[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12288-12295]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04254]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372; FRL-10005-82-OW]

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 2020
Issuance of the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activity

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: All ten of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Regions
are proposing for public comment the 2020 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater discharges
associated with industrial activity, also referred to as the ``2020
Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)'' or the ``proposed permit.'' The
proposed permit, once finalized, will replace the EPA's existing MSGP
that will expire on June 4, 2020. The EPA proposes to issue this permit
for five (5) years, and to provide permit coverage to eligible
operators in all areas of the country where the EPA is the NPDES
permitting authority, including Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
and New Mexico, Indian country lands, Puerto Rico, the District of
Columbia, and most U.S. territories and protectorates. The EPA seeks
comment on the proposed permit and on the accompanying fact sheet,
which contains supporting documentation. This Federal Register document
describes the proposed permit and includes specific topics on which the
EPA is particularly seeking comment. Where the EPA proposes a new or
modified provision, the Agency also solicits comment on alternatives to
the proposal and/or not moving forward with the proposal in the final
permit. The EPA encourages the public to read the fact sheet to better
understand the proposed permit. The proposed permit and fact sheet can
be found at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2020. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before April 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-
2019-0372, by any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Electronic versions of this proposed permit and fact sheet
are available on the EPA's NPDES website at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
All submissions received must include the Docket ID No. for this
proposed permit. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the
proposed permit, contact the appropriate EPA Regional office listed in
Section I.F of this action, or Emily Halter, EPA Headquarters, Office
of Water, Office of Wastewater Management (4203M), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This section is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How do I submit written comments?
    C. Will public hearings be held on this action?
    D. What process will the EPA follow to finalize the proposed
permit?
    E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the proposed permit?
II. Background of Permit
III. Summary of Proposed Permit
    A. 2015 MSGP Litigation and National Academies Study
    B. Summary of Proposed Permit Changes
    C. Other Requests for Comment
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
V. Cost Analysis
VI. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
VII. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
VIII. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
IX. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The proposed permit covers stormwater discharges from industrial
facilities in the 30 sectors shown below:

    Sector A--Timber Products.
    Sector B--Paper and Allied Products Manufacturing.
    Sector C--Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing.
    Sector D--Asphalt Paving and Roofing Materials Manufactures and
Lubricant Manufacturers.
    Sector E--Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Product
Manufacturing.
    Sector F--Primary Metals.
    Sector G--Metal Mining (Ore Mining and Dressing).
    Sector H--Coal Mines and Coal Mining-Related Facilities.
    Sector I--Oil and Gas Extraction.
    Sector J--Mineral Mining and Dressing.
    Sector K--Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage or Disposal.
    Sector L--Landfills and Land Application Sites.
    Sector M--Automobile Salvage Yards.
    Sector N--Scrap Recycling Facilities.
    Sector O--Steam Electric Generating Facilities.
    Sector P--Land Transportation.
    Sector Q--Water Transportation.
    Sector R--Ship and Boat Building or Repairing Yards.
    Sector S--Air Transportation Facilities.
    Sector T--Treatment Works.
    Sector U--Food and Kindred Products.
    Sector V--Textile Mills, Apparel, and other Fabric Products
Manufacturing.
    Sector W--Furniture and Fixtures.
    Sector X--Printing and Publishing.
    Sector Y--Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries.
    Sector Z--Leather Tanning and Finishing.
    Sector AA--Fabricated Metal Products.
    Sector AB--Transportation Equipment, Industrial or Commercial
Machinery.
    Sector AC--Electronic, Electrical, Photographic and Optical
Goods.
    Sector AD--Reserved for Facilities Not Covered Under Other
Sectors and Designated by the Director.
    Coverage under the proposed 2020 MSGP is available to operators of
eligible facilities located in areas where the EPA is the permitting
authority. A list of eligible areas is included in Appendix C of the
proposed 2020 MSGP.

B. How do I submit written comments?

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

C. Will public hearings be held on this action?

    The EPA has not scheduled any public hearings to receive public
comment concerning the proposed permit. All persons will continue to
have the right to provide written comments during the public comment
period. However, interested persons may request a public hearing
pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12 concerning the proposed permit. Requests for
a public hearing must be sent or delivered in writing to the same
address as provided above for public comments prior to the close of the
comment period and must state the nature of the issue the requester
would like raised in the hearing. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, the EPA
shall hold a public hearing if it finds, on the basis of requests, a
significant degree of public interest in a public hearing on the
proposed permit. If the EPA decides to hold a public hearing, a public
notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing will be made at
least 30 days prior to the hearing. Any person may provide written or
oral statements and data pertaining to the proposed permit at the
public hearing.

D. What process will the EPA follow to finalize the proposed permit?

    After the close of the public comment period, the EPA intends to
issue a final permit. This permit will not be issued until all
significant comments have been considered and appropriate changes have
been made to the proposed permit. The EPA's responses to public
comments received will be included in the docket as part of the final
issuance. Once the final permit becomes effective, eligible operators
of industrial facilities may seek authorization under the 2020 MSGP.

E. Who are the EPA regional contacts for the proposed permit?

    For the EPA Region 1, contact David Gray at:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 2, contact Stephen Venezia at:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or for Puerto Rico contact Sergio Bosques at:
(787) 977-5838 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 3, contact Carissa Moncavage at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 5, contact Matthew Gluckman at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 6, contact Nasim Jahan at:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 7, contact Mark Matthews at:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 8, contact Amy Clark at:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 9, contact Eugene Bromley at:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For the EPA Region 10, contact Margaret McCauley at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background of Permit

    Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 added section 402(p)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which directed the EPA to develop a
phased approach to regulate stormwater discharges under the NPDES
program. The EPA published a final regulation on the first phase on
this program on November 16, 1990, establishing permit application
requirements for ``stormwater discharges associated with industrial
activity.'' See 55 FR 48063. The EPA defined the term ``stormwater
discharge associated with industrial activity'' in a comprehensive
manner to cover a wide variety of facilities. See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14).
The EPA proposes to issue the MSGP under this statutory and regulatory
authority.

