[Federal Register: July 5, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 39095-39101]
[DOCID:fr05jy11-66]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651; FRL-9428-8]

Compatibility of Underground Storage Tank Systems With Biofuel
Blends

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final guidance.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing final guidance on how owners and operators of
underground storage tanks (USTs) can demonstrate compliance with the
Federal compatibility requirement for UST systems storing gasoline
containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or diesel containing greater
than 20 percent biodiesel.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651. All documents and public comments in the document
are available at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the UST
Docket in the EPA Headquarters Library, located at EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The telephone number for the UST Docket
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Barbery, Office of Underground
Storage Tanks, Mail Code 5402P, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
(703) 603-7137; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This guidance is for owners and operators of underground storage
tank (UST) systems (hereafter referred to as tank owners) regulated by
40 CFR Part 280, who intend to store gasoline blended with greater than
10 percent ethanol or diesel blended with greater than 20 percent
biodiesel.
    40 CFR Part 280, and therefore this guidance, applies in Indian
country and in states and territories (hereafter referred to as states)
that do not have state program approval (SPA). You can view a map of
SPA states with approved UST programs at: http://www.epa.gov/oust/
states/spamap.htm. SPA states may find this guidance relevant and
useful because they also have a compatibility requirement that is
similar to the Federal compatibility requirement. You can view state-
specific requirements for SPA states at: http://www.epa.gov/oust/
fedlaws/spa_frs.htm.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at the UST Docket in the EPA Docket Center, located at EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
telephone number for the UST Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. EPA established a docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651. All documents and public
comments in the document are available at http://www.regulations.gov.
In addition to being available in the UST docket, an electronic copy of
this guidance is also available on EPA's Office of Underground Storage
Tanks Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oust.

II. Background

A. Statutory Authority

    This guidance discusses the Federal UST compatibility requirement
promulgated under the authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. 6991b et seq. You can find
this requirement, which is referenced and discussed in the guidance, in
40 CFR 280.32.

B. Underground Storage Tank Compatibility Requirement

    To protect groundwater, a source of drinking water for nearly half
of all Americans, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulates UST systems storing petroleum or hazardous substances under
authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), as
amended. Tanks storing

gasoline or diesel mixed with ethanol or biodiesel are regulated,
although pure ethanol and biodiesel are not regulated substances under
Subtitle I of SWDA. For the purposes of this guidance, EPA considers an
ethanol-blended fuel to be any amount of ethanol mixed with petroleum
gasoline, and a biodiesel-blended fuel to be any amount of biodiesel
mixed with petroleum diesel.
    The Federal UST regulation in 40 CFR part 280 addresses preventing
and detecting UST system releases; the provision in 40 CFR 280.32
requires the UST system be compatible with the substance stored. As the
United States moves toward an increased use of biofuels, including
ethanol and biodiesel, compliance with the UST compatibility
requirement becomes even more important, since biofuel blends can
compromise the integrity of some UST system materials (see following
sections). Today's Federal Register notice issues guidance on how
owners and operators of UST systems storing fuels containing greater
than 10 percent ethanol or greater than 20 percent biodiesel can
demonstrate compliance with the UST compatibility requirement.
    As of September 30, 2010, there are approximately 600,000 regulated
USTs at 215,000 facilities nationwide. Based on the size and diversity
of the regulated community, states are in the best position to
implement UST program requirements, and are therefore primarily
responsible for the implementation of the UST program. Subtitle I of
SWDA, as amended, allows state UST programs approved by EPA to operate
in lieu of the Federal UST program. In order for EPA to approve a
state's program, that state's regulations must be at least as stringent
as the Federal UST regulations.
    An UST system, as defined by 40 CFR 280.12, includes ``* * * an
underground storage tank, connected underground piping, underground
ancillary equipment, and containment system, if any.'' Ancillary
equipment includes ``* * * any devices including, but not limited to,
such devices as piping, fittings, flanges, valves, and pumps used to
distribute, meter, or control the flow of regulated substances to and
from an UST.'' Fuel dispensers are not part of the UST system as
defined by 40 CFR 280.12. This means the compatibility requirement in
40 CFR 280.32 does not apply to dispensers.

