[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21652-21660]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9288]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2008-0821; FRL-9297-3]
RIN 2050-AG50

Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule--Amendments for Milk and Milk Product
Containers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is amending the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
rule to exempt all milk and milk product containers and associated
piping and appurtenances from the SPCC requirements. The Agency is also
removing the compliance date requirements for the exempted containers.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPA-2008-0821, contains the information related to this rulemaking,
including the response to comments document. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index at http://www.regulations.gov. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
such as Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number to make an appointment to view the docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TDD at<PHONE_NUMBER> (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, contact the Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil

Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this final rule, contact
either Gregory Wilson at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or,
Vanessa E. Principe at<PHONE_NUMBER> (principe.vanessa@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5104A.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are:

I. General Information
II. Entities Potentially Affected by This Final Rule
III. Statutory Authority and Delegation of Authority
IV. Background
V. This Action
    A. Finalize Modified Amendments
    1. Industry Sanitary Standards and Construction Requirements
    2. Summary of Comments
    3. Response to Comments
    4. Universe Affected by This Action
    B. Removal of Compliance Date for Exempted Containers,
Associated Piping and Appurtenances
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and
Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

    On January 15, 2009, EPA proposed to amend the Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule to tailor and streamline the
requirements for the dairy industry. Specifically, EPA proposed to
exempt milk containers and associated piping and appurtenances from the
SPCC requirements provided they are constructed according to the
current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to the
current applicable Grade ``A'' Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) or a
State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable
PMO. The Agency is modifying the proposed exemption to exempt all milk
containers, and associated piping and appurtenances and is further
extending the exemption to also include all milk product containers,
and associated piping and appurtenances. Finally, the Agency is
removing the compliance date requirements for the exempted containers.
    EPA estimates that dairy farms will incur an average annualized
savings of $133 million and milk product manufacturing plants an
average annualized savings of $13 million (estimates based on 2009$ and
a 7% discount rate). In aggregate, the total annualized savings is
estimated at $146 million. The Regulatory Impact analysis, which can be
found in the docket, provides more detail of the cost savings and
methodology.

                   Cost and Benefits of the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Annualized cost savings
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   Discounted at 3%    Discounted at 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs...........................                  $0                  $0
Benefits (Cost Savings).........                 143                 146
Net Benefits (Benefits--Costs)..                 143                 146
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Entities Potentially Affected by This Final Rule

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Industry sector                         NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farms......................................................     111, 112
Food Manufacturing.........................................          311
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency's goal is to provide a guide for readers to consider
regarding entities that potentially could be affected by this action.
However, this action may affect other entities not listed in this
table. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

III. Statutory Authority and Delegation of Authority

    Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), 33
U.S.C. 1321(j)(1)(C), requires the President to issue regulations
establishing procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to
prevent discharges of oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines
from vessels and facilities and to contain such discharges. The
President delegated the authority to regulate non-transportation-
related onshore facilities to EPA in Executive Order 11548 (35 FR
11677, July 22, 1970), which was replaced by Executive Order 12777 (56
FR 54757, October 22, 1991). A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and EPA (36 FR
24080, November 24, 1971) established the definitions of
transportation-related and non-transportation-related facilities. An
MOU between EPA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and DOT (59
FR 34102, July 1, 1994) re-delegated the responsibility to regulate
certain offshore facilities from DOI to EPA.
    In 1995, Congress enacted the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
(EORRA), 33 U.S.C. 2720, which mandates that Federal agencies,\1\ in
issuing or enforcing any regulation or establishing any interpretation
or guideline relating to the transportation, storage, discharge,
release, emission or disposal of oil, differentiate between and
establish separate classes for the various types of oils, specifically:
Animal fats and oils and greases, and fish and marine mammal oils; oils
of vegetable origin; other non-petroleum oils and greases; and
petroleum oils. In differentiating between these classes of oils,
Federal agencies are directed to consider differences in the physical,
chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the environmental
effects of the classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The requirements of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act do
not apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety
and Inspection Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Background

    EPA promulgated a series of amendments to the SPCC rule in December
2006, December 2008 and November 2009 that provided the

facility owner or operator with significant flexibility to comply with
the SPCC regulatory requirements. Facilities handling animal fats and
vegetable oils (AFVOs), subject to the SPCC rule because of their oil
storage capacity, may benefit from a number of these amendments, which
tailored prevention and control measures to the facility type and oils
being stored. The provisions included streamlined requirements for
qualified facilities and reduced requirements for a subset of those
qualified facilities. The rule also amended the security, integrity
testing, and facility diagram requirements, while exemptions were
provided for pesticide application equipment and related mix
containers, and for single-family residential heating oil containers.
Finally, the amendments offered clarifications for fuel nurse tanks,
wind farms and for the definition of ``facility.''
    Milk typically contains a percentage of animal fat, a non-petroleum
oil. Thus, containers storing milk and milk products are currently
subject to the SPCC rule when they meet the applicability criteria set
forth in Sec.  112.1. In the SPCC rule, the term ``bulk storage
container'' is defined at Sec.  112.2 as ``any container used to store
oil.'' Therefore, bulk storage containers storing milk are currently
subject to the applicable provisions under Sec.  112.12. Additionally,
milk is processed in containers during the pasteurization process.
These continuous pasteurizers, while not bulk storage containers, are
considered oil filled-manufacturing equipment and are currently subject
to the general provisions of the SPCC rule under Sec.  112.7. Finally,
milk is also handled and transferred through piping and appurtenances
associated with containers which are currently subject to certain
provisions of the SPCC rule.
    In response to EPA's October 2007 proposal for amendments to the
SPCC rule (72 FR 58378, October 15, 2007), several comments requested
that EPA exempt containers used to store milk from the SPCC
requirements. Specifically, these comments suggested that milk storage
containers be exempted from the SPCC requirements because the Grade
``A'' PMO addresses milk storage and tank integrity. The comments
identified the PMO, which specifically addresses milk intended for
human consumption, as a model ordinance maintained through a
cooperative agreement between the States, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and the regulated community. States typically
adopt the PMO either by reference, or by directly incorporating similar
requirements into their statutes or regulations.
    Thus, on January 15, 2009, the Agency published a proposal to
exempt from SPCC requirements milk containers and associated piping and
appurtenances provided they are constructed according to current
applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to the current
applicable PMO or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to
the current applicable PMO [74 FR 2463].
    The Agency also requested comment on an exemption for milk product
containers and their associated piping and appurtenances from the SPCC
rule provided they are constructed in accordance with the current
applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to the current
applicable Grade ``A'' PMO sanitation requirements or a State dairy
regulatory equivalent to the current applicable PMO. In addition, the
Agency requested comment on how to address milk storage containers
(including totes) that may not be constructed to 3-A Sanitary Standards
under the SPCC rule and whether they should also be exempted from the
SPCC requirements, provided they are subject to the current applicable
Grade ``A'' PMO or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to
the current applicable PMO. Finally, the Agency requested comment on
alternative approaches to address milk and milk product containers,
associated piping and appurtenances under the SPCC rule.
    After the Agency's review of comments and consideration of all
relevant facts, today's rule modifies the proposed exemption to exempt
all milk containers, and associated piping and appurtenances and
further extends the exemption to include all milk product containers,
and associated piping and appurtenances. The Agency is also removing
the compliance date requirements for the exempt containers.

