             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS):
                 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements
                                 RIN 2060-AQ48
General Comments

   1. Wildfire and wildland fire.
         a. Commenters recommend including additional context and background in the preamble and rule language about prescribed fire (planned ignitions) and wildfire (unplanned ignitions).  Specifically, that not including prescribed fire and wildfire may unintentionally set a precedence that limits the options for managing wildland fire, limits the role of wildland fire in restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, preclude options for effective management of carbon, and inadvertently violate the direction set forth in Executive Order (EO) 13653.
   2. Precursor policy options.
         a. Commenter recommends considering hybrid approaches to addressing regulation of PM2.5 precursors in attainment plans and nonattainment new source review (NNSR).  Specifically, one hybrid approach could have Option 2A as a screening mechanism for whether a particular PM2.5 precursor is important or a significant contributor to nonattainment in the area, and if so, Option 3 could then be utilized to demonstrate that control measures for all types of sources of a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment of that area.
   3. De minimis determination.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing an alternative for "safe harbor" type provisions for de minimis determinations.  The alternative would state that if the contribution is below a certain percentage (e.g., 3 percent) it would be considered de minimis and an amount greater than that percentage would require additional justification to determine that the contribution is de minimis.
   4. Base year.
         a. Reviewer recommends considering additional years as the base year for attainment plans and determinations; including providing additional discussion as to why the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) should not be used as a base year.
   5. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion on the differences in 2, 4, and 6 digit codes and why 4 digit codes are the most appropriate.
   6. Use of previous reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT).
         a. Reviewer recommends evaluating a "recent threshold" (e.g., within 3 years of when this RACM/RACT is performed) that would allow either no updates or a less extensive update to RACM and RACT.

   7. Technical feasibility determination.
         a. Commenter recommends clarifying that for agricultural sources that mitigation measures that may be technically feasible for one agricultural source may not be technically feasible for a similar type of agricultural operation.
   8. Economic feasibility determination.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying whether sources with similar technological characteristics owned by different sized entities are considered "similar sources" with respect to economic feasibility or would a state be allowed to justify rejection based on the size of entities applying such technology.  EPA states that a state may not reject technologically feasible measures as economically infeasible if similar sources have implemented the technology, absent adequate justification.  Therefore, while a state may consider engineering criteria to evaluate technological feasibility, small entities could be required to install economically infeasible technologies solely because a similar source owned by a larger facility has install the technology.
         b. Reviewer recommends evaluating whether "safe harbor" type provisions for economic feasibility with respect to cost effectiveness are appropriate.
   9. Attainment demonstration.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing benefits and costs of each of the proposed alternatives for the attainment demonstration.  For example, discuss the relative level of risk of just using FRM and/or FEM monitoring data.
   10. Credits for outside of nonattainment area for reasonable further progress (RFP).
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion why EPA thought it was appropriate to allow up to 200 kilometers (km) away from the nonattainment area for RFP in the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and does not believe that it is still appropriate.
         b. Reviewer recommends considering credits outside of the nonattainment area for RFP because the EPA is requiring the use of outside the nonattainment area actions as "additional reasonable measures" to have a nonattainment area achieve attainment as expeditiously as possible and is allowing the use of outside the nonattainment area actions (but still within the state) as contingency measures within the SIP.  For example, if the nonattainment area needs to decrease emissions by 6 percent over a 6 year period, for a linear a RFP, the nonattainment area would need to decrease by 1 percent a year.  However, if because of the "additional reasonable measures," the nonattainment area can demonstrate attainment within 4 years, the nonattainment area would need to decrease emissions by 1.5 percent a year.  But because a state cannot credit outside the nonattainment area for RFP, the state may not be able to meet their RFP requirements.
         c. Reviewer recommends providing additional basis and clarification for the term "additional reasonable measures," including whether this term has been defined or used in other criteria pollutants of the Clean Air Act.  If the term has not been previously used, the reviewer recommends explaining why PM2.5 is different than the other criteria pollutants that this requirement should be added.

   11. Electronic submissions for RFP.
         a. Reviewer recommends strengthening the language in the use of electronic communication and an electronic reporting system.
   12. Extensions for attainment.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation of the difference between the attainment determinations in the previous PM2.5 Implementation Rule and this proposed rule and examples of specific cases where an extension would be needed and granted.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification on the difference in plan submittals between a Moderate nonattainment area plan and Serious nonattainment area plan for granting an exemption.
   13. Attainment date for Serious nonattainment areas.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying that "10 years after designation" is as of "nonattainment" and should not be considered as of designation as of Serious nonattainment.
   14. Emission inventory.
         a. Commenter recommends developing a mechanism to allow for the use of emissions estimating methodologies (EEM) for animal production operations under the National Air Emissions Monitory Study (NAEMS) when they become available.
   15. Emission inventory decrease for Serious nonattainment areas that have failed to achieve attainment.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing clarification on EPA's determination process for determining if a Serious nonattainment area that fails to attain has decreased emissions by 5 percent each year.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification of the "most recent inventory" in relation to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 189(d).  If a state is required to calculate the inventory for the nonattainment area each year to determine if the nonattainment area has decreased emissions by 5 percent, does the 5 percent change to that year's inventory or is it 5 percent of the initial inventory calculated?
         c. Reviewer recommends clarifying that contingency measures that include outside the nonattainment area measures can be included for reaching the 5 percent required level as long as those measures are quantifiable, enforceable, replicable, and accountable.
   16. Quantitative milestones.
         a. Reviewer recommends allowing a nonattainment area that has decreased emissions by greater than 15 percent within a 3 year period to carryover that additional decreased emission to the next quantitative milestone.
   17. Contingency measures for Serious nonattainment areas that have failed to attain.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying why contingency measures should be required when those contingency measures would have already been instituted for failure to meet the RFP for the Serious nonattainment area.