C. Compatibility of UST Systems With Biofuels

    The Federal UST regulation in 40 CFR 280.32 requires, ``Owners and
operators must use an UST system made of or lined with materials that
are compatible with the substance stored in the UST system.'' EPA
understands that the chemical and physical properties of ethanol and
biodiesel can be more degrading to certain UST system materials than
petroleum alone, so it is important to ensure that all UST system
components in contact with the biofuel blend are materially compatible
with that fuel. Industry practice has been for tank owners to
demonstrate compatibility by using equipment that is certified or
listed by a nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory, such
as Underwriters Laboratories (UL). However, based on EPA's
understanding of UL listings, many UST system components in use today,
with the exception of certain tanks and piping, have not been tested by
UL or any other nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory
for compatibility with ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. In
addition, EPA is not aware of any nationally recognized, independent
testing laboratory that has performed testing on UST system components
with biodiesel-blended fuels. Absent certification or listing from a
nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory, or other
verification that equipment is compatible with anything beyond
conventional fuels, the suitability of these components for use with
ethanol or biodiesel blends comes into question.
1. Compatibility of UST Equipment With Ethanol-Blended Fuel
    Gasoline containing 10 percent or less ethanol has been used in
parts of the United States for many years. According to the Renewable
Fuels Association, ethanol is blended into over 90 percent of all
gasoline sold in the country.\1\ Recently, there has been a movement
toward higher blends of ethanol, due in part to recent Federal and
state laws encouraging the increased use of biofuels. Certain tanks and
piping have been tested and are listed by UL for compatibility with
higher-level ethanol blends. Many other components of the UST system,
such as leak detection devices, sealants, and containment sumps, may
not be listed by UL or another nationally recognized, independent
testing laboratory for compatibility with these blends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Renewable Fuels Association, ``Building Bridges to a More
Sustainable Future: 2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook.'' http://
www.ethanolrfa.org/page/-/
2011%20RFA%20Ethanol%20Industry%20Outlook.pdf?nocdn=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA expects Federal and state laws encouraging increased use of
biofuels to translate into a greater number of UST systems storing
ethanol blends, as well as a greater number of UST systems storing
ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. EPA is aware of material
compatibility concerns associated with some UST system equipment
storing higher ethanol blends, such as gasoline blended with up to 85
percent ethanol (E85), which is an alternative fuel used in flexible
fuel vehicles. EPA understands that in order to avoid compatibility
issues with E85, many tank owners who currently store E85 either
installed all new equipment designed to store high level ethanol blends
or upgraded certain components to handle the higher ethanol content.
Because it is common for tank owners to use their tanks for 30 years or
more, most UST systems currently in use are likely to contain
components not designed to store ethanol blends greater than 10
percent. Components of these older systems may not be certified or
listed by UL or another nationally recognized, independent testing
laboratory for use with these blends.
    Although very little data pertaining to the compatibility of UST
equipment with ethanol blends exist, literature suggests that
intermediate ethanol blends may have the most degrading effect on some
UST system materials. A recent study performed by U.S. Department of
Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicates some elastomeric
materials are particularly affected by intermediate ethanol blends and
certain sealants may not be suitable for any ethanol-blended fuels.\2\
A 2007 report from UL \3\ evaluated the effect of 85 percent ethanol
and 25 percent ethanol blends on dispenser components. Results
indicated some materials used in the manufacture of seals were degraded
more when exposed to the 25 percent ethanol test fluid than when
exposed to the 85 percent ethanol test fluid. Other literature suggests
alcohol fuel blends can be more aggressive toward certain materials
than independent fuel constituents, with maximum polymer swelling
observed at approximately 15 percent ethanol by volume.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ``Intermediate Ethanol Blends
Infrastructure Materials Compatibility Study: Elastomers, Metals,
and Sealants'' (March 2011). Available in the UST Docket under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
    \3\ Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., ``Underwriters Laboratories
Research Program on Material Compatibility and Test Protocols for
E85 Dispensing Equipment'' (December 2007). Available in the UST
Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
    \4\ Westbrook, P.A., ``Compatibility and Permeability of
Oxygenated Fuels to Materials in Underground Storage and Dispensing
Equipment'' (January 1999). Available in the UST Docket under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.

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

2. Compatibility of UST Equipment With Biodiesel-Blended Fuel
    In addition to ethanol, biodiesel is becoming increasingly
available across the United States, though its total use is
significantly less than that of ethanol-blended gasoline. EPA
understands some tank owners are storing blends of biodiesel and
petroleum diesel ranging from 2-99 percent biodiesel (B2-B99,
respectively) in UST systems, with the vast majority of biodiesel tanks
storing biodiesel at concentrations of 20 percent (B20) or less.
Although there is little information available regarding the
compatibility of UST system equipment with biodiesel blends, there are
known compatibility issues for pure biodiesel (B100). According to the
U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide, Fourth Edition,\5\ ``B100 will
degrade, soften, or seep through some hoses, gaskets, seals,
elastomers, glues, and plastics with prolonged exposure * * * Nitrile
rubber compounds, polypropylene, polyvinyl, and Tygon[reg] materials
are particularly vulnerable to B100.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ``Biodiesel Handling
and Use Guide, Fourth Edition.'' (2009). Available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the properties of very low blends of biodiesel (B5 or
less) are so similar to those of petroleum diesel that ASTM
International (ASTM) considers conventional diesel that contains up to
5 percent biodiesel to meet its ``Standard Specification for Diesel
Fuel Oils''.\6\ For biodiesel blends between 5 and 100 percent, there
is very little compatibility information; however, NREL's handling and
use guide concludes that biodiesel blends of B20 or less have less of
an effect on materials and very low blends of biodiesel (for example,
B5 and B2) ``* * * have no noticeable effect on materials
compatibility.'' \7\ In addition, fleet service sites have stored B20
in USTs for years, and EPA is not aware of compatibility-related
releases associated with those USTs storing B20. Based on these
experiences, some states developed UST compatibility policies similar
to today's final guidance, and they chose a mix of thresholds: B5, B10,
and B20.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ASTM Standard D975, 2010c ``Standard Specification for
Diesel Fuel Oils,'' ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010,
DOI: 10.1520/D0975-10C, www.astm.org.
    \7\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ``Biodiesel Handling
and Use Guide, Fourth Edition.'' (2009). Available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
    \8\ Wisconsin, Colorado, and South Carolina are examples of
states with compatibility policies that address biodiesel. These
documents are available in the UST Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-UST-2010-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA E15 Waivers