V. This Action

A. Finalize Modified Amendments

    The Agency is exempting from the SPCC requirements milk and milk
product containers, and associated piping and appurtenances.
Additionally, the capacity of these exempted containers, and associated
piping and appurtenances is not to be included in a facility's total
oil storage capacity calculation (see Sec.  112.1(d)(2)(ii)). The
Agency is also removing the compliance date requirements for the
exempted containers.
    This preamble discusses these provisions, and any related comment
received during the 2009 comment period, that raised substantive policy
issues. For a complete discussion of the comments received in 2009, see
Comment and Response Document Oil Pollution Prevention; SPCC Plan
Requirements--Amendments, a copy of which is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
1. Industry Sanitary Standards and Construction Requirements
    Milk and milk product containers and their associated piping and
appurtenances are generally constructed according to an industry
standard established by the 3-A Sanitary Standards organization (3-A
Sanitary Standards, Inc., McLean, VA, http://www.3-a.org) which satisfy
the PMO model code construction requirements for milk and milk product
containers and associated piping and appurtenances. These containers,
associated piping and appurtenances may also be subject to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Recommended Requirements for Milk for
Manufacturing Purposes and its Production and Processing (Milk for
Manufacturing Purposes and Its Production and Processing; Requirements
Recommended for Adoption by State Regulatory Agencies; see http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004791). All milk
handling operations subject to the PMO are required to have an
operating permit, and are subject to inspection by State dairy
regulatory agencies. The PMO model code establishes criteria for the
permitting, inspection and enforcement of milk handling equipment and
operations that govern all processes for milk intended for human
consumption.
    Likewise, USDA has developed and maintains a set of model
regulations relating to quality and sanitation requirements for the
production and processing of manufacturing grade milk, which are
recommended for adoption and enforcement by the various States that
regulate manufacturing grade milk. The purpose of the model
requirements is to promote uniformity in State dairy laws and
regulations relating to manufacturing grade milk. These recommended
requirements contain criteria similar to those of the PMO for milk for
manufacturing purposes, including its processing, use, labeling and
storage. Furthermore, these requirements include provisions for
inspections, certification and licensing of facilities that handle and
process milk for manufacturing purposes and its products. These
requirements serve as the basis for the exemption of milk and milk
product containers, and their associated piping and appurtenances

