five miles of BIFs are minorities. The concentration of minorities near commercial incinerators depends significantly on the size of the area surrounding the facility. Only 21 percent of those within a 1 mile radius of commercial incinerators are minorities, but this figure jumps to 46 percent when the radius is expanded to five miles. Cement and lightweight aggregate kilns represent the only type of facility for which the prevalence of minorities within a onemile or five mile radius is lower than the prevalence of minorities nationwide. Less than ten percent of those living within one mile of kilns and almost 13 percent of those within five miles are minorities. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 9 Exhibit 7 2 POTENTIALLY EXPOSED GENERAL AND MINORITY POPULATIONS a Within 1 Mile of Facilities Within 5 Miles of Facilities Facility Type b Total Population Minority c Population Minority Percentage Total Population Minority c Population Minority Percentage On site Incinerators 161,913 59,787 36.47% 4,669,398 1,773,860 37.99%

Commercial Incinerators 12,182 2,564 21.05% 391,604 180,489 46.09%

Boilers and Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces 119,832 52,786 44.05% 3,447,238 1,568,795 45.51%

Cement Kilns and LWAKs 9,879 955 9.67% 320,621 42,318 13.20%

Total in Louisiana d 23,628 14,384 60.88% 364,429 203,849 55.94%

Total in Texas e 20,606 9,159 44.45% 878,333 425,588 48.45%

Total Facilities f, g 295,471 113,138 38.29% 8,262,919 3,362,556 40.69%

Notes: a We include blocks and block groups with centers within one and five mile radii of facilities to determine demographic statistics. b " Facility type" represents the primary combustion facility type at each location. For facilities with more than one type of combustion system, we assign the facility type based on the type of system that combusts the most waste at the facility. c Minority populations equal the sum of Black, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and multi racial individuals, individuals of other races, and individuals of Hispanic origin. We multiply the number of Hispanic individuals by 47.89%, the percentage of Hispanics that are White out of all individuals of Hispanic origin in the United States. This method prevents the double counting of individuals of Hispanic origin that are not White. d Since 57.33% of individuals of Hispanic origin in Louisiana are classified by the Census Bureau as White, the total number of Hispanic individuals living within one and five miles of hazardous waste combustion facilities in the state is multiplied by 57.33% instead of 47.89% in order to avoid double counting when calculating the minority population. e Since 57.97% of individuals of Hispanic origin in Texas are classified by the Census Bureau as White, the total number of Hispanic individuals living within one and five miles of hazardous waste combustion facilities in the state is multiplied by 57.97% instead of 47.89% in order to avoid double counting when calculating the minority population. f According to the 2000 U. S. Census, the percentage of minorities is 30.87% nationwide, 37.47 % in Louisiana, and 47.57% in Texas. g The sum of the first four rows may be greater than the total population since adjacent facilities expose the same individuals to emissions from multiple facility types. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 12 When calculating minority populations in Louisiana and Texas, we multiply the number of individuals of Hispanic origin by the percentage of individuals of Hispanic origin who are White in each state in order to avoid double counting non White individuals of Hispanic origin. In Louisiana, this figure equals 57.33 percent; in Texas, it is 57.97 percent.

7 10 As mentioned in Chapter 2 and in the beginning of this section, the highest concentration of hazardous waste combustion facilities in the HWC MACT universe is along the Gulf of Mexico and in the Mississippi Delta region ( EPA Region 6). Consequently, many individuals living in close proximity to facilities in this area are exposed to emissions from multiple facilities. Therefore we evaluated the concentration of minorities living within one and five miles of hazardous waste combustion facilities in Louisiana and Texas in order to assess environmental justice impacts for populations that are likely to be exposed to emissions from several sources. 12 Minorities represent more than 37 percent of Louisiana's population, compared to 31 percent nationwide. Within one and five miles of Louisiana hazardous waste combustion facilities, the concentration of minorities is significantly higher than the national and statewide averages. Approximately 61 percent of the residents within one mile of facilities are minorities, and almost 56 percent of individuals living within five miles of facilities are minorities.

Proportionately, the minority population in Texas ( 48 percent) is also significantly greater than the national average. Within one mile of hazardous waste combustion facilities in Texas, minorities represent more than 44 percent of the population, which is significantly greater than the national average of 31 percent, but lower than the statewide average ( 48 percent). Expanding the facility radius to five miles, minorities make up approximately 48 percent of the population, which is consistent with the concentration of minorities statewide.

The HWC MACT replacement standards are projected to have positive impacts for minority communities around hazardous waste combustion facilities, particularly on site incinerators, boilers and hydrochloric acid production furnaces, and facilities located in Louisiana ( Exhibit 7 2). The HWC MACT replacement standards are likely to reduce emissions from combustion facilities; therefore, populations near these facilities may realize significant health and environmental benefits. Thus, the HWC MACT replacement standards may result in disproportionately positive health and environmental impacts for minority populations.

Low Income Population Analysis Individuals that fall under the Social Security Administration's poverty threshold are located disproportionately near hazardous waste combustion facilities potentially affected by the HWC MACT standards ( Exhibit 7 3). Approximately 22 percent of the population living within one mile of facilities in the universe are below the poverty threshold, 71 percent higher than the national IEc DRAFT: May 2005 13 U. S. Census 2000.

7 11 poverty rate of 13 percent. 13 Of the population of individuals living withing five miles of facilities in the HWC MACT universe, 18 percent are below the poverty threshold.