    In March 2009, EPA received a Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver
application to increase the allowable ethanol content of gasoline-
ethanol blended fuel from 10 percent ethanol to 15 percent ethanol.\9\
In October 2010 and January 2011, EPA conditionally granted partial
waivers that allow gasoline-ethanol blends containing greater than 10
percent ethanol up to 15 percent ethanol (E15) to be introduced into
commerce for use in 2001 and newer model year light-duty motor vehicles
(which include passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles such as some sport utility vehicles).\10\ If other
state, Federal, and industry practices also support the introduction of
E15 into commerce, EPA anticipates some tank owners may choose to store
higher percentages of ethanol in their UST systems when these fuels
become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 74 FR 18228 (April 21, 2009).
    \10\ See 75 FR 68093 (November 4, 2010), and 76 FR 4662 (January
26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that this action under the CAA has no legal bearing on
the requirement for tank owners to comply with all applicable UST
regulations, including the UST compatibility requirement in 40 CFR
280.32. Under the existing Federal UST regulation, tank owners must
meet the compatibility requirement for UST systems to ensure safe
storage of any regulated substance, including higher ethanol and
biodiesel blends.

E. November 17, 2010 Federal Register Notice and Request for Comments

    On November 17, 2010, EPA published draft guidance in the Federal
Register to solicit public comments on proposed options to help tank
owners in complying with the Federal compatibility requirement for UST
systems storing gasoline containing greater than 10 percent ethanol and
diesel containing a to-be-determined amount of biodiesel.\11\ EPA
solicited comments on a number of issues, including: UST components
that may be affected by biofuel blends; methods to demonstrate
compatibility; criteria for equipment manufacturer approval as a
compatibility method; applicability to biodiesel blends; ability to
demonstrate compatibility using the proposed guidance; and other
options that would sufficiently protect human health and the
environment. The 30 day public comment period ended December 17, 2010.
In response to the notice and proposed guidance, EPA received 27
comments from states, petroleum marketers, tank owners, biofuel groups,
equipment manufacturers, and others. These comments are available in
EPA's UST Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651 and are
summarized and addressed in the following section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 75 FR 70241 (November 17, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Public Comments

A. UST Components That May Be Affected by Biofuel Blends

    In the Federal Register notice, EPA asked for comments on the
proposed list of UST system components that may be affected by biofuel
blends. Most commenters generally supported the proposed list, though
some suggested additions or deletions. Many commenters suggested the
list should include components such as shear valves, fill and riser
caps, and vapor recovery equipment. EPA's intent is to identify all
equipment that falls under the definition of UST system in 40 CFR
280.12, which, if incompatible, would lead to a liquid release to the
environment. Therefore, EPA is adding the product shear valve and fill
and riser caps to the list because: if a product shear valve is
incompatible, product may be released if the dispenser is dislodged; if
a riser cap fails, the overfill flow restrictor may no longer alert the
transfer operator prior to overfilling a tank. EPA is not including
vapor recovery equipment because these components do not routinely
contain liquid product. Incompatibility of vapor recovery equipment
would be less likely to result in a liquid release to the environment.
    Based on commenters' input, EPA is removing from the list pipe
adhesives and glues, because these components are typically used as
part of the fiberglass piping and their compatibility is linked to that
piping. That is, an UST contractor installing a new UST system does not
have discretion over which pipe adhesives to use in the field. The pipe
manufacturer provides these adhesives, also commonly referred to as
glues, along with the piping as a complete set. Because these are not
discretionary components, tank installers have not historically
documented the type of pipe adhesive used during installation. As a
result, a tank owner would have difficulty finding records about the
type of pipe adhesives used in the piping system.