from the SPCC rule. Milk and milk product containers, associated piping
and appurtenances are generally constructed in accordance with
standards like the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are
subject to standards like the current applicable PMO sanitation
requirements, USDA Recommended Requirements for Milk for Manufacturing
Purposes and its Production and Processing, or equivalent State dairy
regulations. The 3-A Sanitary Standards for equipment construction
require the use of durable materials and sanitary construction criteria
that can be easily maintained and kept clean and free of defects when
appropriate cleaning procedures and chemicals are used. Both the PMO
sanitation requirements and the USDA Recommended Requirements include
construction and sanitation standards and frequent State and/or Federal
inspections for these containers, piping and appurtenances, and provide
definitions and/or list those milk and milk products to which they
apply. State dairy requirements for permits/licenses, operations and
inspections are generally structured to be equivalent to the current
applicable PMO requirements and/or USDA Recommended Requirements. The
Agency believes the combination of these specific standards and
requirements address the prevention of oil discharges.
2. Summary of Comments
    Support for an Expanded Exemption. There was only one comment to
the 2009 proposal, and it expressed general support for the exemption.
The comment requested that EPA consider exempting all milk and milk
products, including cheese, cream, yogurt and ice cream mix. The
comment stated these products and their containers do not present a
potential for spills into navigable waters of the United States because
the equipment must be constructed to preclude deterioration and must be
maintained to keep it clean and free of defects. The comment states
that all dairy processing equipment, storage containers, piping and
appurtenances are made of high grade stainless steel (with the
exception of some cheese storage containers) and are designed and
constructed in accordance with 3-A and/or FDA's Current Good
Manufacturing Practices (CGMP) or equivalents. The comment also states
that other requirements mandate frequent inspection of dairy operations
for defects in equipment thereby making spillage and leakage highly
improbable.
    Exemption of Solid Mixtures. The comment also requested that EPA
exempt cheese and other mixtures that are solid at room temperature
from the SPCC requirements. The comment included as an appendix a
letter commenting on an earlier Agency action and requested an
exemption of substances that are solid at ambient temperatures
(including animal fats). The comment also stated that should a cheese
production or storage facility catch fire, ``under no circumstances
would cheese liquefy and flow'' out of the facility to potentially
pollute or endanger navigable waters of the United States.
    Expand the Scope of Regulations and Standards To Qualify the
Exemption. The comment requested that EPA broaden the scope of
regulatory requirements and construction standards to exempt additional
containers from the SPCC rule, specifically those that are subject to
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requirements under 21 CFR Part
110. The comment suggested the exemption state: ``The SPCC rule does
not apply to storage containers and associated piping and appurtenances
that contain milk or milk products that are: A) subject to the
construction requirements of 3-A Sanitary Standards or the equivalent
standards approved by a federal, state or local regulatory authority,
and b) are subject to 21 CFR Part 110, the PMO, or a state or local
equivalent.'' Additionally, the comment argued that, along with high
sanitation standards for edible fats and oils, regulations issued by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for worker
safety address storage and use of oils at food facilities, thereby
reducing the likelihood, rate and magnitude of a spill should an
accident occur.
    Definition of Oil and Oil Mixtures. The comment also argued milk
and milk products should not be defined as oil. The comment
incorporates by reference statements that milk and other dairy products
do not seem to meet the definition of ``oil'' because milk, ice cream
mix, yogurt, cream, cheese and other dairy products are not (1) fat,
oil or grease or (2) fat, oil or grease mixed with waste. The comment
included as an appendix a letter to the Agency commenting on a separate
action, stating there are minimal environmental risks resulting from
edible fats and oils spills and EPA should exempt substances not listed
on the U.S. Coast Guard list of petroleum and non-petroleum oils (e.g.,
milk or milk products). The comment requests EPA clarify the definition
of oil and oil mixtures so that lower fat mixtures, e.g., those below
50 percent fat, or those that are solid at room temperature might not
be considered oil, thereby exempting most milk and milk products from
the SPCC requirements. The commenter further requested EPA not initiate
any enforcement actions against operations where there is substantial
doubt regarding whether substances at those facilities are within the
scope of the SPCC rule until EPA has clarified oil mixtures.
3. Response to Comments
    Support for an Expanded Exemption. EPA recognizes the merits to
arguments supporting an exemption for milk product containers. Thus,
EPA is amending the proposed exemption by exempting all milk
containers, and associated piping and appurtenances and by further
extending the exemption to include all milk product containers, and
associated piping and appurtenances. The exempted containers include
all milk and milk product containers as defined in the PMO model code,
but also all milk and milk product containers subject to the USDA
Recommended Requirements for Milk for Manufacturing Purposes and its
Production and Processing. EPA also acknowledges that some milk and
milk product handling operations are subject to 21 CFR 110. However,
EPA believes that the dairy specific standards above apply to the vast
majority of milk and milk product containers. The Agency could not
identify any milk or milk product containers that are not subject to
PMO, USDA Recommended Requirements for Milk for Manufacturing Purposes
and its Production and Processing, or equivalent State dairy regulatory
requirements and thus the final rule exempts all milk and milk product
containers from the SPCC requirements.
    In this final rule, EPA is amending the scope of the exemption by
exempting all milk containers, and associated piping and appurtenances
and by further expanding the exemption to include all milk product
containers, and associated piping and appurtenances. These exempted
milk and milk product containers, and associated piping and
appurtenances are constructed according to standards like the current
applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to standards like
the current applicable Grade ``A'' (PMO), USDA Recommended Requirements
for Milk for Manufacturing Purposes and its Production and Processing,
or equivalent State dairy regulatory requirements. Because of their
operational requirements, particularly for permits/licenses and
frequent inspections, the Agency expects the owner or operator of a
facility with milk