Exhibit 7 3 POTENTIALLY EXPOSED GENERAL AND LOW INCOME POPULATIONS a Within 1 Mile of Facilities Within 5 Miles of Facilities Facility Type b Total Population Low Income Population Low Income Percentage Total Population Low Income Population Total Population On site Incinerators 151,355 11,595 19.55% 2,533,717 453,247 17.87%

Commercial Incinerators 11,153 2,698 24.19% 367,072 84,446 23.01%

Boilers and Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces 94,889 24,744 26.08% 3,905,408 663,028 16.98%

Cement Kilns and LWAKs 3,507 817 23.30% 216,107 26,200 12.12%

Total in Louisiana 22,729 6,290 27.87% 330,289 74,599 22.59%

Total in Texas 17,876 2,739 15.32% 786,823 120,129 15.27%

Total Facilities c, d 254,652 56,775 22.30% 6,508,203 1,153,110 17.72%

Notes: a We include block groups with centers within the one and five mile radii to determine poverty status statistics. This method provides a reasonable basis for poverty status analysis. Poverty status data were obtained from table P87 from the 2000 Census. Poverty status information was unavailable for some block groups within the one and five mile radii of combustion facilities. In such cases, we used the population data associated with block groups for which data were available. b " Facility type" represents the primary combustion facility type at each location. For facilities with more than one type of combustion system, we assign the facility type based on the type of system that combusts the most waste at the facility. c The sum of the first four rows may be greater than the total population since adjacent facilities expose the same individuals to emissions from multiple facility types. d According to the 2000 U. S. Census, the percentage of low income individuals is 12.86% nationwide, 19.64% in Louisiana, and 15.37% in Texas. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 12 Overall, areas within one and five miles of combustion facilities are disproportionately populated by individuals in poverty. However, only 12 percent of the population living within 5 miles of cement kilns and LWAKs falls below the Social Security Administration's poverty threshold, one percentage point below the national poverty rate of 13 percent. Closer to cement kilns and LWAKs, this figure increases to nearly 23 percent. Among populations within one mile of any type of combustion facility, low income populations are proportionately highest ( 26 percent) near boilers and HAPFs. Expanding the radius around each facility to five miles, low income individuals are most prevalent, in proportional terms, near commercial incinerators.

We also assessed the poverty status of individuals living within one and five miles of hazardous waste combustion facilities in Louisiana and Texas because of the significant number of facilities in these two states. Low income individuals in Louisiana represent nearly 20 percent of the population, compared to 13 percent nationally. Approximately 28 percent of individuals living within one mile of a Louisiana facility and 23 percent of individuals living within five miles are below the Social Security Administration's poverty threshold.

In Texas, the low income population represents 15 percent of the population. The concentration of low income individuals around the state's hazardous waste combustion facilities is consistent with the statewide figure.

The HWC MACT replacement standards are projected to have positive health impacts for low income communities located near all types of hazardous waste combustion facilities, particularly those located in Louisiana. Populations near these facilities may accrue significant health and environmental benefits from the reduction in emissions likely to result from the HWC MACT replacement standards. As evidenced by the high prevalence of low income individuals near combustion facilities, the HWC MACT replacement standards may have disproportionately positive health and environmental effects on low income populations.

Summary Our analysis indicates that minority and low income populations in aggregate appear to be disproportionately represented near hazardous waste combustion facilities. Thus, based on our potentially exposed population approach to estimate environmental justice impacts, the HWC MACT replacement standards may result in disproportionately positive health and environmental benefits for minority and low income populations. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 14 In addition, two separate directives issued by EPA, " Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children" ( October 1995) and " National Agenda to Protect Children's Health from Environmental Threats" ( October 1996), both cited in U. S. EPA, Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999, also call for consideration of children's health within risk assessments and other components of regulatory analyses.

15 As defined in Executive Order 13045, an economically significant rule is any rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities.

16 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, " EPA's Rule Writer's Guide to Executive Order 13045: Guidance for Considering Risks to Children During the Establishment of Public Health Related and Risk Related Standards," Interim Final Guidance, April 21, 1998, 3, as cited in U. S. EPA, Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999.

17 U. S. EPA, Environmental Health Threats to Children, EPA 175 F 96 001, September 1996, 4, as cited in U. S. EPA, Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999.

7 13 CHILDREN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ANALYSIS Executive Order 13045, " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( April 21, 1997), directs federal agencies and departments to evaluate the health effects of health related or risk related regulations on children. 14 For economically significant rules concerning an environmental health or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children, Executive Order 13045 also requires an explanation as to why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and feasible alternatives. 15 The HWC MACT replacement standards are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13045 because the rule is a technology based regulation ( MACT) rather than a risk based regulation and it is not considered to be economically significant. 16 Nevertheless, the risk assessment performed in 1998 for the 1999 HWC MACT standards addresses threats to children's health by evaluating reduced risks associated with hazardous waste combustion for children as well as for adults. This section briefly describes some of the health impacts that the HWC MACT replacement standards may have on children's health. We note that the health impacts of the 1999 HWC MACT standards are generally assumed to be similar to the impacts of the 2002 Interim Standards.

Particulate Matter The HWC MACT replacement standards are expected to result in the prevention of less than one premature death and 73 new illness cases annually because of reduced particulate matter ( PM) emissions. While separate results are not available for children, we assume that many of the respiratory health benefits resulting from the standards would be experienced by children because they are considered to be especially vulnerable to the effects of PM exposure. 17 IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 14 Mercury The 1999 Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT standards ( and the 2002 Interim Standards) were expected to reduce mercury emissions by four tons per year, while the Agency Preferred Approach for the HWC MACT replacement standards is expected to reduce mercury emissions by an additional 0.25 tons per year. The 1999 analysis found that the unborn children of pregnant women who consume fish contaminated with mercury could be at risk for developmental abnormalities. The reduction in mercury emissions under the 1999 Standards was expected to reduce this risk. Therefore, the HWC MACT replacement standards are also likely to positively impact children's health due to the additional reduction in mercury emissions expected under the standards.

Lead The 1999 Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT standards were expected to reduce lead exposure and consequently benefit children within sub populations exposed to especially high levels of lead. The sub populations facing the greatest levels of cumulative lead exposure include subsistence fishermen, commercial beef farmers, and commercial dairy farmers. The 1999 standards were expected to reduce lead emissions by 89 tons per year, and the Agency Preferred Approach for the HWC MACT replacement standards are expected to reduce lead emissions by approximately 2.5 tons per year. Therefore, children within high risk sub populations would experience further benefits associated with reduced lead exposure as a result of the HWC MACT replacement standards, although these benefits are likely to be lower than those associated with the 1999 Standards.