According to manufacturers, piping and its adhesives have been
compatible with ethanol blends for many years before UL included
ethanol blends as a test fluid. Therefore, pipe adhesives and glues are
covered under the general category of piping.
    Many commenters strongly recommended EPA include dispensers on the
list; however, EPA does not regulate aboveground equipment, such as
dispensers, under 40 CFR Part 280. Because EPA understands this
distinction might not be obvious to tank owners and there are known
material compatibility issues with dispenser components,\12\ EPA is
recommending tank owners determine if other Federal, state, or local
requirements apply to their storing and dispensing equipment. For
example, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has
listing requirements that apply to dispensing equipment,\13\ and many
state and local regulatory agencies adopted codes of practice such as
National Fire Prevention Association codes and the International Fire
Code. For information on which dispensers are listed for higher blends
of ethanol, please see Appendix F of the Department of Energy's
Handbook for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing E85.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Boyce, K.; Chapin, J.T. (2010). ``Dispensing Equipment
Testing with Mid-Level Ethanol/Gasoline Test Fluid: Summary
Report.'' NREL Report No. SR-7A20-49187. Available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
    \13\ 29 CFR 1910.106.
    \14\ U.S. Department of Energy, ``Handbook for Handling,
Storing, and Dispensing E85.'' (2010). Available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is making one additional change by including further
clarification regarding newly installed equipment versus equipment that
has undergone maintenance where one or more components is replaced. For
newly installed equipment comprised of multiple individual components
and assembled by the manufacturer, some manufacturers provide a
compatibility certification for the equipment as a whole. For example,
a manufacturer may certify the entire submersible turbine pump as being
compatible. The submersible turbine pump certification would include
all components (gaskets, sealants, bushings, etc.) of the equipment
assembled by the manufacturer. Therefore, an owner may obtain one
certification for newly installed manufacturer-assembled equipment, as
long as the manufacturer certifies the entire piece of equipment as
compatible. However, over the lifetime of a typical UST system,
equipment is likely to require maintenance, which may involve replacing
parts like gaskets, sealants, and bushings. It is important for tank
owners to use compatible replacement parts, especially since these
components are sometimes constructed of materials that are not
compatible with biofuel blends. Therefore, equipment components (such
as gaskets, sealants, bushings, etc.) replaced after the equipment was
originally installed will not be covered by the original manufacturer's
approval.

B. Methods To Demonstrate Compatibility and Criteria for Manufacturer
Certification

    In the proposed guidance, EPA asked for comment on the
appropriateness and feasibility of using these methods to demonstrate
compatibility:
     Certification or listing by an independent test
laboratory;
     Equipment manufacturer approval; or
     Another method determined by the implementing agency to
sufficiently protect human health and the environment. EPA will work
with states as they evaluate other acceptable methods.
    Many commenters, including states, were concerned with the
manufacturer approval option as a way to demonstrate UST system
compatibility. Some thought this method would be better supported if
manufacturers submitted compatibility test data as qualitative proof of
compatibility. We acknowledge that the element of testing may make
commenters more comfortable with allowing manufacturer's self-
certification. However, absent nationally recognized compatibility test
protocols for each component and general agreement on what constitutes
acceptable test results, regulatory agencies are not in a position to
assess the sufficiency of the tests.
    After additional discussions with states and industry, EPA
concluded that equipment manufacturers are uniquely suited to attest to
the compatibility of their products and have an incentive to make
truthful claims regarding use of their equipment with biofuel blends.
Further, the manufacturer certification option is critical for
components that do not have a certification or listing by a nationally
recognized, independent testing laboratory. For example, biodiesel
blends are not addressed by any nationally recognized, independent
testing laboratory standards for UST equipment.\15\ Therefore, EPA is
keeping the manufacturer certification option in today's final
guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ UL does not require special investigation for products
intended to use biodiesel blends up to B5 that meets ASTM D975 fuel
quality specifications. Available at: http://www.ul.com/global/eng/
pages/offerings/industries/appliancesandhvac/gasoilsolidfuel/
release/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters warned that tank owners might obtain product
brochures or other information with a general claim such as, biofuel-
compatible, which may pertain to some biofuel blends but not others. To
address this concern, EPA is including an additional element under the
manufacturer's certification option to specify the range of biofuel
blends the component is compatible with. This will better ensure
components are compatible with the fuel blend stored.
    Some commenters recommended EPA allow a Professional Engineer
(P.E.) to make a compatibility determination. Although using P.E.s to
determine compatibility is an option in some states, EPA understands
tank owners are not using this option. There are numerous types of
P.E.s, any of which is not likely to cover all aspects of materials
science and UST equipment compatibility. If a tank owner is not able to
provide information about the type of equipment at the facility, a P.E.
would not be able to make a well informed decision regarding the
compatibility of below-ground equipment with any fuel. Therefore, for
the purposes of the Federal UST program as implemented under 40 CFR
parts 280 and 281, EPA does not believe blanket acceptance of P.E.
certification is an appropriate approach.
    Similarly, some commenters recommended EPA allow tank owners to use
other credible third-party determinations, such as a white paper on
compatibility, to demonstrate compatibility. Without reference to an
existing model of this idea, EPA does not think it is appropriate to
speculate as to what criteria a white paper should meet or what other
third-party groups would be credible. EPA's options in today's guidance
allow flexibility for implementing agencies to adopt other methods if,
in the future, a white paper or other tool is produced and implementing
agencies determine it is a credible and appropriate demonstration of
compatibility.
    Some commenters suggested that EPA allow the National Work Group on
Leak Detection Evaluations (NWGLDE) to act as an independent third
party, since NWGLDE is involved in evaluating leak detection equipment.
However, NWGLDE specifically does not make claims regarding material
compatibility of leak detection equipment with biofuels, and it is
unlikely to do so in the future. Therefore in today's final