III. Summary of Proposed Permit

    The proposed 2020 MSGP, once finalized, will replace the existing
MSGP, which was issued for a five-year term on June 4, 2015 (see 80 FR
34403). The 2020 MSGP will cover stormwater discharges from industrial
facilities in areas where the EPA is the NPDES permitting authority in
the EPA's Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and will also now
provide coverage for industrial facilities where the EPA is the NPDES
permitting authority in the EPA's Region 4. As proposed, this permit
will cover facilities in the state of Idaho; the schedule for the
transfer of NPDES Permitting Authority to Idaho for stormwater general
permits is July 1, 2021. The geographic coverage of this permit is
listed in Appendix C of the proposed permit. This permit will authorize
stormwater discharges from industrial facilities in 30 sectors, as
shown in section I.A. of this document.
    The proposed permit is similar to the existing permit and is
structured in nine (9) parts: General requirements that apply to all
facilities (e.g., eligibility requirements, effluent limitations,
inspection and monitoring requirements, Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) requirements, and reporting and recordkeeping
requirements) (Parts 1-7); industrial sector-specific conditions (Part
8); and state and Tribal-specific requirements applicable to facilities
located within individual states or Indian Country (Part 9).
Additionally, the appendices provide proposed forms for the Notice of
Intent (NOI), the Notice of Termination (NOT), the Conditional No
Exposure Exclusion, the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), and the
annual report, as well as step-by-step procedures for determining
eligibility with respect to protecting historic properties and
endangered species, and for calculating site-specific, hardness-
dependent benchmarks.

A. 2015 MSGP Litigation and National Academies Study

    After the EPA issued the 2015 MSGP, numerous environmental non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) \1\ challenged the permit, two
industry groups \2\ intervened, and a Settlement Agreement was signed
in 2016 with all parties. The settlement agreement did not affect the
2015 MSGP but stipulated several terms and conditions that the EPA
agreed to address in the proposed 2020 MSGP. One key term from the
settlement agreement stipulated that the EPA fund a study conducted by
the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's
National Research Council (NRC) on potential permit improvements,
focused primarily on monitoring requirements, for consideration in the
next MSGP. In the settlement agreement, the EPA agreed that, when
drafting the proposed 2020 MSGP, it will consider recommendations
suggested in the completed NRC Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Environmental NGOs included Waterkeeper Alliance,
Apalachicola Riverkeeper, Galveston Baykeeper, Raritan Baykeeper,
Inc. d/b/a NY/NJ Baykeeper, Snake River Waterkeeper, Ecological
Rights Foundation, Our Children's Earth Foundation, Puget
Soundkeeper, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, and Conservation Law
Foundation (collectively, ``Petitioners'').
    \2\ Industry intervenors included Federal Water Quality
Coalition and Federal Storm Water Association. i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NRC delivered the results of their study, Improving the EPA
Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Stormwater Discharges, in
February of 2019. The NRC study can be found at the following website:
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25355/improving-the-epa-multi-sector-general-permit-for-industrial-stormwater-discharges.
    The NRC study's overarching recommendation is that the MSGP is too
static and should continuously improve based on best available science,
new data, and technological advances. The following is a high-level
summary of the NRC study's recommendations the EPA addressed in the
proposed 2020 MSGP, organized by category. The proposed Fact Sheet
provides further discussion of the NRC study's recommendations and the
settlement agreement terms and how they were addressed in the proposed
permit.
    Where the EPA proposes a new or modified provision, the EPA also
solicits comment on alternatives to the proposal and/or not moving
forward with the proposal in the final permit. A more comprehensive
discussion of the NRC study recommendations can be found in Part III of
the fact sheet.
     Recommendations for MSGP pollutant monitoring requirements
and benchmark thresholds:
    [cir] Industry-wide monitoring for pH, total suspended solids
(TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) as basic indicators of the
effectiveness of stormwater controls employed on site. To address this
recommendation, the EPA proposes to require ``universal benchmark
monitoring'' for pH, TSS, and COD for all facilities. See Part 4.2.1 of
the proposed permit and fact sheet.
    [cir] A process to periodically review and update sector-specific
benchmark monitoring requirements to incorporate new scientific
information. To address this recommendation, the EPA proposes revisions
to the MSGP's sector-specific fact sheets, and proposes specific
benchmark monitoring for Sectors I, P, and R. See Parts <IP_ADDRESS> and 8,
and Appendix Q of the proposed permit and fact sheet.
    [cir] Benchmark levels based on the criteria designed to protect
aquatic ecosystems from adverse impacts from short term or intermittent
exposures, which to date have generally been acute criteria. To address
this recommendation, the EPA proposes to update and/or requests comment
on benchmark thresholds for aluminum,