   18. Time-frame for attainment for Serious nonattainment areas that have failed to demonstrate attainment.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification why 5 years (consistent with CAA section 172(a)(2)) should be followed for demonstrating attainment and why EPA is not considering 6 or 10 years for demonstrating attainment (consistent with CAA section 188(c)(1) and (2) that are specifically related to PM).
   19. Definition of stationary source.
         a. Commenter recommends providing additional explanation and guidance of how stationary sources relate to agricultural production operations.
   20. Major source thresholds for PM2.5 precursors.
         a. Reviewer recommends modifying EPA's policy on preferred ratios for major source threshold determinations for PM2.5 precursors related to sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).  Specifically, the EPA believes that the preferred ratios in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule were not conservative enough (page 374).  However, not considering the relative effect of PM2.5 precursors to direct PM2.5 puts an undue burden on potential sources of PM2.5 precursors and sets a de facto more protective air quality standard than for direct PM2.5 sources.
         b. Reviewer recommends adding a discussion of whether volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3 - ) emissions (the other PM2.5 precursors not mentioned above) should be considered at higher levels than direct PM2.5 for major source thresholds.
   21. Planning requirements not suspended with a Clean Data Determination (CDD)
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification why certain planning requirements are not suspended with a CDD.
   22. Guidance for stationary source monitoring.
         a. Reviewer recommends modifying this section as it does not appear to be related to the rest of the rulemaking.  This appears to be an information collection request that is related to a future potential guidance update that is not tied to this specific rulemaking effort.
   23. EO 12866 and EO 13563.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying the statement that EPA submitted the action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in 2011.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing benefits and costs for this proposed rule within a regulatory impact analysis even if those benefits and costs are at the state level.
   24. Paperwork Reduction Act.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying why states without any nonattainment area would not be required to submit any information to the EPA for this rule.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing additional basis for the estimated labor hours required and the estimated labor costs.

Specific Comments

   1. Page 22.
         a. Commenter recommends revising the statement "For example, PM2.5 concentrations are highest in the West and Southeast."  However, Table 2 shows that concentrations are highest in the West and Central.
   2. Page 23.
         a. Commenter recommends deleting Table 2 as the regional information comes from 1 to 34 stations within a region and may lead to conclusions that are incorrect. Because of so few stations the regional values are not statistically reliable and may not be representative of the region.
   3. Page 39.
         a. Commenter recommends providing additional information for determining that reducing regional SO2 and local sources of carbon in the East and local sources of nitrate and carbon in the West will be most effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations.  The additional information could be used by states to alleviate burden in relation to precursor demonstrations and attainment planning.
   4. Page 107.
         a. Commenter recommends clarifying how attainment demonstration modeling emissions inventories may not be consistent with the emissions inventories developed for the nonattainment area and how the nonattainment area emissions inventories are used for the attainment demonstration modeling.
         b. Commenter recommends providing additional information on how emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors outside of the nonattainment area may be affected (i.e., regulated or controlled) as a result of the modeling demonstrations.
   5. Page 111.
         a. Reviewer recommends modifying "States can alternatively develop superior state-specific nonroad emissions estimates . . . ." to state "States can alternatively develop technologically equivalent or superior state-specific nonroad emissions
estimates . . . ."
   6. Page 134.
         a. Reviewer recommends removing brackets from "in the area" quotation with respect to the "nonattainment area" and providing a footnote of the court decision and how it applies.
   7. Page 137.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion on the economic feasibility determination recommended in the 2007 PM2.5 rule.
   8. Page 139.
         a. Reviewer recommends adding to the list: 8. Impact on jobs and 9. Cumulative impacts to the source not considered above (e.g., delays in maintenance or other potential safety-related actions).
   9. Page 327.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying that "in writing" includes electronic submittals within Step 5.

   10. Rule Language
         a. §51.100  -  reasonable further progress is defined as "annual incremental reductions in emissions . . . ." Reviewer recommends clarifying whether periodic step-down functions are included within RFP.
         b.  §51.1006(a)  -  reviewer recommends removing or revising the second sentence starting with "The technical analysis could include . . . ." as this language is more appropriate for guidance documents or discussion within the preamble.
         c. §51.1007(d)  -  reviewer recommends removing or revising this subpart as this language is more appropriate for guidance documents or discussion within the preamble.
         d. §51.1008  -  reviewer recommends clarifying why there are timing requirements within §51.1008(b)(3) for Serious nonattainment areas and not for Moderate nonattainment areas within §51.1008(a).