Summary Although the impacts of the HWC MACT replacement standards on children's health have not been evaluated quantitatively, qualitative analysis indicates that children would benefit from the replacement rule. Further reductions in particulate matter, mercury, and lead emissions associated with the HWC MACT replacement standards should reduce the risk of some illnesses and developmental abnormalities. Children within high risk sub populations, including recreational anglers, subsistence fishermen, and commercial dairy and beef farmers living in proximity to hazardous waste combustion facilities, could potentially experience the greatest positive health effects.

JOINT IMPACTS OF RULES As discussed in Chapter 2, the universe of regulated facilities is affected by a number of regulations. However, some of these regulations will not have an aggregate impact on regulated facilities. Specifically, the Portland Cement MACT and the National Emissions Standards for IEc DRAFT: May 2005 18 Other requirements include a statement concerning estimated costs and benefits, consideration of regulatory alternatives, consultation with affected government entities, and a small government plan for those rules " significantly or uniquely" affecting small government agencies. Even though the HWC MACT replacement standards are exempt from these requirements, as we explain below, many of them are already satisfied by other components of this assessment.

7 15 Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/ Commercial/ Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters will affect facilities only if they stop burning hazardous waste. Facilities that stop burning hazardous waste will no longer be subject to the HWC MACT replacement standards.

In some cases, compliance with existing regulations may ease compliance with the HWC MACT replacement standards. For example, PM emissions regulated under the standards are also controlled under the Clean Air Act ( CAA). For those facilities already regulated under the CAA, compliance with one standard may contribute to adherence with another. Therefore, implementation of the HWC MACT replacement standards is not expected to jointly impact the actions of facilities already controlled by other regulations.

UNFUNDED MANDATES ANALYSIS Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) calls on federal agencies that issue any significant regulation containing an unfunded mandate to fulfill certain requirements. These include the preparation of a statement supporting the need to issue the regulations and a description of prior consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal governments. 18 Requirements in the UMRA apply only to those federal regulations containing a significant unfunded mandate. The UMRA defines a significant unfunded mandate as a federal rule that either:

1. Results in estimated costs to state, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, of $ 100 million or more in any one year; or 2. Results in estimated annual costs to the private sector of $ 100 million or more in any one year.

Federal rules are exempt from the UMRA requirements if:

1. The rule implements requirements specifically set forth in law; or 2. Compliance with the rule is voluntary for state and local governmental entities.

Based on these criteria set forth by the UMRA, the HWC MACT replacement standards do not contain a significant unfunded mandate. As reported in the economic impact results chapter, the standards are not likely to result in annualized costs of $ 100 million or more, either for the private sector or for state and local governments. Expenditure estimates presented in this assessment total IEc DRAFT: May 2005 19 See Exhibit 5 5, " Summary of Social Cost Estimates."

20 We did not, however, conduct a quantitative geographic location analysis to verify this assumption.

7 16 approximately $ 27.5 million per year for the private sector and $ 459,000 for the government. 19 In any case, because the Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish MACT standards for hazardous air pollutants, the rule should be exempt from all relevant requirements of UMRA. In addition, compliance with the rule is voluntary for non federal governmental entities since state and local agencies choose whether to apply to EPA for the permitting authority necessary to implement the HWC MACT replacement standards.

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ANALYSIS Similar in purpose to the UMRA, Executive Order 13175, " Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments" ( May 14, 1998), addresses related unfunded mandates concerns with respect to the sovereignty of tribal governments. The applicable sections of Executive Order 13175 impose requirements on federal agencies that promulgate regulations not required by statute and that significantly or uniquely affect Native American tribal governments and their communities. The requirements include description of the extent of prior consultation with affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation.

For many of the same reasons described in the UMRA discussion, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to the HWC MACT replacement standards. As mentioned above, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish MACT standards regulating emissions of hazardous air pollutants. In addition, while Executive Order 13175 does not cite a specific metric for determining whether a regulation significantly or uniquely affects Native American tribal governments, the standards are not expected to impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments and their communities because we do not believe that a significant number of hazardous waste combustion facilities are located in tribal communities. 20 Finally, tribal governments will not be required to assume any permitting responsibilities associated with the HWC MACT replacement standards because, as previously stated, permitting authority is voluntary for non federal government entities.

FEDERALISM ANALYSIS Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop a process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." Policies that have federalism implications are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States [ in terms of compliance costs], on the relationship between the national IEc DRAFT: May 2005 21 See, for instance, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U. S. 393 ( 1922), Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York 438 U. S. 104 ( 1978), Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U. S. 825 ( 1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 112 S. Ct. 2886 ( 1992), Dolan v. City of Tigard 114 S. Ct. 2309 ( 1994), as cited in U. S. EPA, Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999. Also see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 U. S. 606 ( 2001).

22 No universally accepted formula exists for determining at what point direct economic impacts from regulatory action constitute a taking. Rather, courts must make this determination on a case by case basis. In the landmark Lucas decision, the U. S. Supreme Court proclaimed that a 100 percent deprivation in value most often, but not always, constitutes a taking. Recent case law includes many examples in which regulations deprived owners of as much as 50 percent or more of the value associated with the economic use of property, yet the court still ruled that the regulations did not deny the owner all reasonable economic value. For instance, see Concrete Pipe and Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 113 S. Ct. 2264 ( 1993), as cited in U. S. EPA, Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999.

7 17 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In addition, policies have federalism implications if they preempt State law.

The HWC MACT replacement standards do not have federalism implications. They will not have direct financial effects on the States because EPA will be responsible for permitting and monitoring hazardous waste combustion facilities. Furthermore, the replacement standards should not alter the relationship between the national government and the States because the States may voluntarily apply for permitting authority in order to implement the HWC MACT replacement standards. Finally, the replacement standards do not preempt State law because States may still develop air pollution laws that exceed the stringency of the HWC MACT replacement standards.

REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS Executive Order 12630, " Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights" ( March 15, 1988), directs federal agencies to consider the private property takings implications of regulations. Under the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, the government may not take private property for public use without compensating the owner. Though the exact interpretation of this takings clause as applied to regulatory action is still subject to an ongoing debate, a framework for interpretation has been established by legal precedent through a series of prominent legal cases. 21 Within the context of mainstream legal precedent, a regulatory taking of private property is generally deemed to result if the court determines that the government action satisfies any of the following criteria:

$ Results in a physical invasion of property;

$ Denies the owner all reasonable or economically viable use of property; 22 IEc DRAFT: May 2005 23 Numerous court decisions ranging from landmark preservation to the control of industrial pollution in residential areas have upheld regulations while at the same time acknowledging the takings claims associated with them on the basis of nuisance prevention and resource protection goals.

24 See Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1005 ( 1984), as cited in U. S. EPA, Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT Standards: Final Rule, Office of Solid Waste, July 1999.

7 18 $ Interferes with reasonable investment backed expectations for property; or $ Fails to establish a justifiable connection between the requirements imposed ( e. g., permit conditions) and the underlying purposes of the regulation.

Even if a regulatory requirement meets any or all of the designated conditions for a regulatory taking, courts may still find it exempt from the takings clause if the regulatory action is meant to prevent a " nuisance" or to provide other benefits to the public. A nuisance is defined as an activity or condition that either interferes with public welfare or with the ability of another private citizen to enjoy his or her own property. 23 Based on our review of relevant case law, the HWC MACT replacement standards are not likely to result in any regulatory takings. The rule will not require that private property be invaded or taken for public use. The rule also will not interfere with reasonable investment backed expectations because it does not ban hazardous waste combustion in incinerators, kilns, boilers, or hydrochloric acid production furnaces. Instead, the standards merely codify operating parameters. Therefore, the investment backed expectations of individuals or organizations that construct ( or reconstruct hazardous waste combustion systems after the HWC MACT replacement standards are finalized are likely to reflect a recognition of the existence of impending regulatory requirements. Persons or organizations already operating hazardous waste combustion systems would have at least three years to adjust their expectations and to prepare for accommodation of the forthcoming regulation. As a result, no facility owner should be able to assert interference with reasonable investment backed expectations sufficient to support a takings claim. 24 Because the rule does not prohibit the burning of hazardous waste in incinerators, kilns, boilers, or HAPFs, it does not deny facility owners all viable economic use of their property. Nor does the rule prevent owners from putting their property to other profitable uses should they decide to stop burning hazardous waste because of the regulation. For many facilities in the HWC MACT universe, the primary economic use of property comes from other activities not directly associated with hazardous waste combustion. Even if these facilities should stop burning waste and switch to an alternative fuel, they would still be able to manufacture their primary products ( e. g., cement).

This evaluation of the HWC MACT replacement standards is consistent with the widely accepted view that only in rare circumstances do regulations result in takings. Using legal precedent as the basis for this analysis, it is difficult to speculate fully on the potential for extreme takings interpretations as applied to the impacts of the replacement standards. Potential arguments could arise in the context of economically viable use of property and interference with reasonable IEc DRAFT: May 2005 7 19 investment backed property expectations. However, legal precedent suggests that such arguments are unlikely to be successful.

The economic impact results reported in Chapter 5 suggest that a number of facilities could stop treating hazardous waste rather than incur compliance costs associated with the HWC MACT replacement standards. It is important to note, however, that these waste management changes are not likely to affect the ability of companies to produce their products. Even under an extreme takings interpretation, it is doubtful that the HWC MACT replacement standards would be found to interfere directly with all viable use or economic value of property. Also, as described above, the established statutory authority for the standards and the fact that the rule does not prohibit combustion altogether should exempt the rule from any claims of interference with reasonable investment backed expectations. Regardless, the HWC MACT replacement standards may qualify for an exemption to any regulatory takings claims because of the doctrines of public and private nuisance law.

ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the potential energy impacts of the rule and resulting actions. Under Executive Order 13211, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use.

The HWC MACT replacement standards regulate kilns, boilers, and HCl production furnaces that recover energy from hazardous waste. The implementation of the replacement standards will likely cause some of these facilities to send their waste offsite rather than treat it themselves. In addition, the final rule will likely result in the installation of additional air pollution control devices ( APCDs) that require energy to operate properly. Therefore, this rule will have some impacts on energy use. In order to analyze the potential energy impacts of the replacement standards, we consider the energy implications of facilities' potential responses to the HWC MACT replacement standards, as identified in Chapter 5. Specifically, we consider energy impacts for facilities that upgrade their systems to comply with the standards, for systems that dispose of waste in an alternative manner, and for systems that consolidate with other systems. The energy implications of potential facility responses to the replacement standards are as follows:

1. Upgrade: APCDs installed at sources to comply with the HWC MACT replacement standards reduce source energy efficiency by requiring energy for APCD operation;

2. On Site Incineration: on site incinerators do not recover energy from waste. Therefore, facilities that consolidate waste from a boiler to an on site incinerator will need to purchase replacement fuel; IEc DRAFT: May 2005 25 The energy impacts of the engineering based scenario are limited to the costs of energy for operating APCDs. Because we believe that facilities will actually examine waste management alternatives, we believe that the market adjusted scenario is more instructive regarding energy use.

7 20 3. Off Site Incineration: off site incineration will result in an increase in energy use because of the energy required for transporting waste offsite;

4. Off Site Management at Cement Kilns and LWAKs: disposal of waste in cement kilns or LWAKs will necessitate the purchase of replacement fuel for facilities that had previously utilized energy from on site waste combustion. However, because cement kilns and LWAKs recover energy from the waste they burn, there is no energy loss associated with the transfer of waste from a boiler to a kiln. As a result, the only additional energy use associated with this compliance option is that associated with the transport of waste. Note that because we assume that on site incinerators do not send waste to kilns, we do not evaluate the energy implications of transferring waste from an onsite incinerator to a kiln.