selenium, arsenic, cadmium, magnesium, iron, and copper based on the
latest toxicity information. See Parts <IP_ADDRESS> and 8 of the proposed
fact sheet.
     Recommendations for sampling and data collection:
    [cir] Allowance and promotion of the use of composite sampling for
benchmark monitoring for all pollutants except those affected by
storage time. To address this recommendation, the EPA proposes an
explicit clarification that composite sampling is allowed for benchmark
monitoring. See Part 4.1.4 of the proposed permit and fact sheet.
    [cir] For permittees with average results that meet the benchmark,
a minimum of continued annual sampling to ensure appropriate stormwater
management throughout the remainder of the permit term. To address this
recommendation, as part of proposed ``universal benchmark monitoring''
for pH, TSS, and COD for all facilities in Part <IP_ADDRESS>, the EPA
proposes that facilities monitor and report for these three parameters
on a quarterly basis for the entire permit term, regardless of any
benchmark threshold exceedances, to ensure facilities have current
indicators of the effectiveness of their stormwater control measures
throughout the permit term. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the proposed permit and
fact sheet.
    [cir] A tiered approach to monitoring that recognizes the varying
levels of risk among different industrial activities and that balances
the overall burden to industry and permitting agencies. To address this
recommendation, the EPA proposes to have the following tiered approach
to monitoring: (1) A possible ``inspection-only'' option available to
low-risk facilities (see Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the proposed permit and fact
sheet and associated request for comment in that Part); (2) require new
``universal benchmark monitoring'' for pH, TSS, and COD; (3) continue
existing benchmark monitoring requirements from the 2015 MSGP; and (4)
require continued benchmark monitoring as part of the proposed
Additional Implementation Measures (AIM) protocol for repeated
benchmark exceedances. See Parts 4.2. and 5.2 in the proposed permit
and fact sheet.
     Recommendations for stormwater retention to minimize
pollutant loads:
    [cir] Incentives to encourage industrial stormwater infiltration or
capture and use where appropriate. The EPA acknowledges the importance
of protecting groundwater during the use of stormwater infiltration
systems. To address this recommendation, the EPA proposes infiltration,
where the operator can demonstrate to the EPA that it is appropriate
and feasible for site-specific conditions, as an alternative or adjunct
to structural source controls and/or treatment controls required in
proposed Tier 3 AIM responses. See Part <IP_ADDRESS>.b of the proposed
permit and fact sheet.
    In addition to the NRC study, the following are other key terms
from the 2016 Settlement Agreement and how and where the EPA addressed
those terms in the proposed permit:
     Comparative analysis. The EPA agreed to review examples of
numeric and non-numeric effluent limitations (including complete
prohibitions, if any) applicable to the discharge of industrial
stormwater that have been set in other jurisdictions and evaluate the
bases for those limitations. The EPA includes this analysis, titled
``MSGP Effluent Limit Comparative Analysis,'' in the docket for this
proposed permit (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372).
     Preventing recontamination of federal Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites.
The EPA agreed to propose for comment an expansion to all the EPA
Regions of the existing eligibility criterion regarding operators
discharging to federal CERCLA sites that currently applies to operators
in Region 10 in the 2015 MSGP. See Part 1.1.7 of the proposed permit
and fact sheet.
     Eligibility criterion regarding coal-tar sealcoat. The EPA
agreed to propose for comment a new eligibility condition for operators
who, during their coverage under the next MSGP, will use coal-tar
sealcoat to initially seal or to re-seal pavement and thereby discharge
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in stormwater. The EPA agreed
to propose that those operators are not eligible for coverage under the
MSGP and must either eliminate such discharge or apply for an
individual permit. See Part 1.1.8 of the proposed permit and fact
sheet.
     Permit authorization relating to a pending enforcement
action. The EPA agreed to solicit comment on a provision covering the
situation where a facility not covered under the 2015 MSGP submits an
NOI for permit coverage while there is a related pending enforcement
stormwater related action by the EPA, a state, or a citizen (to include
both notices of violations (NOVs) by the EPA or the state and notices
of intent to bring a citizen suit). In this situation, the EPA agreed
to solicit comment on holding the facility's NOI for an additional 30
days to allow the EPA an opportunity to (a) review the facility's
control measures expressed in its SWPPP, (b) identify any additional
control measures that the EPA deems necessary to control site
discharges in order to ensure that discharges meet technology-based and
water quality-based effluent limitations, and/or (c) to conduct further
inquiry regarding the site's eligibility for general permit coverage.
See Part 1.3.3 and Table 1-2 of the proposed permit and fact sheet.
     Additional Implementation Measures (AIM). The EPA agreed
to include in the benchmark monitoring section of the proposed MSGP
``Additional Implementation Measures'' (AIM) requirements for operators
for responding to benchmark exceedances. See Part 5.2 of the proposed
permit and fact sheet.
     Facilities required to monitor for discharges to impaired
waters without an EPA-approved or established Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL). The EPA agreed to propose for comment specific edits regarding
monitoring for impaired waters. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the proposed permit
and fact sheet.
     Revision of Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheets. The EPA
agreed to review and revise the MSGP's sector-specific fact sheets
associated with the permit. See Appendix Q of the proposed permit.

B. Summary of Proposed Permit Changes

    The proposed MSGP includes several new or modified requirements
from the 2015 MSGP, many of which were discussed in the previous
section and are being proposed to address terms in the 2016 Settlement
Agreement and the NRC study's recommendations. The EPA requests comment
on these and all parts of the proposed permit.
    1. Streamlining of permit. The EPA proposes to streamline and
simplify language throughout the permit to present the requirements in
a generally more clear and readable manner. Regarding structure of the
proposed permit, proposed Part 4 (Monitoring) was previously Part 6 in
the 2015 MSGP; proposed Part 5 (Corrective Actions and AIM) was
previously Part 4 in the 2015 MSGP; and proposed Part 6 (SWPPP) was
previously Part 5 in the 2015 MSGP. In the EPA's view, formatting the
permit in this new order (Monitoring, followed by Corrective Actions
and AIM, then SWPPP requirements) makes more sequential sense as the
latter parts often refer back to requirements in previous parts of the
permit. This new structure should enhance understanding of and
compliance with the permit's requirements. The EPA also made a few
additional edits to improve permit readability and clarity. The EPA
revised the wording of many eligibility requirements to be an
affirmative expression of the requirement instead of