and milk product containers subject to the 3-A Sanitary Standards, and
PMO requirements, USDA Recommended Requirements for Milk for
Manufacturing Purposes and its Production and Processing, or equivalent
State dairy regulatory requirements, to be in compliance with those
provisions in order to maintain their operations. For the purposes of
this provision, ``equivalent'' means a State dairy regulation that
includes all the components of the PMO model code and/or the USDA
Recommended Requirements. All milk and/or milk product transfer and
processing activities are included in the scope of this exemption from
the SPCC rule.
    Exemption of Solid Mixtures. EPA disagrees that all oils or oil
mixtures that are solid at room temperature should, as a general
matter, be exempted from the SPCC rule. Vegetable oils and animal fats
that are solid at room temperature serve as potent physical
contaminants and are more difficult to remove from affected animals
than petroleum oil (see 62 FR 54511, October 20, 1997).
    The Agency believes that spill prevention for milk and milk
products produced for processing and manufacturing (e.g., butter,
cheese, dry milk) are appropriately addressed through standards like
the PMO model code, the USDA Recommended Requirements for Milk for
Manufacturing Purposes and its Production and Processing, or equivalent
State dairy regulatory requirements, and thus is extending the
exemption to include all milk and milk product containers, associated
piping and appurtenances.
    To decide whether a facility is subject to the SPCC rule, the owner
or operator must first identify whether there is a reasonable
expectation of an oil discharge to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines from the facility. The owner or operator of a facility may
consider the nature and flow properties of the oils handled at the
facility to make this determination (for more information, see Chapter
2 of the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors). If there is a
reasonable expectation that any oil (in any container) at the facility
may impact waters if discharged, then the next step is to determine the
aboveground and completely buried storage capacity of all oil located
at the facility (except for exempt containers). If the aboveground
storage capacity is greater than 1,320 U.S. gallons or the completely
buried capacity is greater than 42,000 U.S. gallons, then the facility
is subject to the SPCC rule and the owner or operator must develop an
SPCC Plan that describes oil handling operations, spill prevention
practices, discharge or drainage controls, and the personnel, equipment
and resources at the facility that are used to prevent oil spills from
reaching navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. However, if the
owner or operator of the facility determines there is not a reasonable
expectation of discharge of oil to navigable waters or adjoining
shorelines from all oils stored at the facility then the facility is
not subject to the SPCC requirements. We recommend that the owner or
operator document and date these determinations in the event that EPA
challenges the determination following an inspection.
    The SPCC rule is primarily a performance-based rule, therefore, the
owner or operator may consider the properties of each oil located at
the facility to identify measures and procedures to prevent spills from
the facility. For example, storage of an oil in solid form inside a
building may provide adequate secondary containment. Additionally, many
SPCC rule provisions allow for environmentally equivalent alternatives
to be used (except for secondary containment) provided they are
documented in the Plan and certified by a Professional Engineer (see
Chapter 3 of the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors for more
information).
    Expand the Scope of Regulations and Standards To Qualify the
Exemption. EPA agrees that the scope of the exemption should apply to
all milk and milk product containers because they are subject to a
combination of standards like the 3-A Sanitary Standards with either
PMO or the USDA requirements or State equivalent dairy regulations. EPA
is expanding the exemption because non-PMO milk and milk product
containers are subject to standards like the USDA Recommended
Requirements for Milk for Manufacturing Purposes and its Production and
Processing, or equivalent State dairy regulations. The Agency believes
the components of these requirements are comparable to the PMO
requirements. Specifically, both PMO and USDA Recommended Requirements
have provisions that include permitting/licensing, inspections,
construction standards, operations, maintenance, enforcement and other
sanitation requirements.
    All milk and milk product handling operations subject to the PMO
and USDA Recommended Requirements must have an operating permit or
license, and are subject to inspection by State dairy regulatory
agencies. Both the PMO and the USDA Recommended Requirements establish
criteria for the permitting/licensing, inspection and enforcement of
handling equipment and operations that typically govern processes for
milk and milk products intended for human consumption and for milk
produced for processing and manufacturing products for human
consumption. These include, but are not limited to, specifications for
the design and construction of milk and milk product handling
equipment, equipment sanitation and maintenance procedures, temperature
controls, and pasteurization standards. In addition, because many kinds
of harmful bacteria can grow rapidly in milk and milk products, and
thus, to ensure a proper sanitary environment, standards like both the
PMO and the USDA Recommended Requirements require that milk and milk
product containers be frequently emptied, cleaned, inspected and
sanitized and that records of such events be maintained. Such frequent
cleaning and inspection of the containers suggests that any leaks or
deterioration of container integrity would be quickly identified. PMO
and USDA Recommended Requirements also require inspections of
facilities with such milk and milk products handling operations by the
State-designated regulatory agency prior to issuing a permit or
license, and routine inspections thereafter (for example, at dairy
farms covered by PMO at least once every six months) by a State
designated regulatory agency. Inspections at these facilities encompass
those elements associated with the milk and milk products operation,
including the containers, and associated piping and appurtenances.
Violations of the permitting or licensing requirements may result in
the suspension or revocation of the facility's operating license or
permit.
    USDA regulations, guidelines and recommended requirements all
recognize the unique nature in which milk and milk products are handled
and stored in contrast to other oils intended for human consumption.
Subpart D--Farm Requirements for Milk for Manufacturing of the USDA
Recommended Requirements for Milk for Manufacturing Purposes and its
Production and Processing requires that farm bulk tanks meet 3-A
Sanitary Standards for construction at the time of installation, that
they be installed in accordance with USDA regulations, and that all new
utensils and equipment be in compliance with applicable 3-A Sanitary
Standards. Furthermore USDA regulation under 7 CFR 58.128(d) requires
new or replacement storage