The following analysis calculates energy consumption and net energy costs associated with the replacement standards. The results of this analysis inform our assessment of the impacts that the regulatory action will have upon the supply, distribution, and use of energy. Our analysis suggests that the energy impacts associated with the HWC MACT replacement standards will not be significant.

Energy Use The HWC MACT replacement standards are likely to affect energy consumption and the recovery of energy from waste. Below we identify the changes in energy consumption and energy costs associated with the market adjusted scenarios described in Chapter 5.25 Impacts may vary across different regulatory options, but we consider only the Agency Preferred Approach.

The market adjusted scenarios described in Chapter 5 assume that facilities will choose to upgrade their incinerators, kilns, boilers, and furnaces to comply with the HWC MACT replacement standards only if doing so is less costly than alternative fuel and waste disposal options. Based on these assumptions, we estimate that 229 of the 265 hazardous waste combustion systems in the HWC MACT universe will upgrade or install APCDs to comply with the standards, and that 36 systems will seek alternative waste disposal options. Our analysis accounts for several different alternative waste management options under the market based scenario including APCD upgrades, closure and sending waste offsite for treatment at other facilities, and consolidation among systems within the same facility. Each alternative has a different impact on energy use, and our results reflect the least costly IEc DRAFT: May 2005 26 Some facilities may choose to continue treating waste rather than sending it offsite even if the latter option is cheaper because of non economic factors such as liability concerns.

27 These closures and consolidations represent projections associated with the market based scenario for the Agency Preferred Approach, for which we estimate that compliance costs will total $ 27.5 million.

28 U. S. Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, " Average Motor Vehicle Miles Per Gallon," July 21, 2003, September 23, 2003. < http:// www. bts. gov/ products/ transportation_ indicators. september_ 2002/ Environment/ excel/ Average_ Motor_ Vehicle_ Miles_ Per_ Gallon. xls>.

29 Based on average 2004 on highway diesel prices cited by the U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, " Monthly U. S. On highway Diesel Fuel Prices." < http:// tonto. eia. doe. gov/ oog/ ftparea/ wogirs/ xls/ psw18vwall. xls>.

7 21 option for each facility. 26 According to our cost calculations, of the 36 systems that do not upgrade to comply with the replacement standards, 27 will close and send waste offsite and nine will consolidate. Of the systems that we project will close ( e. g., exit but not consolidate), two are commercial incinerator systems and 14 are on site incinerator systems, which will send their waste to commercial incinerators. The remaining systems are liquid boilers and will send their hazardous waste to cement kilns or LWAKs for treatment. 27 The impacts of these changes are as follows:

1. Upgrade related energy use increases: For upgraded sources, energy consumption will increase, as new APCDs require energy to operate. We do not estimate the exact energy requirements and costs associated with upgrades for the 229 systems that we expect to continue to burn hazardous waste.

2. Transport related energy use increases: The 27 systems that we expect will start sending waste offsite in response to the standards will increase their energy use by using fuel to transport their waste to different facilities. Assuming that waste is sent to the nearest combustion facility, these facilities will ship their waste approximately 4,429 miles per year. This figure reflects the number of tons that each facility would send offsite, the tonnage of waste that can be transported per truck, and the miles that each truck would travel. Based on statistics from the Department of Transportation, trucks average 6.0 miles per gallon of fuel. 28 Therefore, transporting waste an additional 4,429 miles per year requires the use of an additional 738 gallons of fuel annually. At a unit cost of $ 1.74 per gallon of diesel fuel, the increase in fuel expenditures will total almost $ 1,284 annually. 29 3. Replacement Fuel Costs: Facilities that currently recover energy from hazardous waste but that will send waste offsite in response to the replacement standards must purchase replacement fuel to offset the lost energy content of the waste sent offsite. The boiler systems that we project will close as a result of the HWC MACT replacement standards are all IEc DRAFT: May 2005 30 We do not expect that boilers would accept additional hazardous wastes from offsite because the cost of rerouting the waste would be prohibitively expensive.

7 22 expected to send their waste to cement kilns or LWAKs. 30 Because kilns also recover energy during the combustion process, they will reduce their consumption of conventional fuels when they receive waste from boilers, offsetting the increase in boilers' fuel consumption. In addition, because kilns recover energy from waste, the energy content of waste shipped from boilers to kilns will not go unused. Therefore, with respect to waste currently burned by boilers, there will be no net loss or gain in energy beyond the energy requirements associated with the transportation of their waste, as described previously.

Exhibit 7 4 outlines the total changes in energy use that will result from system actions under the market based scenario. The energy requirements for the transportation of waste will increase annual consumption of diesel fuel by 738 gallons. The estimated cost associated with this increase in demand is approximately $ 1,284. This figure underestimates total energy expenditures resulting from the replacement standards under the market adjusted scenario because we do not estimate the energy use and costs associated with new APCDs.

Exhibit 7 4 OVERVIEW OF ENERGY IMPACTS RESULTING FROM CLOSURES IN THE MARKET BASED SCENARIO Action Change in Energy Use ( Million Btus) Estimated Costs of Increased Energy ( 2002 Dollars)

APCDs Not calculated Not calculated Transportation of Waste Offsitea 102.6 $ 1,284 Alternative Fuel Purchases No net gain/ loss $ 0 Total Impacts 102.6 $ 1,284 Notes: a We assume one gallon of diesel fuel has an energy content of 139,000 Btu, as cited on the U. S. Department of Energy website < http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ neic/ experts/ expertanswers. html>.