assumed ineligibility unless a condition was met. For example, proposed
Part <IP_ADDRESS> reads ``If you discharge to an `impaired water'. . .you
must do one of the following:'' In comparison, the 2015 MSGP reads ``If
you are a new discharger or a new source. . .you are ineligible for
coverage under this permit to discharge to an `impaired water' . . .
unless you do one of the following.'' The EPA also numbered proposed
permit conditions that were previously in bullet form to make it easier
to follow and reference the permit conditions. Finally, the language of
the proposed permit was changed from passive to active voice where
appropriate (e.g., ``Samples must be collected . . .'' now reads ``You
must collect samples . . .'').
    2. Permit eligibility and authorization-related changes.
     Eligibility for stormwater discharges to a federal CERCLA
site. The 2015 MSGP requires facilities in the EPA Region 10 that
discharge stormwater to certain CERCLA or Superfund sites (as defined
in MSGP Appendix A and listed in MSGP Appendix P) to notify the EPA
Regional Office in advance and requires the EPA Regional Office to
determine whether the facility is eligible for permit coverage. In
determining eligibility for coverage, the EPA Regional Office may
evaluate whether the facility has included appropriate controls and
implementation procedures designed to ensure that the discharge will
not lead to recontamination of aquatic media at the CERCLA site. While
the 2015 MSGP permit cycle was limited to discharges to certain CERLCA
sites in EPA Region 10, the Agency is concerned that CERCLA site
recontamination from MSGP authorized discharges may be an issue in all
EPA Regions. In the proposed permit, the EPA requests comment on
whether this current eligibility criterion should be applied in all the
EPA Regions for facilities that discharge to Federal CERCLA sites that
may be of concern for recontamination from stormwater discharges. The
EPA is interested in information from the public that would assist the
Agency in identifying such sites. The EPA also requests comment on
requiring such facilities to notify the EPA Regional Office a minimum
of 30 days in advance of submitting the NOI form. See Part 1.1.7 in the
proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 1.
     Eligibility related to application of coal-tar sealcoat.
The EPA proposes in Part 1.1.8 to include aa new eligibility criterion
related to stormwater discharges from pavement where there is coal-tar
sealcoat. Operators who will use coal-tar sealcoat to initially seal or
to re-seal their paved surfaces where industrial activities are located
and thereby discharge polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
stormwater, would be eligible for coverage under the 2020 MSGP only if
they eliminate such discharge(s). This would reduce the amount of PAHs
in industrial stormwater discharges. Alternatively, operators who wish
to pave their surfaces where industrial activities are located with
coal-tar sealcoat may apply for an individual permit. See Part 1.1.8 of
the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 2.
     Discharge authorization related to enforcement action. The
EPA proposes to establish a discharge authorization wait period of 60
calendar days after NOI submission for any operators whose discharges
were not previously covered under the 2015 MSGP and who have a pending
stormwater-related enforcement action by the EPA, a state, or a citizen
(to include both NOVs by the EPA or a state and notices of intent to
bring a citizen suit). EPA is proposing this new requirement because
the Agency is aware of some instances where a facility with a pending
enforcement action will quickly submit an NOI without adequately
developing their SWPPP or stormwater control measures (SCMs) in order
to avoid further enforcement action. This additional review time would
allow EPA to (a) review the facility's SCMs detailed in the NOI and
SWPPP to make sure they are appropriate for the facility which may
already have stormwater pollution issues, (b) identify any additional
SCMs that EPA deems necessary to control site discharges in order to
ensure that discharges meet technology-based and water quality-based
effluent limitations, and/or (c) conduct further inquiry regarding the
site's eligibility for permit coverage. See Part 1.3.3, Table 1-2 of
the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 4.
    3. Public sign of permit coverage. The EPA proposes that the 2020
MSGP include a requirement that MSGP operators must post a sign of
permit coverage at a safe, publicly accessible location in close
proximity to the facility. The EPA proposes that this notice must also
include information that informs the public on how to contact the EPA
if stormwater pollution is observed in the discharge. This addition
will make the protocol for requesting a SWPPP easily understandable by
the public and improve transparency of the process to report possible
violations. The EPA requests comment on this proposal and what
information could be included on any sign or other notice. See Part
1.3.6 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 6.
    4. Consideration of major storm control measure enhancements. The
EPA proposes that operators would be required to consider implementing
enhanced measures for facilities located in areas that could be
impacted by stormwater discharges from major storm events that cause
extreme flooding conditions. The purpose of this proposed requirement
is to encourage industrial site operators to consider the risks to
their industrial activities and the potential impact of pollutant
discharges caused by stormwater discharges from major storm events and
extreme flooding conditions. The EPA also requests comment on how the
permit might identify facilities that are at the highest risk for
stormwater impacts from major storms that cause extreme flooding
conditions. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and
request for comment 8.
    5. Monitoring changes.
     Universal benchmark monitoring for all sectors. The EPA
proposes to require all facilities to conduct benchmark monitoring for
three indicator parameters of pH, TSS, and COD, called universal
benchmark monitoring. This proposed requirement would apply to all
sectors/subsectors, including those facilities that previously did not
have any chemical-specific benchmark monitoring requirements and those
that previously did not have these three specific benchmark parameters
under the 2015 MSGP. These three parameters would provide a baseline
and comparable understanding of industrial stormwater risk, broader
water quality problems, and stormwater control effectiveness across all
sectors. See Part 4.2.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and
requests for comment 10 and 13.
     Impaired waters monitoring. Under the 2015 MSGP, operators
discharging to impaired waters must monitor once per year for
pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired and can discontinue
monitoring if these pollutants are not detected or not expected in the
discharge. The EPA proposes to require operators discharging to
impaired waters to monitor only for those pollutants that are both
causing impairments and associated with the industrial activity and/or
benchmarks. The proposal specifies that, if the monitored pollutant is
not detected in your discharge for three consecutive years, or it is
detected but you have determined that its presence is caused solely by
natural background sources, operators may discontinue monitoring for
that