guidance, EPA is not including use of NWGLDE as an option to
demonstrate compatibility.
    Some commenters did not think it is appropriate to allow
implementing agencies to use other options because this would lead to a
patchwork of compatibility standards across the country. EPA
understands the difficulty for tank owners to keep up with UST
requirements in 56 states. However, states' discretion is a hallmark of
the UST program. Currently, 38 states have UST programs approved by EPA
to operate in lieu of the Federal UST program. These 38 states with
State Program Approval (SPA) may or may not rely on the recommendations
in this guidance. EPA will continue to allow other options, as long as
those options sufficiently protect human health and the environment.
    Other commenters expressed concern about the proposed methods
because they do not allow for some equipment to be used. Commenters
said there could be an instance where a certification or listing from a
nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory was not available
at the time of manufacture, and the manufacturer is no longer in
business or is unwilling to certify the component is compatible. EPA
does not see a way to accommodate this situation while minimizing risk
to the environment. If tank owners cannot demonstrate compatibility,
they would not be able to store ethanol blends greater than 10 percent
or biodiesel blends greater than 20 percent in the UST system.
    Finally, some commenters suggested adding ``nationally recognized''
to ``independent test laboratory.'' EPA acknowledges that some states,
other Federal agencies, and organizations refer to UL and other third
party testing labs as ``nationally recognized testing laboratories
(NRTLs).'' To maintain consistency with 40 CFR part 280, today's
guidance will use the term ``nationally recognized, independent testing
laboratory.'' EPA considers ``nationally recognized, independent
testing laboratories'' to be essentially the same as NRTLs.

C. Biodiesel Blends

    In the November 17, 2010 Federal Register notice, EPA asked
commenters if we should include biodiesel blends in the guidance. The
majority of commenters agreed that USTs storing biodiesel blends should
be subject to this guidance. EPA also requested feedback on what blend
would be appropriate as a cutoff--that is, up to what blend level is
the compatibility of biodiesel with UST equipment similar to the
compatibility of petroleum diesel with UST equipment, and at what blend
level do the known incompatibilities and the unknown risks necessitate
further assurance of compatibility? Five percent biodiesel (B5), which
is most commonly sold at retail facilities, and B20, which is more
commonly used for vehicle fleets, were the two main options. Of those
commenters who had an opinion on what biodiesel blend would be a
reasonable cutoff, the majority chose B20, based largely on field
experience and lack of compatibility issues with this blend. Some cited
a report authored by Ken Wilcox \16\ on leak detection devices used in
biodiesel applications, though EPA notes this document addresses leak
detection functionality, but not compatibility. More specific to
compatibility, the aforementioned Biodiesel Handling and Use Guide \17\
indicates that UST system materials should not experience compatibility
issues with B20, so long as the biodiesel component meets fuel quality
requirements in ASTM D6751.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Ken Wilcox Associates, Inc., ``Effects of Biodiesel Blends
On Leak Detection for Underground Storage Tanks and Lines,'' August
18, 2010. Available in the UST Docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
UST-2010-0651.
    \17\ National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ``Biodiesel Handling
and Use Guide, Fourth Edition.'' (2009). Available in the UST Docket
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-UST-2010-0651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters recommended EPA set the threshold at less than 20
percent biodiesel, since compatibility is more certain for biodiesel
blends up to B5. For example, UL issued a statement indicating that
biodiesel blends up to B5 meeting the fuel quality specification, ASTM
D975, will not require special investigation by UL. Similarly, the
Federal Trade Commission does not require B5 that meets ASTM D975 to be
labeled, making it indistinguishable from conventional diesel fuel.
Although this certainty does not exist for biodiesel blends between 5-
20 percent, many states have experience with USTs storing biodiesel
blends up to B20, and are not aware of any compatibility issues
associated with those blends. Further, many fleet service sites,
including state and local governments, use B20 to meet Federally
mandated alternative fuel vehicle requirements and have experienced no
compatibility problems with their UST equipment at this blend level.
EPA is setting the threshold in today's final guidance at B20 because:
The properties of B5 are so similar to petroleum diesel; field
experience with B20 has been generally positive; little information
exists on compatibility of UST equipment with biodiesel blends between
20-99 percent; and there are known compatibility issues with pure
biodiesel. Because nearly all biodiesel blends used today are B20 or
less, this guidance in effect applies to a small number of regulated
USTs storing very high blends of biodiesel. EPA intends to investigate
biodiesel compatibility further in our proposed UST regulation, which
we expect to release for public comment in summer 2011. If you have
additional data on biodiesel compatibility, please provide it during
that public comment period.