Consolidation Analysis Consolidation of sources at the same facility will affect energy use only if waste previously treated in systems recovering energy is transferred to incinerators that do not recover energy. None of the nine systems that we expect to consolidate in the market adjusted scenario described in Chapter 5 are boilers. All nine of these systems are on site incinerators that do not currently burn waste for its energy value. Therefore, consolidation will not affect energy use relative to baseline practices. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 31 U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, " Table 2.4: Industrial Sector Energy Consumption ( Quadrillion Btu)," Monthly Energy Review April 2005, April 28 2005, May 20, 2005 < http:// www. eia. doe. gov/ emeu/ mer/ pdf/ pages/ sec2_ 9. pdf>.

7 23 Energy Supply and Delivery United States' industries consumed 33,447 trillion Btus of energy in 2004.31 The energy impacts of the HWC MACT replacement standards will increase energy use by at least 2.59E 4 percent. This rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 Fed. Reg. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. While energy use may increase slightly as a result of the HWC MACT replacement standards, production and supply of fuel will not be affected. The incremental 2.59E 4 percent increase in energy use in the industrial sector estimated by the preceding analysis will have a negligible impact on nationwide fuel prices and supply.

CIVIL JUSTICE ANALYSIS The final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3( a) and 3( b)( 2) of Executive Order 12988, " Civil Justice Reform" ( February 5, 1996), to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. EPA actions to meet the requirements of the Order include, but are not limited to, the following: unambiguous specification of the standards, establishment of clear compliance deadlines for regulated facilities, and a description of the effect of the standards on existing law.

FACILITATION OF COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION Executive Order 13352, " Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation" ( August 26, 2004), directs the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency to implement laws relating to the environment and natural resources in a manner that promotes " cooperative conservation." The Order defines " cooperative conservation" as " actions that relate to use, enhancement, and enjoyment of natural resources, protection of the environment, or both, and that involve collaborative activity among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, private for profit and nonprofit institutions, other nongovernmental entities and individuals."

In accordance with the Order, EPA considered public comments on the proposed HWC MACT replacement standards from State and local governments and private organizations during the development of the final replacement standards. In addition, non federal government entities, such as the States, may voluntarily apply for permitting authority to implement the HWC MACT replacement standards. They may also develop air pollution laws that exceed the stringency of the HWC MACT replacement standards. IEc DRAFT: May 2005 32 The water and solid waste impacts described in this paragraph were provided by EERGC, Inc. May 2005.

33 Our wet scrubber cost estimates include O& M costs associated with treating wet scrubber wastewater. We anticipate that few, if any, facilities will need to install additional capital equipment to enhance their wastewater treatment capabilities. Personal communication, Lucky Benedict, EERGC, Inc., May 2005.

7 24 OTHER IMPACTS While the primary environmental impacts of the HWC MACT replacement standards are improvements in air quality associated with reduced emissions from combustion facilities, other nonair environmental impacts will also result from the rule. 32 More specifically, use of air pollution control devices and changes in hazardous waste burning practices will result in water and solid waste impacts. Systems that use wet scrubbers to control chlorine emissions will generate an additional 800 million gallons of wastewater per year. In addition, systems that install dry scrubbers to control chlorine emissions will generate more than 3,500 tons of spent sorbent per year. Facilities using activated carbon to control emissions of dioxins/ furans and mercury will generate nearly 4,500 tons of carbon on an annual basis. Controls for other pollutants will increase annual water consumption by approximately 300 million gallons and generate an additional 4,700 tons of solid waste per year. The cost estimates presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 account for the treatment and disposal of all wastewater and solid waste generated as a result of the standards. 33


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76064-76065]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26895]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0054; OMB No. 1660-0061]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households
Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
with change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
Individuals and Households Program, providing financial assistance

to individuals whose primary residences were destroyed as a result of a
Presidentially-declared disaster. This revision reduces the overall
burden on the public by updating the amount of time needed to complete
most of the instruments in this collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please only
submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2022-0054.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Thompson, Supervisory Program
Specialist, FEMA, Recovery Directorate by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or email at [email protected]. You may contact the
Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection
of information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) (Pub. L. 93-288, as amended) is
the legal basis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to
provide financial assistance and services to individuals applying for
disaster assistance benefits in the event of a federally declared
disaster. Regulations in 44 CFR 206.110--Federal Assistance to
Individuals and Households (IHP) implements the policy and procedures
set forth in Section 408 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5174, as
amended). This program provides financial assistance and, if necessary,
direct assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a
direct result of a major disaster or emergency, have uninsured or
under-insured, necessary expenses, and serious needs, and are unable to
meet such expenses or needs through other means.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, with change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0061.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-114 (formerly 010-0-11),
Individuals and Households Program (IHP)--Other Needs Assistance
Administrative Option Selection; Development of State/Tribal
Administrative Plan (SAP) for Other Needs Provision of IHP; FEMA Form
FF-104-FY-21-115 (English) (formerly 010-0-12), Individuals and
Households Program Application for Continued Temporary Housing
Assistance; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-115-A (Spanish) (formerly 010-0-
12S), Programa de Individuos y Familias Solicitud Para Continuar La
Asistencia de Vivienda Temporera; Request for Approval of Late
Registration; Appeal of Program Decision; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-116
(English) (formerly 009-0-95), Request for Advance Disaster Assistance;
FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-116-A (Spanish) (formerly 009-0-95S), Solicitud
de Adelanto de la Asistencia por Desastre; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-117
(English) (formerly 009-0-96), Request to Stop Payment and Reissue
Disaster Assistance Check; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-117-A (Spanish)
(formerly 009-0-96S), Solicitud para Detener el Pago y Reemitir el
Cheque de Asistencia por Desastre; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-118--
(English) (formerly 140-003d-1S), Authorization for the Release of
Information Under the Privacy Act; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-21-118-A--
(Spanish) (formerly 140-003d-1S), Autorizaci[oacute]n para la
Divulgaci[oacute]n de Informaci[oacute]n bajo el Acta de Privacidad.
    Abstract: This information collection provides disaster survivors
the opportunity to request approval of late applications, continued
temporary housing assistance, request advance disaster assistance, stop
payments not received in order to be reissued funds, and to appeal
program decisions. This collection also allows for the establishment of
an annual agreement between FEMA and states, territories, and tribal
governments regarding how the Other Needs Assistance provision of IHP
will be administered: by FEMA, by the state, territory, or tribal
government, or jointly. This collection allows survivors to provide
additional information after the initial disaster assistance
registration period in support of their applications for assistance
from FEMA's IHP. If the information in this collection is not
collected, a delay in assistance provided to disaster survivors would
occur.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, State, local or Tribal
government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 67,859.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 112,163.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 64,328.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $2,565,929.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $1,109,953.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2022-26895 Filed 12-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-24-P


123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A B C D E F G H Date: 3 Feb 03 Author: US EPA Comments: This file presents the costing module compliance decisions for the proposed main option for short technical questionnaire facilities withdrawing from freshwater rivers and streams.