pollutant. This proposed requirements potentially narrows scope of
pollutants for which the operator must monitor and improves protections
for impaired waters. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the proposed permit and fact
sheet.
     Benchmark values. The EPA proposes to modify and/or
requests comment on benchmark thresholds for selenium, arsenic,
cadmium, magnesium, iron, and copper based on the latest toxicity
information. See Parts 4.2.1 and 8 of the proposed fact sheet and fact
sheet, and requests for comment 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
     Sectors with new benchmarks. The 2015 MSGP does not
require sector-specific benchmark monitoring for Sector I (Oil and Gas
Extraction), Sector P (Land Transportation and Warehousing), or Sector
R (Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yards). Based on the NRC study
recommendation which identified potential sources of stormwater
pollution from these sectors, the EPA proposes to add benchmark
monitoring requirements for these three sectors. See Part 8 of the
proposed permit, Parts <IP_ADDRESS> and 8 of the proposed fact sheet, and
request for comment 12.
    6. Additional implementation measures. The EPA proposes revisions
to the 2015 MSGP's provisions regarding benchmark monitoring
exceedances. The corrective action conditions, subsequent action
deadlines, and documentation requirements in proposed Part 5.1 remain
unchanged from the 2015 MSGP. In proposed Part 5.2, the EPA proposes
new tiered Additional Implementation Measures (AIM), that are triggered
by benchmark monitoring exceedances. The proposed AIM requirements
would replace corresponding sections regarding benchmark exceedances in
the 2015 MSGP (``Data exceeding benchmarks'' in Part <IP_ADDRESS> in the
2015 MSGP). There are three AIM levels: AIM Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3.
Operators would be required to respond to different AIM levels with
increasingly robust control measures depending on the nature and
magnitude of the benchmark threshold exceedance. The EPA proposes to
retain exceptions to AIM triggers based on natural background sources
or run-on for all AIM levels. The EPA also proposes an exception in AIM
Tier 2 for a one-time aberrant event, and an exception in AIM Tier 3
for operators who are able to demonstrate that the benchmark exceedance
does not result in any exceedance of applicable water quality
standards. Proposed AIM requirements will increase regulatory certainty
while ensuring that discharges are sufficiently controlled to protect
water quality. See Part 5.2 of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and
requests for comment 21, 22, 23, and 26.
    7. Revisions to sector-specific fact sheets. The EPA proposes
updates to the existing sector-specific fact sheets that include
information about control measures and stormwater pollution prevention
for each sector to incorporate emerging stormwater control measures.
These fact sheets are also proposed to be used when implementing Tier 2
AIM. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> and Appendix Q of the proposed permit and fact
sheet.

C. Other Requests for Comment

    In addition to the specific proposed changes discussed previously
on which the EPA seeks comment, the Agency also requests comment on the
following:
    1. Eligibility related to use of cationic chemicals. The EPA
requests comment on adding an eligibility requirement to the MSGP for
operators who may elect to use cationic treatment chemicals to comply
with the MSGP, similar to that eligibility requirement in the EPA's
Construction General Permit (CGP). See Part 1 of the proposed permit
and fact sheet, and request for comment 3.
    2. Change NOI form. The EPA requests comment on whether a separate
paper Change NOI form would be useful for facilities for submitting
modifications to a paper NOI form. See Part 1.3.4 of the proposed
permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 5.
    3. New acronym for the No Exposure Certification (NOE). The EPA
requests comment on changing the acronym for the No Exposure
Certification from ``NOE'' to ``NEC'' to more accurately represent what
the acronym stands for. See Part 1.5 of the proposed permit and fact
sheet, and request for comment 7.
    4. Alternative approaches to benchmark monitoring. The EPA requests
comment on viable alternative approaches to benchmark monitoring for
characterizing industrial sites' stormwater discharges, quantifying
pollutant concentrations, and assessing stormwater control measure
effectiveness. See Part 4.2.1 of the proposed permit and fact sheet,
and request for comment 9.
    5. Inspection-only option in lieu of benchmark monitoring. The EPA
requests comment on whether the permit should include an inspection-
only option for ``low-risk'' facilities in lieu of conducting benchmark
monitoring. See Part <IP_ADDRESS> of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and
request for comment 11.
    6. Information about polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The
EPA requests comment on information and data related to pollutant
sources under all industrial sectors with petroleum hydrocarbon
exposure that can release polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) via
stormwater discharges, any concentrations of individual PAHs and/or
total PAHs at industrial sites, the correlation of PAHs and COD, and
appropriate pollution prevention/source control methods and stormwater
control measures that could be used to address PAHs. See Part <IP_ADDRESS>
of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 20.
    7. Modifying the method for determining natural background
pollutant contributions. The EPA requests comment on changing the
threshold for the natural background exception throughout the permit
from the 2015 MSGP, which required no net facility contributions, to
the proposed 2020 MSGP method of subtracting natural background
concentrations from the total benchmark exceedance to determine if
natural background levels are solely responsible for the exceedance.
EPA requests comment on implications of this change and other factors
the Agency should consider in proposing this change to the exception.
EPA also requests comment on other appropriate methods to characterize
natural background pollutant concentrations. See Part 5.2.4 of the
proposed permit and fact sheet, and requests for comment 24 and 25.
    8. Clarifications to Sector G monitoring requirements. The EPA
requests comment on whether the newly proposed language in Part 8.G.8.3
clarifies the monitoring requirements for that part and if the proposed
monitoring frequency is appropriate. Given the overlap in parameters
the operator is required to monitor for in Parts 8.G.8.2 and 8.G.8.3
and the potential confusion about the monitoring schedules for the same
parameter, EPA proposes to align the monitoring schedule for Part
8.G.8.3 to that of Part 8.G.8.2. The EPA also requests comment on
suspending the analytical monitoring currently required for radium and
uranium in Part 8.G.8.3 until a relevant water quality criterion and
possible benchmark value can be developed. The EPA requests comment on
any alternative or additional clarifications to the monitoring
frequencies the Agency should consider for this Part. See Part 8.G.8.3
of the proposed permit and fact sheet, and request for comment 27.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed permit have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information

Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2040-NEW. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this permit (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372), and it is
briefly summarized here.
    CWA section 402 and the NPDES regulations require collection of
information primarily used by permitting authorities, permittees
(operators), and the EPA to make NPDES permitting decisions. The burden
and costs associated with the entire NPDES program are accounted in an
approved ICR (EPA ICR number 0229.23, OMB control no. 2040-0004).
Certain changes in this proposed permit would require revisions to the
ICR to reflect changes to the forms and other information collection
requirements. The EPA is reflecting the paperwork burden and costs
associated with this permit in a separate ICR instead of revising the
existing ICR for the entire program for administrative reasons.
Eventually, the EPA plans to consolidate the burden and costs in this
ICR into that master ICR for the entire NPDES program and discontinue
this separate collection.
    Respondents/affected entities: Industrial facilities in the 30
sectors shown in section I.A of this notice in the areas where the EPA
is the NPDES permitting authority.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Compliance with the MSGP's
information collection and reporting requirements is mandatory for MSGP
operators.
    Estimated number of respondents: The EPA estimates that
approximately 2,400 operators will receive coverage under the 2020
MSGP.
    Frequency of response: Response frequencies in the proposed 2020
MSGP vary from once per permit term to quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: The EPA estimates that the proposed
information collection burden of the proposed permit is 68,857 hours
per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The EPA estimates that the proposed
information collection cost of the proposed permit is $2,374,891.73 per
year.
    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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this proposed permit (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372). You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than April 1,
2020. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
permit.

V. Cost Analysis

    The EPA expects the incremental cost impact on entities that will
be covered under this permit, including small businesses, to be
minimal. The EPA anticipates the incremental cost for new or modified
permit requirements will be $472.75 per facility per year; or $2,363.74
per facility over the 5-year permit term. A copy of the EPA's cost
analysis for the proposed permit, titled ``Cost Impact Analysis for the
Proposed 2020 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP),'' is available in the
docket (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372). The economic impact analysis
indicates that while there will be an incremental increase in the costs
of complying with the new proposed permit, these costs will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

VI. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations will be
documented in the docket for this action (Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-
0372).

VII. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321-4307h), the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations
(40 CFR part 15), and the EPA's regulations for implementing NEPA (40
CFR part 6), the EPA has determined that the reissuance of the MSGP is
eligible for a categorical exclusion requiring documentation under 40
CFR 6.204(a)(1)(iv). This category includes ``actions involving
reissuance of a NPDES permit for a new source providing the conclusions
of the original NEPA document are still valid, there will be no
degradation of the receiving waters, and the permit conditions do not
change or are more environmentally protective.'' The EPA completed an
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI)
for the existing 2015 MSGP. The analysis and conclusions regarding the
potential environmental impacts, reasonable alternatives, and potential
mitigation included in the EA/FONSI are still valid for the reissuance
of the MSGP because the proposed permit conditions are either the same
or in some cases are more environmentally protective. Actions may be
categorically excluded if the action fits within a category of action
that is eligible for exclusion and the proposed action does not involve
any extraordinary circumstances. The EPA has reviewed the proposed
action and determined that the reissuance of the MSGP does not involve
any extraordinary circumstances listed in 6.204(b)(1) through (b)(10).
Prior to the issuance of the final MSGP, the EPA Responsible Official
will document the application of the categorical exclusion and will
make it available to the public on the EPA's website at https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/nepa/search. If new
information or changes in the proposed permit involve or relate to at
least one of the extraordinary circumstances or otherwise indicate that
the permit may not meet the criteria for categorical exclusion, the EPA
will prepare an EA or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
EPA has determined that the proposed permit will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because the requirements
in the permit apply equally to industrial facilities in areas where the
EPA is the permitting authority, and the proposed provisions increase
the level of environmental protection for all affected populations.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. With limited exceptions,
the EPA directly implements the NPDES program in Indian country as no
tribe has yet obtained EPA authorization to administer the NPDES
program. As a result, almost all eligible facilities with stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activities in Indian country fall
under the EPA MSGP or may be covered under an individual NPDES permit
issued by the EPA.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing this permit to have meaningful and timely input into its
development to gain an understanding of and, where necessary, to
address the tribal implications of the proposed permit. A summary of
that consultation and coordination follows.
    The EPA initiated a tribal consultation and coordination process
for this action by sending a ``Notice of Consultation and
Coordination'' letter on June 26, 2019, to all 573 federally recognized
tribes. The letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation
representative(s) to participate in the tribal consultation and
coordination process. The EPA held an informational webinar for tribal
representatives on August 1, 2019. A total of 19 tribal representatives
participated in the webinar. The EPA also presented an overview of the
current 2015 MSGP and potential changes for the reissuance of the MSGP
to the National Tribal Water Council during a July 10, 2019 call with
EPA staff.
    The EPA solicited comment from federally recognized tribes early in
the reissuance process. Tribes and tribal organizations submitted one
letter and three emails to the EPA. Records of the tribal informational
webinar and a consultation summary summarizing the written comments
submitted by tribes are included in the docket for this proposed action
(Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0372).
    The EPA incorporated the feedback it received from tribal
representatives in the proposal. The Agency specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed permit from tribal officials.
    The EPA also notes that as part of the finalization of this
proposed permit, the Agency will complete the Clean Water Act section
401 certification procedures with all authorized tribes where this
permit will apply.

(Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

    Dated: February 12, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Javier Laureano,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 2.
Carmen R. Guerrero-P[eacute]rez,
Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA Region 2.
Catherine A. Libertz,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 3.
Jeaneanne M. Gettle,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 4.
Thomas R. Short Jr.,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
Brent E. Larsen,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 6.
Jeffrey Robichaud,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 7.
Humberto L. Garcia, Jr.,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 8.
Tom[aacute]s Torres,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-04254 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78081]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings

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

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-106-001.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to RP15-106
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20141217-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-50-002.
    Applicants: American Midstream (AlaTenn), LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: AlaTenn OFO Filing to
be effective 12/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20141217-5175
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/14.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30327 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 154 (Monday, August 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48124-48127]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 112

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1119]

Request for Information and Comments on Consumption of Certain
Uncommon Produce Commodities in the United States; Establishment of a
Public Docket

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; establishment of docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
opening a docket to receive information and comments related to certain
produce commodities with no or low reported consumption in the database
relied on to create the list of rarely consumed raw commodities that
are exempt from the Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and
Holding of Produce for Human Consumption regulation. FDA intends to use
the information to consider whether any of these commodities should be
added to the rarely consumed raw list.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by November 9,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be

considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before November
9, 2020. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will
accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of November 9,
2020. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/
paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or
the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-N-1119 for ``Request for Information and Comments on
Consumption of Certain Uncommon Produce Commodities in the United
States.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 27, 2015, we issued the final
rule, ``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption'' (80 FR 74354), which established at 21
CFR part 112 science-based minimum standards for fruits and vegetables
grown for human consumption (produce safety regulation). The produce
safety regulation is one of the seven foundational regulations that we
issued as part of our implementation of the FDA Food Safety
Modernization Act (Pub. L. 111-353), which directs FDA to better
protect public health by, among other things, adopting a modern,
preventive, and risk-based approach to food safety.
    Produce is subject to the produce safety regulation (i.e., is
``covered produce'') unless it is ``not covered'' because it is: (1)
Rarely consumed raw (RCR) (Sec.  112.2(a)(1) (21 CFR 112.2(a)(1))) (the
RCR exemption); (2) produced for personal or on-farm consumption (Sec.
112.2(a)(2)); or (3) not a raw agricultural commodity (Sec.
112.2(a)(3)). This request for information pertains to certain
commodities that were not categorized as RCR.
    The RCR list is a list of produce commodities that we determined
are almost always consumed in the United States only after being
cooked. Cooking is a kill step that can be expected to adequately
reduce the presence of microorganisms of public health significance in
most cases. FDA concluded that it is not reasonably necessary to
subject RCR commodities to the produce safety regulation.
    FDA's classification of produce as RCR was based on food
consumption patterns reported in a robust dataset: The National Health
and Nutritional Examination Survey/What We Eat in America (NHANES/
WWEIA) dataset (Ref. 1), which is the most comprehensive, robust, and
nationally representative dataset currently available on dietary intake
in the United States. We also used the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Food Commodity Intake Database (Ref. 2), which is a recipe
database that identifies proportions of commodity ingredients in
NHANES/WWEIA codes, and also identifies the cooking status (uncooked or
cooked) and the food forms (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned) associated
with each commodity ingredient. We provided background information and
data analyses informing the inclusion of produce commodities in the RCR
list in a memorandum (the Produce RCR memorandum) that we made
available in the administrative record of the produce safety rulemaking
(Ref. 3).
    Note that the identification of a commodity on the RCR list does
not mean the produce is never eaten raw or that it is not eaten raw,
typically or occasionally, in specific regions of the United States (or
among specific ethnic