tanks or vats to comply with the appropriate 3-A Sanitary Standards
(i.e., Storage Tanks for Milk and Milk Products or Sanitary Standards
for Silo-Type Storage Tanks for Milk and Milk Products). According to
USDA Guidelines for the Sanitary Design and Fabrication of Dairy
Processing Equipment, ``Dairy Grading Branch policy fully supports and
utilizes established 3-A Sanitary Standards and Accepted Practices.''
Furthermore the document says ``When a USDA-Dairy Grading Branch review
is requested of equipment for which there are no 3-A Sanitary Standards
or Accepted Practices, USDA will use the general criteria, guidelines,
and principles outlined in this document. These criteria, guidelines,
and principles are consistent with those utilized by the 3-A Sanitary
Standards Committees during the development of standards and accepted
practices.''
    Although OSHA worker safety regulations may apply to facilities
with milk or milk product containers, their requirements specifically
focus on worker safety and do not address container design or container
inspection practices as in the case of the PMO or USDA requirements and
the 3-A Sanitary Standards. The FDA requirements under 21 CFR Part 110,
are current good manufacturing practices in manufacturing, packing, or
holding human food and apply to all foods under FDA jurisdiction;
whereas PMO and USDA requirements are specific to milk and milk
products. The PMO model code and the USDA Recommended Requirements are
specific to milk and milk products and serve to minimize their
potential for discharge because they include permitting or licensing of
facilities, strict inspection frequencies and enforcement procedures,
among others. The monitoring and sanitation standards under PMO and
USDA serve in part as spill prevention measures because the frequent
cleaning and inspections of the milk and milk product containers,
associated piping and appurtenances leads to early identification of
equipment failure, and spill detection. Failure to comply with these
provisions may lead to a suspension of licenses or permits issued under
PMO or USDA.
    Definition of Oil and Oil Mixtures. EPA does not agree with the
comment that milk is not an oil. Milk and other milk products comprised
of animal fats meet both the definition of oil and of non-petroleum oil
included in Sec.  112.2 of the rule. EPA has an established record of
including animal fats and vegetable oils in planning and spill
prevention requirements (see 40 FR 28849, July 9, 1975; and 62 FR
54509, October 20, 1997). The SPCC rule defines oil as ``oil of any
kind or in any form, including, but not limited to: Fats, oils, or
greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal origin; vegetable oils,
including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, or kernels; and, other oils
and greases, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, synthetic oils,
mineral oils, oil refuse, or oil mixed with wastes other than dredged
spoil.'' (40 CFR 112.2) The rule further defines non-petroleum oil as
``oil of any kind that is not petroleum-based, including, but not
limited to: Fats, oils, and greases of animal, fish, or marine mammal
origin; and vegetable oils, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits,
and kernels.'' Both definitions qualify the listed examples with the
statement ``including but not limited to'' which indicates that these
definitions are not limited by the examples provided.
    EPA disagrees with the comment that edible fats and oils pose
minimal environmental risks. In a notice published on October 20, 1997
(62 FR 54508), EPA denied a request submitted by various trade
associations to treat facilities that handle, store, or transport
animal fats and vegetable oils in a manner differently from those
facilities that store petroleum-based oils. The petitioners claimed
that unlike most if not all other oils, animal fats and vegetable oils
are non-toxic, readily biodegradable, not persistent in the
environment, and in fact are essential components of human and wildlife
diets. EPA agrees with the comment that animal fats and vegetable oils,
which are consumed in small amounts, are an essential component of
human and wildlife diets. However, large amounts of such oils, when
discharged into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, present
significant risks to the environment, including wildlife. In fact, the
environmental effects of petroleum and non-petroleum oils, including
vegetable oils and animal fats, are similar because of the physical and
chemical properties common to both. (See Federal Register notice at 62
FR 54508; October 20, 1997 for more information on the environmental
effects of oil spills of edible fats and oils.)
    EPA acknowledges that the U.S. Coast Guard list of petroleum and
non-petroleum oils \2\ does not specifically list milk or milk
products; however, this does not provide an adequate basis to exempt
milk or milk products from the SPCC rule, especially since they meet
the definition of oil under the SPCC rule. Moreover, the U.S. Coast
Guard list only includes examples of oils and is not meant to be all-
inclusive. The examples are organized alphabetically into several
subgroups, including a group for edible animal and vegetable oils and
other oils of animal or vegetable origin (which have historically been
considered Clean Water Act (CWA) oils). While milk and milk products
are not specifically included on the Coast Guard list, for purposes of
SPCC, they fall under the category of edible animal and vegetable oils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The U.S. Coast Guard List Of Petroleum and Non-petroleum
Oils can be found at: http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentTypeId=2&channelId=-30565&contentId=120944&programId=117833&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2Feditorial.jsp&pageTypeId=13489.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Agency did not propose changes to the definitions of
oil or oil mixture and therefore defining oil and/or oil mixtures are
issues outside the scope of this action. Furthermore, EPA will continue
to enforce the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations for oil mixtures.
The owner or operator of a SPCC-subject facility should consider the
definition of oil included in Sec.  112.2 of the rule and the CWA
definition of oil when making determinations on how to address the SPCC
requirements.
4. Universe Affected by This Action
    The approach in this action addresses the concerns raised by the
dairy industry for milk producers (dairies) and milk product facilities
subject to the SPCC requirements. In 2009, the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS), an agency within the USDA, estimated there
were 65,000 operations with one or more milk cows and 1,178 facilities
manufacturing one or more dairy products (excluding fluid milk
products) in the United States. Most of the 65,000 operations with milk
cows produce only fluid milk (subject to the PMO or the USDA
Recommended Requirements) and their milk storage containers would be
exempted. Manufactured dairy facilities handle milk and milk products
subject to standards such as either the PMO or the USDA Recommended
Requirements, and all their milk/milk product storage containers are
also exempt. Milk or milk product containers not under the PMO or the
USDA Recommended Requirements are generally covered by an equivalent
State dairy regulation; all these State regulated milk and milk product
containers are also exempt. This action exempts the entire universe of
milk and milk product containers, and associated piping and
appurtenances.
    Note that milk and milk product facilities may handle other oils
subject

to the SPCC requirements. These facilities either have or are
developing SPCC Plans in anticipation of the compliance date, but will
not have to account for, or address the exempted containers in their
SPCC Plans. Some of these facilities may now be either exempt, or
eligible as a qualified facility to self-certify the facility's SPCC
Plan. In addition, ``micro'' processor facilities that process one milk
product are expected to manufacture and/or store quantities below the
SPCC applicability thresholds for container or aggregate quantities
(e.g., 1,000 pounds of cheese per month; self-bottling milk for farm
consumption). The container sizes at these facilities are typically
below the 55-gallon de minimis container size of the SPCC rule and
therefore, are unlikely to be subject to SPCC requirements (see SPCC
Guidance for Regional Inspectors for more information).