Confidentiality: Non CBI 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 A B C D E F G H I J Survey ID Below Capacity Cutoff ( 1= yes) Exceeds 5%

Flow ( FW) Impingement Compliance Requirement?

( 1= yes) Entrainment Compliance Requirement?

( 1= yes) Technology Costing Module Application Technology Costing Module Application ( additional) Debris Loading ( 1= high, 0 =

typical) Relocation Distance Estimate.

( meters)

SHORT TECHNICAL QUESTIONNAIRE FACILITIES Baseline Once through, Combination, or Other Cooling Systems Freshwater River/ Stream Facilities AUT0001 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0004 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AUT0011 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0018 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0033 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 0 AUT0043 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0051 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 AUT0053 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0057 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0070 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 AUT0072 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0077 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0078 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0091 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0095 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0097 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 0 AUT0106 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0111 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0123 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AUT0127 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0130 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0131 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0134 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 AUT0137 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0143 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0146 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0148 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 0 AUT0156 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0171 0 1 1 1 7 0 1 50 AUT0173 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0175 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AUT0181 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0183 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0193 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 AUT0205 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 AUT0208 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0228 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0235 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0242 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AUT0244 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 AUT0254 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AUT0261 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0266 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0273 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0277 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 AUT0282 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0295 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 A B C D E F G H I J AUT0296 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0297 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 AUT0302 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0304 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0308 0 1 1 1 7 0 0 25 AUT0314 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0319 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0321 0 1 1 1 11 0 0 0 AUT0333 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0335 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0344 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0351 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 AUT0358 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0361 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 AUT0364 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0365 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0368 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0381 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0385 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0394 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0396 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0397 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0398 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0404 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0408 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 AUT0416 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0434 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 AUT0436 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0440 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0441 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0443 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0446 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 AUT0462 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0472 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 AUT0477 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0483 0 1 1 1 11 0 1 0 AUT0489 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0490 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0500 0 1 1 1 9 0 0 0 AUT0513 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 AUT0523 0 1 1 1 9 0 1 0 AUT0535 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 AUT0536 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0538 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0540 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0547 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0551 0 1 1 1 11 0 1 0 AUT0553 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0555 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 AUT0564 0 1 1 1 7 0 1 50 AUT0567 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0570 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 AUT0571 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 A B C D E F G H I J AUT0577 0 1 1 1 7 0 0 25 AUT0583 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 AUT0585 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 AUT0588 0 1 1 1 11 0 0 0 AUT0622 0 1 1 1 4 0 1 0 AUT0623 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 AUT0635 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 Notes: Module # Description 1 Add Fish Handling and Return System 2 Add Fine Mesh Travelling Screens with Fish Handling and Return 3 Add New Larger Intake Structure with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return 4 Add Passive Fine Mesh Screens at Shoreline 5 Add Fish Barrier Net 6 Gunderboom ( not used here)

7 Relocate Intake to Submerged Offshore with passive screen 8 Add Velocity Cap at Inlet ( not used here)

9 Add Passive Fine Mesh Screen at Inlet of Offshore Submerged 10 Add/ Modify Shoreline Tech for Submerged Offshore ( not used here)

11 Add Double Entry, Single Exit with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return For Short Tech facilities, the entire set of intakes at the facility is necessarily assumed to be of the single type as declared at the Facility Level.

Therefore, all compliance decisions are based on a uniform intake type for the entire facility. The design intake flow will apply to all intakes in total.

The median of velocities for all intakes for the short tech facility will apply for all intakes.

Several facilities that require only impingement compliance actions may have more stringent technologies costed  this would be due to extreme baseline intake velocities.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29069-29070]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0474]

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--City of Kewaunee Fireworks Display

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on the Kewaunee
Harbor, Kewaunee, WI, for the City of Kewaunee Fireworks Display from 9
p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2019. This action is needed to better
protect the safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to,
during, and after the fireworks display. During the enforcement period,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
or his or her designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 for the City of Kewaunee