communities in the United States). The RCR list also does not reflect
the form in which these commodities are consumed by populations in
other countries.
    Consumption patterns for a commodity had to meet three criteria
that were used to determine if a commodity qualified as rarely consumed
raw. First, the commodity had to be consumed uncooked by less than 0.1
percent of the United States population. Second, the commodity had to
be consumed uncooked on less than 0.1 percent of eating occasions.
Third, at least 1 percent of the weighted number of survey respondents
must have reported consuming the commodity in any form for the data to
provide a reasonable representation of how that commodity is consumed
by U.S. consumers. The purpose of the third criteria was to ensure that
we had sufficient data to provide a reasonable representation of how
the commodity is consumed in the United States for the purpose of
exempting commodities from the coverage of the produce safety
regulation (80 FR 74354 at 74388). For commodities not reported as
consumed by at least 1 percent of the weighted number of respondents,
we consider the overall reported rate to be too low to justify relying
on these data as a reasonable representation of consumption among all
U.S. consumers.
    Commodities that failed to satisfy all three NHANES/WWEIA food
consumption criteria were not included in the RCR list. Several produce
commodities satisfied the first two NHANES/WWEIA food consumption
criteria for demonstrating that the commodities are almost always eaten
only after being cooked, but are covered by the produce safety
regulation because the 2003-2010 NHANES/WWEIA dataset did not
demonstrate consumption of the commodities in any form by at least 1
percent of survey respondents. (See Response to Comments 68 and 69, 80
FR 74354 at 74392 to 74394.) In the remainder of this document, we
refer to these commodities as ``produce commodities with low reported
consumption.'' The following is an exhaustive list \1\ of these produce
commodities with low reported consumption according to the methodology
used in developing the RCR list: Artichoke, globe[hyphen]type;
artichoke, Jerusalem; arugula; balsam pear; boysenberry; Brazil nut;
breadfruit; broccoli, Chinese; brussels sprouts; burdock; cabbage,
Chinese, bok choy; cabbage, Chinese, mustard; cabbage, Chinese, Napa;
cactus; celeriac; chayote fruit; chestnut; Chinese waxgourd;
chrysanthemum garland; citron; cress, garden; currant; dandelion
leaves; dasheen (taro) (leaves and corm); fennel, Florence; genip;
gooseberry; grape, leaves; guava; huckleberry; jicama; kale; kohlrabi;
kumquat; leek; lime; lotus root; lychee; macadamia nut; mulberry;
mustard greens; palm heart, leaves; parsnip; passion fruit; persimmon;
pine nut; plantain; pomegranate; quince; radish, oriental, roots;
rhubarb; rutabaga; shallot; soursop; soybean, sprouts; starfruit; swamp
cabbage; sweetsop; Swiss chard; turnip (roots and greens); and yam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The original analysis included amaranth, which we have not
included here because it is a grain, and grains are not ``produce''
as that term is defined by the produce safety regulation. See 21 CFR
112.3(c). We have also omitted from this list several pulse
commodities (e.g., dry pea) because that group of commodities is
under separate consideration. See the discussion related to pulses
in our guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Enforcement Policy
for Entities Growing, Harvesting, Packing, or Holding Hops, Wine
Grapes, Pulse Crops, and Almonds;'' available at https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-enforcement-policy-entities-growing-harvesting-packing-or-holding-hops-wine-grapes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some produce commodities did not appear in the NHANES/WWEIA at all;
a commodity is added to NHANES/WWEIA partly based on the number of
times the new food is reported and partly based on whether a new
reported food has nutrient contents that are very different from the
nutrient contents of a food that already exists in the database. In the
remainder of this document we refer to these commodities as ``produce
commodities with no reported consumption.'' Arrowroot and fiddleheads
are examples of produce commodities with no reported consumption.
    As we stated when we issued the produce safety final rule, we will
consider updating the list of RCR commodities if new data become
available (80 FR 74354 at 74390). We therefore invite interested
persons to submit data, information, and/or comment to support whether
particular commodities with either no or low reported consumption in
NHANES/WWEIA should be categorized as RCR. We seek commodity-specific
data that would indicate whether that particular fruit or vegetable is
consumed cooked by almost all consumers across the United States at
this time. To be most useful, newly submitted data should be
quantitative data of U.S. consumption patterns that are sufficiently
robust such that we could draw from them scientifically valid
conclusions. The data should clearly indicate what proportion of the
population consumes the commodity in the uncooked form and/or how often
the commodity is consumed uncooked compared to the cooked form. Results
of a well-designed consumer survey would be one possible type of data
that may be submitted. Market data that closely parallels consumer
consumption data may also be helpful. Another type of data that could
be useful is data indicating that a commodity cannot safely be consumed
uncooked, e.g., because in its uncooked state it contains toxic
properties. We also request information on any kill steps other than
cooking (e.g., fermentation that adequately reduces microorganisms of
public health significance) that are always or almost always applied to
produce commodities with no or low reported consumption and data on the
extent to which this kill step is applied consistently across the
industry.
    For this Request for Information, FDA is requesting data,
information, and comments from all interested parties, including, but
not limited to, academic and government researchers, industry, and any
other source. When submitting information, please include details about
how the data were collected, including information on the study design
and sample population, year(s) of data collection, a detailed summary
of the methods and measures used (e.g., any surveys utilized) and if
available, the survey results (i.e., raw data).

II. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website address, as of the date this document publishes in
the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Health Statistics. ``National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey/What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA).'' Available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/wweia.htm. Last accessed July 23, 2020.
2. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs and
University of Maryland Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition. ``What We Eat in America--Food Commodity Intake Database,
2005-2010 (WWEIA-FCID 2005-10).'' Available at https://fcid.foodrisk.org/. Last accessed July 23, 2020.
3. Tijerina, M. J., J. Johanson, J. Spungen, and S. Briguglio,
``Memorandum to the File--Produce Rarely Consumed Raw,''

October 2015. Available in Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921 at https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 28, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-16800 Filed 8-5-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44211-44212]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15498]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0241; FRL-10012-10-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Control of Emissions From
Lithographic and Letterpress Printing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the State of Missouri for a regulation that controls emissions from
lithographic and letterpress printing operations. This final action
will amend the SIP to remove the use of restrictive words; add, replace
and revise terms and definitions to match SIP-approved terms and
definitions in Missouri's rule Definitions and Common Reference Tables;
add a new printing category to the rule that provides consistency with
the St. Louis area counterpart rule; and make other changes that are
administrative in nature. The EPA's approval of these rule revisions is
being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0241. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. 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 through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Webber, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting and Standards
Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number:
(913) 551-7251; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. The EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is the EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving revisions to 10 Code of State Regulation (CSR)
10 CSR 10-2.340 Control of Emissions from Lithographic Printing
Facilities in the Missouri SIP. Missouri made several revisions to the
rule. These revisions are described in detail in the technical support
document (TSD) included in the docket for this action. The EPA is
finalizing this action because the revisions to the rule meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for
SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice one this SIP revision from June 25, 2018,
to August 2, 2018, and received ten comments. The State revised the
rule based on the comments submitted. In addition, as explained in more
detail in the TSD included in the docket for this action, the revision
meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section
110 and implementing regulations.

III. The EPA's Response to Comments

    The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened May 13,
2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed on
June 12, 2020. During this period, EPA received no comments.

IV. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to 10 CSR 10-
2.340 Control of Emissions from Lithographic Printing Facilities in the
Missouri SIP. Approval of these revisions will ensure consistency
between State and federally approved rules. The EPA has determined that
these changes will not adversely impact air quality.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Missouri Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference
in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 21, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: July 13, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-2.340'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State        EPA approval
       Missouri citation              Title        effective date        date                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chapter 2--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-2.340......................  Control of                1/30/19  7/22/20, [insert  ...........................
                                 Emissions From                     Federal
                                 Lithographic and                   Register
                                 Letterpress                        citation].
                                 Printing
                                 Operations.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-15498 Filed 7-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 60)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15610]
[DOCID:fr30mr10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 558

New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds

CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 500 to 599,
revised as of April 1, 2009, in Sec.  558.55, on page 408, at the end
of the table to paragraph (d)(2), reinstate footnote 1 to read as
follows:

    \1\ Bacitracin zinc in Sec.  510.600(c) of this chapter.

[FR Doc. 2010-7095 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D