B. Removal of Compliance Date for Exempted Containers, Associated
Piping and Appurtenances

    On October 14, 2010, the Agency delayed the compliance date by
which facilities must address milk and milk product containers,
associated piping and appurtenances that are constructed according to
the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and subject to the
current applicable Grade ``A'' PMO or a State dairy regulatory
requirement equivalent to the current applicable PMO (see 75 FR 63093).
The date by which the owner or operator of a facility must comply with
the SPCC requirements for these milk and milk product containers was
delayed one year from the effective date of a final rule specifically
addressing these milk and milk product containers, associated piping
and appurtenances, or as specified by a rule that otherwise establishes
a compliance date for these facilities. This delay of the compliance
date was to provide time for certain facilities to undertake the
actions necessary to prepare or amend their SPCC Plans, as well as
implement them. Today's action specifically addresses those milk and
milk product containers, associated piping and appurtenances for which
the delay was established and does so by exempting them from any SPCC
regulatory requirements. Thus, a date for the exempted containers to
come into compliance with SPCC requirements is no longer necessary. As
such, the Agency is removing the regulatory requirement to comply with
SPCC for these exempt containers by a date certain. The Agency provided
notice of its intent in the October 14, 2010 final rule. The regulatory
text is amended by removing and reserving 112.3(c).
    This action does not affect the owner or operator's responsibility
to prevent oil discharges, including those of milk or milk products,
into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. These discharges may be
subject to other applicable statutes and regulations, including but not
limited to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18,
2011), this action is an ``economically significant regulatory action''
because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EOs 12866 and 13563 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendment to the Oil
Pollution Prevention Regulations to Exempt Certain Milk and Milk
Product Containers and Associated Piping and Appurtenances (40 CFR part
112).'' A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this
action and the analysis is briefly summarized in section VI-C.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
The final rule amendment exempts from the SPCC rule milk and milk
product containers, associated piping and appurtenances. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations, 40 CFR
part 112, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
in the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)'s regulations at 13 CFR
121.201--SBA defines small businesses by category of business using
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and in the
case of dairy farms, which constitute a large percentage of the
facilities affected by this final rule, defines small businesses as
having less than $0.75 million per year in sales receipts; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, the Agency certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
since the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. The
impact of concern is any significant, adverse economic impact on small
entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility
analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives ``which
minimize any significant economic impact of the * * * rule on small
entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
    Under this final rule, EPA is exempting from SPCC rule requirements
milk and milk product containers, associated piping and appurtenances
because they are generally designed, constructed and maintained
according to the standards such as the current applicable 3-A Sanitary
Standards, and are subject to the standards such as the current
applicable Grade ``A'' PMO, USDA Recommended Requirements for Milk for
Manufacturing Purposes and its Production and Processing, or an

equivalent State dairy regulatory requirement. Overall, EPA estimates
that this final action will reduce annual compliance costs by
approximately $146 million for owners and operators of affected
facilities. Total costs were annualized over a 10-year period using a 7
percent discount rate. To derive this savings estimate, EPA first
estimated the number of dairy farms and milk processing facilities that
will be affected each year (2010-2019) by the final rule. EPA next
analyzed the expected milk and fuel oil storage capacity of dairy farms
with varying numbers of cattle based on daily production rate per cow,
the storage requirements for milk, and conversations with industry
representatives. EPA also estimated the milk/milk product and fuel oil
storage capacity of milk processing facilities, and estimated the cost
savings associated with the exemption for milk/milk product storage
containers at both dairy farms and milk processing facilities. These
savings include secondary containment costs, cost savings from
preparing and maintaining an SPCC Plan for a smaller facility, and, for
Qualified Facilities, preparing only a Plan Template and saving PE
certification costs. A certain number of dairy farms are expected to
become exempt as a result of the amendments. While the Agency extended
the exemption to include milk product containers, piping and
appurtenances, it does not have data on the number of milk product
containers at milk product manufacturing facilities to determine the
overall cost savings for the exemption. Therefore, EPA expects that the
total cost savings for the final rule is underestimated.
    EPA, therefore, concludes that this final rule will relieve
regulatory burden for small entities and certifies that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. EPA requested comment on potential impacts on small
entities, but received no comments specific to small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
Tribal governments or the private sector; therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments; the amendments impose no
enforceable duty on any small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 311(o), States may impose additional requirements, including
more stringent requirements, relating to the prevention of oil
discharges to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines. EPA recognizes
that some States have more stringent requirements (56 FR 54612, October
22, 1991). This final rule would not preempt State law or regulations.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule
will not significantly or uniquely affect communities of Indian Tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final
rule. EPA specifically solicited additional comment on this action from
Tribal officials, but none was received.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The overall effect of the final rule is
to decrease the regulatory burden on certain facility owners or
operators subject to its provisions.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The owner or operator of a facility subject to the SPCC rule has
the flexibility to consider applicable industry standards in the
development of an SPCC Plan, in accordance with good engineering
practice. EPA solicited comments on this aspect of the rulemaking and,
specifically, invited the public to identify potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should
be used in this regulation. The single comment submitted agreed with
the use of the 3-A Sanitary Standards and the PMO model code as a basis
for exempting milk and milk product containers, associated piping and
appurtenances from the SPCC requirements. However, this rulemaking does
not involve technical standards, as it does not set or incorporate by
reference any one specific technical standard. Therefore, the NTTAA
does not apply.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
904(2). This rule will be effective June 17, 2011.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

    Environmental protection, Animal fats and vegetable oils, Farms,
Milk, Milk products, Oil pollution, Tanks, Water pollution control,
Water resources.

    Dated: April 12, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 112 as follows:

PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION

0
1. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; and E.O.
12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  112.1 by adding paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(F) and (d)(12) to
read as follows:

Sec.  112.1  General applicability.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (F) The capacity of any milk and milk product container and
associated piping and appurtenances.
* * * * *
    (12) Any milk and milk product container and associated piping and
appurtenances.
* * * * *

Sec.  112.3  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  112.3 by removing and reserving paragraph (c).

[FR Doc. 2011-9288 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 13050]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1349-000]

Union Carbide Corporation; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Union Carbide Corporation's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Proceduren (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 20, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 28, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04966 Filed 3-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 46)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12138-12141]
[DOCID:fr09mr06-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002-200528a; FRL-8042-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama: State
Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Alabama State Implementation
Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) on September 11, 2003. The revisions include
modifications to Alabama's open burning rules found at Alabama
Administrative Code (AAC) Chapter 335-3-3-.01. These revisions are part
of Alabama's strategy to meet the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) by reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds
and nitrogen oxides. Open burning creates smoke that contains fine
particles (PM2.5) and precursors to ozone. ADEM has found that elevated
levels of PM2.5 mirror the months when ozone levels are highest (May-
September). These rules are intended to help control levels of PM2.5
and ozone precursors that contribute to high ozone and PM2.5 levels.
Today's action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). In its September 11, 2003, submittal, ADEM also proposed SIP
revisions to include changes to AAC Chapter 335-3-4, concerning
opacity. EPA is not acting on that part of the revision at this time.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 8, 2006 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 10, 2006. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number, ``EPA-
R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002,'' by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2005-AL-0002,'' Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division 12th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number, ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2005-AL-0002.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