Fireworks Display, listed as item (e)(52) in Table 165.929, will be
enforced from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email marine event coordinator MST1 Kaleena
Carpino, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan,
Milwaukee, WI; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the City of
Kewaunee Fireworks Display safety zone listed as item (e)(52) in Table
165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2019,
on all waters of Lake Michigan and Kewaunee Harbor within the arc of a
circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site in
position 44[deg]27.481' N, 087[deg]29.735' W (NAD 83). Entry into,
transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-
scene representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.929 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide the maritime
community with advance notification for the enforcement of this safety
zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative will
inform the public through a Broadcast Notice to Mariners of any changes
in the planned schedule. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a
representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM, or via
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 14, 2019.
Thomas J. Stuhlreyer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2019-13184 Filed 6-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 122)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35588-35590]
[DOCID:fr24jn08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0315]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,
Chesapeake City Anchorage Basin, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary regulated
navigation area (RNA) in certain waters of the Chesapeake and Delaware
(C & D) Canal, within the anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland,
on June 28, 2008. This RNA is necessary to provide for the safety of
life, property and the environment. This RNA restricts the movement of
vessels throughout the anchorage basin during the Town of Chesapeake
City's Canal Day 2008 event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2008 through 12
p.m. on June 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0315 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for
inspection or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays and U. S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point
Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland
21226-1791 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have any questions on this
temporary rule, call Mr. Ronald L. Houck, at Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410)
576-2674 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this
regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to
public interest since immediate action is needed to prevent vessel
traffic from transiting the specified waters to provide for the safety
of life and property on navigable waters. Additionally, the RNA should
have minimal impact on vessel transits due to the fact that vessels can
safely transit through the RNA when authorized by the Captain of the
Port or his Representative and that they are not precluded from using
any portion of the waterway except the RNA itself.
    For the same reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On the last Saturday in June, thousands of people attend the Town
of Chesapeake City's Canal Day outdoor waterfront festival, located
adjacent to the C & D Canal anchorage basin at Chesapeake City,
Maryland. The event began in 1975 as an arts festival to raise funds
for local organizations. Due to the growing presence of visiting
boaters in recent years, the event has become increasingly congested.
The last Canal Day on June 30, 2007 brought an estimated 400 boats and
10,000 visitors to Chesapeake City, a town with a population of 800. An
estimated 325 recreational boats were anchored or moored alongside
other boats (rafted). These boats accounted for approximately 600
visitors. Persons on recreational vessels or other water craft began
arriving on the Wednesday before the festival, and by that evening,
large lines of rafted boats filled the anchorage basin, the size of
which is approximately 420 yards in length and 170 yards in width. By
Thursday afternoon, two days before Canal Day, the gathering of persons
and vessels exceeded a safe limit. On a typical weekend, ten to fifteen
boats anchor in the basin. Accidental drownings, personal injuries,
boat fires, boat capsizings and sinkings, and boating

collisions all are a safety concern during such overcrowded events.
Access on the water for emergency response is critical. The Coast Guard
has the authority to impose appropriate controls on activities that may
pose a threat to persons, vessels and facilities under its
jurisdiction. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary RNA that will
be enforced during a waterfront festival held in the C & D Canal,
within the anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland. This rule is
needed to control movement within a waterway that is expected to be
populated by persons and vessels seeking to attend the Canal Day 2008
festival.

Discussion of Rule

    On June 28, 2008, the Town of Chesapeake City, Maryland will
sponsor an outdoor festival located adjacent to the C & D Canal
anchorage basin, at Chesapeake City, Maryland. The planned event is a
one-day waterfront festival, held during daytime and nighttime hours.
The Coast Guard anticipates a large recreational boating fleet during
this event. Due to the need for vessel control before, during and after
the scheduled event, vessel traffic will be restricted to provide for
the safety of persons and vessels within the anchorage basin and
transiting vessels within the C & D Canal.
    The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety, and to
protect the environment and mariners transiting the area from the
potential hazards associated with a large gathering of recreational
vessels and other watercraft in a confined area with swimmers and
others present. This rule proposes to establish a temporary RNA within
the C & D Canal anchorage basin, located at Chesapeake City, Maryland.
The rule will impact the movement of all persons and vessels in the C &
D Canal anchorage basin, and will limit the density of vessels and
other watercraft operating, remaining or anchoring within the C & D
Canal anchorage basin at the discretion of the Captain of the Port,
Baltimore, Maryland, to ensure an open water route remains accessible
to law enforcement and emergency personnel during the effective period.
Public vessels, and vessels and other watercraft moored to piers or
docks located within the anchorage basin, will not contribute to the
density determination. Interference with normal port operations is
unlikely; however, if required, interference with normal port
operations will be kept to the minimum considered necessary to ensure
the safety of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during,
and after the scheduled event.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Though the RNA will be in effect for four days, commercial traffic
in the C & D Canal anchorage basin is limited, and vessels transiting
the C & D Canal may proceed safely around the Regulated Navigation
Area. Additionally, the Coast Guard will make notifications via
maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
operate, remain or anchor within the C & D Canal anchorage basin, in
Chesapeake City, Maryland, from 8 a.m. on June 24, 2008 through 12 p.m.
on June 29, 2008. This temporary RNA will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. Though this rule will be in effect for four days,
commercial vessel traffic in this area is limited. Although the RNA
applies to the entire anchorage basin, traffic would be allowed to pass
within the RNA with the permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the
Port Baltimore, Maryland. Vessels transiting the C & D Canal may
proceed safely around the RNA. Also, the Coast Guard will issue
maritime advisories widely available to users of the waterway before
the effective period.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of the Federal employees
who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded,
under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. A final ``Environmental Analysis Check
List'' supporting this determination will be available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0315 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0315  Regulated Navigation Area; Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal, Chesapeake City Anchorage Basin, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area:
All waters of the Chesapeake and Delaware (C & D) Canal, surface to
bottom, within the anchorage basin at Chesapeake City, Maryland.
    (b) Definition. The Captain of the Port Baltimore Maryland means
the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing regulated
navigation areas, found in Sec. 165.13, apply to the regulated
navigation area described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) Vessels and other watercraft operating, remaining or anchoring
within the regulated navigation area are limited, at the discretion of
the Captain of the Port, Baltimore Maryland, to a vessel density that
ensures an open water route remains accessible to law enforcement and
emergency personnel. Public vessels, and vessels and other watercraft
moored directly alongside piers or docks located within the regulated
navigation area, will be excluded from consideration in the density
assessment.
    (2) All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this
regulated navigation area, except as authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore, Maryland.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the
regulated navigation area must request authorization from the Captain
of the Port, Baltimore Maryland by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
marine band radio on VHF-FM Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) on the day of this
event, June 28, 2008.
    (4) All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated navigation
area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM Channel 16 (156.8
MHz).
    (5) The operator of any vessel located within or in the immediate
vicinity of this regulated navigation area shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a
Coast Guard Ensign, and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
    (d) Enforcement Period: This section will be effective from 8 a.m.
on June 24, 2008 through 12 p.m. on June 29, 2008.

    Dated: June 19, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-14387 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P