D. Ability To Demonstrate Compatibility

    While commenters generally agreed with the options for
demonstrating compatibility, they also emphasized that, largely due to
a lack of records, a majority of tank owners would not be able to
demonstrate compatibility of their existing UST systems with any new
fuel. Despite this, commenters did not generally support or suggest
using equipment that was not demonstrated to be compatible. EPA
acknowledges the challenge of maintaining records for UST system
components, as well as the burden associated with tracking down third
party listings or manufacturer certifications for each component.
However, the Federal UST compatibility requirement has been in place
for over twenty years, and tank owners decide whether to store higher
percentages of biofuels. Tank owners who intend to store ethanol blends
greater than 10 percent ethanol or biodiesel blends greater than 20
percent biodiesel will want to consider UST system compatibility as
part of their overall business decisions. EPA believes most major
components (tanks and pipes) are compatible with biofuel blends, and
tank owners often have records of these components. It will be more
difficult to obtain records for the smaller components, such as
fittings, sealants, and boots, and therefore it will be more difficult
to determine compatibility for these components. Because these smaller
components are usually found in sumps, they can be accessed without
excavation and changed out at a cost substantially less than the cost
of an entire UST system replacement.
    Many commenters felt the burden of demonstrating compatibility for
individual UST components should not be on tank owners but on equipment
manufacturers. The Federal UST regulation does not apply to UST
equipment manufacturers; it only applies to UST system owners and
operators. Today's guidance does not preclude a tank owner from
obtaining assistance to make a compatibility

determination. In some states, a tank owner is assisted by a state-
certified UST installer to identify the components in question and
determine whether or not they are certified or listed by a nationally
recognized, independent testing laboratory or otherwise approved by the
equipment manufacturer for use with the intended fuel blend.

E. Other Comments

1. Functionality of UST Equipment
    Although the guidance addresses how tank owners can comply with the
UST regulation compatibility requirement for ethanol blends greater
than 10 percent and biodiesel blends greater than 20 percent, many
commenters asked EPA to expand the scope of the proposed guidance to
address both compatibility and functionality with regard to leak
detection equipment. EPA acknowledges the operability of some UST
equipment may also be impacted by new fuels. In a separate effort, we
are working to assess the functionality of leak detection equipment
with ethanol blends. EPA expects that effort will provide information
about what kinds of leak detection devices are suitable for use in
ethanol blends. Also, some UST stakeholders are currently investigating
functionality of other UST system components. EPA may be in a better
position to issue guidance on UST equipment functionality after
research and testing are complete.
2. Additional Tools To Assist Tank Owners
    Some commenters suggested the most time-consuming portion of
demonstrating compatibility is obtaining the documentation, and a tool
to make the documentation more readily available would be helpful. In a
separate effort, EPA will work with states and other stakeholders to
consider useful resources to facilitate demonstrating compatibility.
3. Alternatives to Compatibility
    In the proposed Federal Register notice, EPA asked if there were
alternative methods tank owners could rely on or activities they could
perform that would sufficiently protect human health and the
environment. Commenters' suggestions included: conducting more frequent
inspections and monitoring, performing a risk-based assessment, and
using a secondarily contained UST system with interstitial monitoring.
Because the regulatory requirement for compatibility is already in
place and these alternatives would require a regulatory change to
implement, EPA intends to consider these and other alternatives as part
of a proposed UST regulation revision.