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

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

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

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

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

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacy DiFrank, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9042. Ms. DiFrank can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Today's Action

    On September 11, 2003, ADEM submitted to EPA proposed SIP revisions
for review and approval into the Alabama SIP. The proposed revisions
include changes made by the State of Alabama to its open burning
regulations, found at AAC Chapter 335-3-3-.01. These rules became state
effective on October 2, 2003.
    The original provisions that were part of Chapter 335-3-3-.01(1)
still exists, with the exception of subpart (i), which was deleted and
included as part of the newly added provision, 335-3-3-.01(2). In
summary, the revisions submitted by ADEM include changes to the
duration, timing, and location of open burning, and add other specific
requirements for open burning.
    These other requirements include expansion of the seasonal ban on
open burning to now include the months of May and September, and the
additional counties of Baldwin, Lawrence, Madison, Mobile, Montgomery,
Morgan, and Shelby. The new provision, Chapter 335-3-3-.01(2), also
describes new requirements for open burning which include, among
others: (1) A limitation on open burning of vegetation or untreated
wood for only the specified purposes; (2) a specification regarding
fuel; (3) setbacks for all open burning; (4) a requirement to reduce
traffic hazards associated with the burning; and (5) a limit on the
hours of open burning. No action is being taken with regard to the last
paragraph of Chapter 335-3-3-.01(2)(d), referring to open burning in
Morgan County during 2003, because it was removed from the Alabama SIP
in a separate action in December 2005 (70 FR 76694, December 28, 2005).
The proposed revisions summarized above are approvable pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA.
    EPA is now taking direct final action to approve the proposed
revisions, specifically, AAC Chapter 335-3-3-.01(1) and .01(2), into
the Alabama SIP. These revisions include the entirety of Alabama's open
burning rules and are

part of the State's strategy to meet the NAAQS by reducing emissions of
volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides.

II. Final Action

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Alabama SIP to include changes made to Alabama's open burning rules
found at AAC Chapter 335-3-3-.01, as submitted on September 11, 2003,
with the exception of one sentence in 335-3-3-.01(2)(d) regarding
Morgan County. In addition, at this time, EPA is not acting on the
revision to AAC Chapter 335-3-4 concerning opacity.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 8, 2006
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
April 10, 2006.
    If EPA receives such comments, EPA will then publish a document
withdrawing the direct final rule and informing the public that such
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in
commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received,
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 8, 2006
and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 17, 2006.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended by revising entries for ``Section 335-3-
3.01'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Alabama Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Chapter 335-3-3        Control of Open Burning and Incineration

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 335-3-3-.01..............  Open Burning.......       10/2/2003  3/9/2006 [Insert     We are not acting
                                                                         citation of          on the portion of
                                                                         publication].        section 2(d)
                                                                                stating ``During
                                                                                2003 only burning
                                                                                may be conducted
                                                                                in Morgan County
                                                                                if any air curtain
                                                                                incinerator is
                                                                                used to burn the
                                                                                materials.''

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 06-2184 Filed 3-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 92 (Monday, May 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22375-22378]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28043]

Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; American Pyrotechnics Assn.
(APA) Application for Exemption From the 14-Hour Rule; Request To Add
New Member to Current APA Exemption

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

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

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

SUMMARY: The American Pyrotechnics Association (APA), has requested an
exemption for a member company, Pyro Shows of Alabama, Inc., from the
prohibition on driving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) after the 14th
hour after the driver comes on duty. Fifty-one APA members currently
hold such an exemption during the Independence Day period each year,
terminating on July 8, 2020. If granted, this exemption would terminate
at the same time as the other 51 exempted carriers. The APA maintains
that the terms and conditions of the limited exemption would ensure a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
achieved without the exemption.

DATES: June 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2007-28043 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received
your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2007-28043), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2007-28043'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2007-28043'' in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

APA Application for Exemption

    The HOS rule in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) prohibits the driver of a
property-carrying CMV from driving after the 14th hour after coming on
duty following 10 consecutive hours off duty. In 2016, the APA, a trade
association representing the domestic fireworks industry was granted
exemptions for 51 member companies through the annual Independence Day
periods ending on July 8, 2020 [81 FR 43701, July 5, 2016]. APA has
requested an exemption for Pyro Shows of Alabama Incorporated, USDOT
2859710, which would increase the total to 52. The exemption for this
APA carrier, if granted, would expire on July 8, 2020. Although this is
less than the 5-year exemption period authorized by 49 U.S.C.
31315(b)(2), as amended by section 5206(a)(3) of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation

(FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537, Dec. 4, 3015), FMCSA
believes that the interests of the APA members and the Agency would
best be served by harmonizing, as far as possible, the expiration dates
of all such fireworks-related exemptions. Like the other 51 member
companies, Pyro Shows of Alabama would be subject to all of the terms
and conditions of the exemption.
    The initial APA application for relief from the 14-hour rule was
submitted in 2004; a copy is in the docket. That application fully
describes the nature of the pyrotechnic operations of CMV drivers
during a typical Independence Day period.
    As stated in the 2004 request, the CMV drivers employed by APA
member companies are trained pyro-technicians who hold commercial
driver's licenses (CDLs) with hazardous materials (HM) endorsements.
They transport fireworks and related equipment by CMVs on a very
demanding schedule during a brief Independence Day period, often to
remote locations. After they arrive, the drivers are responsible for
set-up and staging of the fireworks shows.
    The APA states that it is seeking an additional exemption for Pyro
Shows of Alabama, Incorporated because compliance with the current 14-
hour rule in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) would impose a substantial economic
hardship on numerous cities, towns and municipalities, as well as its
member companies. To meet the demand for fireworks without the
exemptions, APA states that its member companies would be required to
hire a second driver for most trips. The APA advises that the result
would be a substantial increase in the cost of the fireworks shows--
beyond the means of many of its members' customers--and that many
Americans would be denied this important component of the celebration
of Independence Day.

Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    The APA believes that the exemption would not adversely affect the
safety of the fireworks transportation provided by this motor carrier.
According to APA, its member companies have operated under this
exemption for 10 previous Independence Day periods without a reported
motor carrier safety incident. Moreover, it asserts, without the extra
time provided by the exemption, safety would decline because APA
drivers would be unable to return to their home base after each show.
They would be forced to park the CMVs carrying HM 1.1G, 1.3G and 1.4G
products in areas less secure than the motor carrier's home base. As a
condition of holding the exemption, each motor carrier is required to
notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49
CFR 390.5) involving the operation of any its CMVs while under this
exemption. To date, FMCSA has received no accident notifications, nor
is the Agency aware of any accidents reportable under terms of the
prior APA exemptions.
    In its exemption request, APA asserts that the operational demands
of this unique industry minimize the risks of CMV crashes. In the last
few days before July 4, these drivers transport fireworks over
relatively short routes from distribution points to the site of the
fireworks display, and normally do so in the early morning when traffic
is light. At the site, they spend considerable time installing, wiring,
and safety-checking the fireworks displays, followed by several hours
off duty in the late afternoon and early evening prior to the event.
During this time, the drivers are able to rest and nap, thereby
reducing or eliminating the fatigue accumulated during the day. Before
beginning another duty day, these drivers must take 10 consecutive
hours off duty, the same as other CMV drivers.

Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

Period of the Exemption
    The requested exemption from 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) would be effective
from June 28 through July 8, at 11:59 p.m. local time, each year
through 2020.
Terms and Conditions of the Exemption
    During the 2017 Independence Day period, the exemption from 49 CFR
395.3(a)(2) would be limited to drivers employed by the 51 motor
carriers already covered by the exemption, plus (if approved) the one
carrier now seeking an exemption. Section 395.3(a)(2) prohibits a
driver from driving a CMV after the 14th hour after coming on duty and
does not permit off-duty periods to extend the 14-hour limit. Drivers
covered by this exemption would be able to exclude off-duty and
sleeper-berth time of any length from the calculation of the 14-hour
limit. This exemption would be contingent on each driver driving no
more than 11 hours in the 14-hour period after coming on duty, as
extended by any off-duty or sleeper-berth time in accordance with this
exception. The exemption would be further contingent on each driver
having a full 10 consecutive hours off duty following 14 hours on duty
prior to beginning a new driving period. The carriers and drivers must
comply with all other requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399) and Hazardous Materials Regulations
(49 CFR parts 105-180).
Preemption
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.
FMCSA Notification
    Exempt motor carriers would be required to notify FMCSA within 5
business days of any accidents (as defined by 49 CFR 390.5) involving
the operation of any of their CMVs while under this exemption. The
notification must be by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include the
following information:
    a. Name of the Exemption: ``APA''
    b. Date of the accident,
    c. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
which is closest to the scene of the accident,
    d. Driver's name and driver's license State, number, and class,
    e. Co-Driver's name and driver's license State, number, and class,
    f. Vehicle company number and power unit license plate State and
number,
    g. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    h. Number of fatalities,
    i. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    j. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    k. The total driving time and the total on-duty time of the CMV
driver at the time of the accident.
    In addition, if there are any injuries or fatalities, the carrier
must forward the police accident report to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>as soon as
available.
Termination
    The FMCSA does not believe the motor carriers and drivers covered
by this exemption, if granted, would experience any deterioration of
their safety record.
    However, should this occur, FMCSA would take all steps necessary to
protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption. The
FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption for failure to comply with
its terms and conditions. Exempt motor carriers and

drivers would be subject to FMCSA monitoring while operating under this
exemption.

    Dated: May 8, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-09735 Filed 5-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5001-5002]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2004]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before April 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA

Map Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2004, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Georgetown County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 06-04-C558S Preliminary Date: November 13, 2015 and September
                                12, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Georgetown.....................  City Hall, 1134 North Fraser
                                          Street, Georgetown, SC 29440.
Town of Andrews........................  City Hall, 101 North Morgan
                                          Avenue, Andrews, SC 29510.
Town of Pawleys Island.................  Town Hall, 323 Myrtle Avenue,
                                          Pawleys Island, SC 29585.
Unincorporated Areas of Georgetown       Georgetown County Historic
 County.                                  Courthouse, Building Division
                                          and Permits, 129 Screven
                                          Street, Room 249, Georgetown,
                                          SC 29440.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Turner County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 19-08-0027S Preliminary Date: September 6, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Centerville....................  City Hall, 741 Main Street,
                                          Centerville, SD 57014.
City of Hurley.........................  City Hall, 701 Burns Place,
                                          Hurley, SD 57036.
City of Marion.........................  City Hall, 398 North Broadway
                                          Avenue, Marion, SD 57043.
City of Parker.........................  City Shops, 279 West 5th
                                          Street, Parker, SD 57053.
Town of Davis..........................  Map Repository, 261 East 4th
                                          Street, Davis, SD 57021.
Town of Monroe.........................  Map Repository, 210 West Maple
                                          Street, Monroe, SD 57047.
Unincorporated Areas of Turner County..  Turner County Planning and
                                          Zoning Office, 400 South Main
                                          Street, Parker, SD 57053.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Summit County, Utah and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 12-08-0134S Preliminary Date: November 12, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Park City......................  City Hall, 445 Marsac Avenue,
                                          Park City, UT 84060.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-01373 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P