IV. Final Guidance

Guidance on the Compatibility of Underground Storage Tank Systems With
Ethanol Blends Greater Than 10 Percent and Biodiesel Blends Greater
Than 20 Percent

    This guidance discusses how owners and operators of underground
storage tanks (USTs) regulated under 40 CFR part 280 can demonstrate
compliance with EPA's compatibility requirement (40 CFR 280.32) when
storing gasoline containing greater than 10 percent ethanol or diesel
containing greater than 20 percent biodiesel. In 1988, EPA promulgated
the compatibility requirement (and all other UST requirements) under
the authority of Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended.
    This guidance applies in Indian country and in states that do not
have state program approval (SPA). Because SPA states must have a
compatibility requirement that is similar to the Federal compatibility
requirement, SPA states may find this guidance relevant and useful to
them as well.
    The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance. The
statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document
contain legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation
itself, nor does not it change or substitute for those provisions and
regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on
EPA, states, or the regulated community.
    In March 2009, EPA received a Clean Air Act (CAA) waiver
application to increase the allowable ethanol content of a gasoline-
ethanol blended fuel from 10 percent ethanol to 15 percent ethanol.\18\
In October 2010 and January 2011, EPA conditionally granted partial
waivers, allowing gasoline-ethanol blends that contain greater than 10
percent ethanol up to 15 percent ethanol (E15) to be introduced into
commerce for use in 2001 and newer model year light-duty motor vehicles
(which include passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty
passenger vehicles such as some sport utility vehicles).\19\ If other
state, Federal, and industry practices also support this introduction,
E15 may become available in the marketplace. As a result, EPA
anticipates that some UST system owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in their UST systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 74 FR 18228 (April 21, 2009).
    \19\ See 75 FR 68093 (November 4, 2010), and 76 FR 4662 (January
26, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please note that EPA's partial waiver under the CAA has no legal
bearing on an UST owner or operator's requirement to comply with all
applicable Federal UST regulations, including the UST compatibility
requirement in 40 CFR 280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure the safe
storage of higher ethanol and biodiesel blends, or any other regulated
substance, owners and operators must meet the existing compatibility
requirement for UST systems.
    The UST compatibility requirement in 40 CFR 280.32 states, ``Owners
and operators must use an UST system made of or lined with materials
that are compatible with the substance stored in the UST system.''
Because the chemical and physical properties of ethanol and biodiesel
blends may make them more aggressive to certain UST system materials
than petroleum, it is important that all UST system components in
contact with ethanol or biodiesel blends are materially compatible with
that fuel.

UST System Components That May Be Affected by Biofuel Blends

    To be in compliance with 40 CFR 280.32, owners and operators of UST
systems storing ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10 percent ethanol
or biodiesel-blended fuels greater than 20 percent biodiesel must use
compatible equipment. EPA considers the following parts of the UST
system to be critical for demonstrating compatibility:
     Tank or internal tank lining
     Piping
     Line leak detector
     Flexible connectors
     Drop tube
     Spill and overfill prevention equipment
     Submersible turbine pump and components
     Sealants (including pipe dope and thread sealant),
fittings, gaskets, o-rings, bushings, couplings, and boots
     Containment sumps (including submersible turbine sumps and
under dispenser containment)
     Release detection floats, sensors, and probes
     Fill and riser caps
     Product shear valve
    For newly installed equipment comprised of multiple individual
components such as submersible turbine pump assemblies, UST system
owners and operators may obtain a certification from the equipment
manufacturer documenting compatibility for the entire assembly. If
equipment requires maintenance and components of that equipment (for
example, sealants and gaskets) are

subsequently added or replaced, manufacturer approval of the overall
component is not sufficient to demonstrate compatibility.

Options for Meeting the Compatibility Requirement

    Acceptable methods for owners and operators of UST systems storing
ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10 percent ethanol or biodiesel-
blended fuels greater than 20 percent biodiesel to demonstrate
compatibility under 40 CFR 280.32 are:
     Use components that are certified or listed by a
nationally recognized, independent testing laboratory (for example,
Underwriters Laboratories) for use with the fuel stored;
     Use components approved by the manufacturer to be
compatible with the fuel stored. EPA considers acceptable forms of
manufacturer approvals to:
    [cir] Be in writing;
    [cir] Indicate an affirmative statement of compatibility;
    [cir] Specify the range of biofuel blends the component is
compatible with; and
    [cir] Be from the equipment manufacturer, not another entity (such
as the installer or distributor); or
     Use another method determined by the implementing agency
to sufficiently protect human health and the environment. EPA will work
with states as they evaluate other acceptable methods.
    Currently, a note in 40 CFR 280.32 allows owners and operators to
use the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice 1626,
an industry code of practice, to meet the compatibility requirement for
ethanol-blended fuels. The original version of API 1626 (1st ed. 1985,
reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10 percent ethanol blended with
gasoline and is not applicable to meet the compatibility requirement
for ethanol blends greater than 10 percent. In August 2010, API
published a second edition of API 1626. The second edition addresses
ethanol blends greater than 10 percent and may be used to demonstrate
compatibility for UST systems storing ethanol blends.
    If the UST owner and operator is not able to demonstrate that the
UST system is made of materials that are compatible with the ethanol
blend or biodiesel blend stored, according to 40 CFR 280.32, the UST
owner and operator may not use the system to store those fuels.
    State UST program regulations may be more stringent than the
Federal UST regulations. In addition to state and Federal UST
requirements, UST system owners and operators may be subject to other
Federal, state, or local regulatory requirements (for example, U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, National Fire Prevention
Association, and International Fire Code). UST system owners and
operators should check with their state and local agencies to determine
other requirements.
    If you have questions about this guidance, please contact Andrea
Barbery at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 17, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2011-16738 Filed 7-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70871-70873]
[DOCID:fr24no08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0912]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Potomac River, National Harbor,
MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone upon specified
waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waters during a fireworks display
launched from a discharge barge located at National Harbor, in Prince
Georges County, Maryland. This safety zone is intended to protect the
maritime public in a portion of the Potomac River.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on
November 28, 2008, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 6:30
p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on November 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2008-0912 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road,
Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Mr. Ronald L. Houck, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On September 16, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Potomac River,
National Harbor, MD'' in the Federal Register (73 FR 53398). We
received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting
was requested, and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying its effective date would
be contrary to the public interest, because immediate action is needed
to ensure the safety of the maritime public on the Potomac River
against the hazards associated with fireworks displays, such as the
accidental discharge of fireworks and falling hot embers or other
debris.

Background and Purpose

    Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near
the navigable waters of the United States. The accidental discharge of
fireworks and falling hot embers or other debris are a safety concern
during such events. The Coast Guard has the authority to impose
appropriate controls on marine events that may pose a threat to
persons, vessels and facilities under its jurisdiction. The purpose of
this rule is to promote maritime safety, and to protect mariners
transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a
fireworks display. The rule is needed to ensure the safety of the
maritime public in a portion of the waterway that is expected to be
populated by vessel operators and persons seeking to view the fireworks
display, as well as mariners operating unknowingly too close to the
fireworks discharge site.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No
public meeting was requested and none was held. We will implement a
temporary final rule with no changes to the NPRM.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. This exception is based on the fact that
there is little vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and
commercial fishing in the area during the enforcement period. Because
the safety zone lies entirely outside the federal navigation channel,
vessel operators may transit safely around the zone. For the above
reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic
impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending
to operate, remain or anchor within certain waters of the Potomac
River, at National Harbor, Maryland, from 6:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m.
on November 28, 2008, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from
6:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on November 29, 2008. Because the zone is
of limited duration, it is expected that there will be minimal
disruption to the maritime community. Before the effective period, the
Coast Guard will

issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river to
allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected
area. In addition, smaller vessels not constrained by their draft,
which are more likely to be small entities, may transit around the
safety zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0912 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0912  Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Potomac River,
National Harbor, MD.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port Baltimore, Maryland means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
who has been authorized by the Captain

of the Port Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf.
    (b) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
of the Potomac River, surface to bottom, within an area bounded by a
line drawn from the following points: latitude 38[deg]47'18'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'01'' W; thence to latitude 38[deg]47'11'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'26'' W; thence to latitude 38[deg]47'25'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'33'' W; thence to latitude 38[deg]47'32'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'08'' W; thence to the point of origin, located at
National Harbor, Maryland. All coordinates reference North American
Datum 1983.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations governing safety
zones, found in 33 CFR 165.23, apply to the safety zone described in
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited, unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the
Port Baltimore, Maryland to seek permission to transit the area. The
Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can
be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing
light or other means, the person or vessel shall proceed as directed.
If permission is granted, all persons or vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This rule is effective from 6:30 p.m.
through 9:30 p.m. on November 28, 2008, and if necessary due to
inclement weather, from 6:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on November 29,
2008.

    Dated: October 30, 2008.
Austin J. Gould,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E8-27841 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25383]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0922; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-38]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; West Palm Beach, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace in the West Palm Beach, FL
area, as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been
developed at Palm Beach County Park Airport. Airspace reconfiguration
is necessary for the continued safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations within the West Palm Beach, FL airspace
area. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the
airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 27, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Palm
Beach County Park Airport, West Palm Beach, FL (78 FR 6258). Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.7-mile radius at Palm Beach County Park Airport,
West Palm Beach, FL. New Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have
been developed for the airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary
for the continued safety and management of IFR operations within the
West Palm Beach, FL, airspace area. The geographic coordinates for Palm
Beach County Park Airport also are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs
aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace in the West Palm Beach, FL, area.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 West Palm Beach, FL [Amended]

West Palm Beach, Palm Beach International Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]40'59'' N., long. 80[deg]5'44'' W.)
Palm Beach County Park Airport
    (Lat. 26[deg]35'35'' N., long. 80[deg]5'6'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 10-mile radius of Palm Beach International Airport, and
within a 6.7-mile radius of Palm Beach County Park Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 22, 2013 .
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-10212 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P