Typographical Comments

   1. Page 40.
         a. Commenter recommends ensuring that:
                 i. Tier 2 Light-Duty vehicle standards be cited instead of Tier 3
                 ii. Green House Gas standards for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty vehicles do not need to be cited.
         b. Commenter recommends clarifying if the Heavy Duty rule is the Tier 2 Heavy Duty Diesel rules.
         c. Commenter recommends updating footnote 47.
   2. Page 242.
         a. Add additional ")" after "section 172(c)(6)".
   3. Page 518.
         a. Recommend revising §51.1005(c) as there appears to be words missing.
   4. Page 536.
         a. Part of the first sentence for §51.1011(a) and (b) is underlined and should be removed.
   5. Reviewer recommends defining the following terms and ensuring that all acronyms used within the preamble are also provided within the preamble glossary of terms and acronyms:
         a. FRM
         b. FEM
         c. NESHAPs
   6. Reviewer recommends revising all cases where the term "whether or not" is used to state "whether".  For example, on page 398, the sentence, "The requirements differ depending on whether or not the nonattainment area is considered a metropolitan area." (emphasis added).  Should be revised to state, "The requirements differ depending on whether the nonattainment area is considered a metropolitan area."


[Federal Register: April 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 64)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17111-17119]
[DOCID:fr05ap10-30]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 172, 173, and 176

[Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0241 (HM-242)
RIN 2137-AE52

Hazardous Materials Regulations: Combustible Liquids

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is considering amendments to the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (HMR) as they apply to the transportation of combustible
liquids. Specifically, we are considering whether to harmonize the
domestic regulations applicable to the transportation of combustible
liquids with international transportation standards. In addition, we
are examining ways to revise, clarify, or relax certain regulatory
requirements to facilitate the transportation of these materials while
maintaining an adequate level of safety. The intent of this ANPRM is to
invite public comments on how to accomplish these goals, provide an
opportunity for comment on amendments PHMSA is considering, and present
a forum for the public to offer additional recommendations for the safe
transportation of combustible liquids.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 6, 2010. To the extent
possible, we will consider late-filed comments as we consider the next
action. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://dms/dot/gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
PHMSA-2009-0241 (HM-242) or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN)
2137-AE52 for this notice at the beginning of your comment. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
dms.dot.gov including any personal information provided. Persons
wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments must
include a self-addressed stamped postcard or access our Web site at
http://dms.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen L. Engrum, Office of Hazardous
Materials Standards, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, 2nd Floor, PHH-10,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview of the Hazardous Materials Regulations

    The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180)
govern the safe transportation of hazardous materials. The HMR are
designed to achieve three goals:
    1. To ensure that hazardous materials are packaged and handled
safely and securely during transportation;
    2. To provide effective communication to transportation workers and
emergency responders of the hazards of the materials being transported;
and
    3. To minimize the consequences of an incident should one occur.
    The hazardous material regulatory system is a risk management
system that is prevention-oriented and focused on identifying a safety
or security hazard and reducing the probability and quantity of a
hazardous material release. Under the HMR, hazardous materials are
categorized by analysis and experience into hazard classes and packing
groups based upon the risks they present during transportation. The HMR
specify appropriate packaging and handling requirements for hazardous
materials, and require a shipper to communicate the material's hazards
through use of shipping papers, package marking and labeling, and
vehicle placarding. The HMR require shippers to provide emergency
response information applicable to the specific hazard or hazards of
the material being transported. The HMR mandate training requirements
for persons who prepare hazardous materials for shipment or who
transport hazardous materials in commerce. Finally, the HMR include
operational requirements applicable to each mode of transportation.
    PHMSA reviews the HMR on a continuing basis to determine whether
revisions or amendments are necessary to ensure a high level of safety
for the safe transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. During
our regulatory review process, we look for opportunities that may exist
to enhance safety, such as by minimizing misunderstanding of regulatory
requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials and, where
opportunities exist, to reduce the regulatory burden on industry while
maintaining a high level of safety. We believe opportunities exist to
clarify and simplify current requirements in the HMR applicable to the
transportation of combustible liquids, thereby reducing compliance
burdens on shippers and carriers while facilitating movement of these
materials in domestic and international commerce. This initiative is
based on our ongoing review process, input from the regulated
community, review of requests for letters of interpretation and
clarification concerning combustible liquids, and written and oral
questions pertaining to combustible liquids that have been presented to
PHMSA's Hazardous Materials Information Center.

II. Background of Class 3 Flammable Liquids and Combustible Liquids

    On February 27, 1968, the Hazardous Materials Regulation Board--the
predecessor agency to the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) and, subsequently, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA)--published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) under Docket No. HM-3 (33 FR 3382) proposing to re-define the
term ``flammable liquid,'' in order to harmonize the definition with
international standards and better address the risks such materials
present in transportation. On February 21, 1970, the Board published an
NPRM under Docket No. HM-42 (35 FR 3298) proposing to create and define
a new class of materials identified as ``combustible liquids'' to
address a lack of hazard warning communication concerning these
materials, and the hazards posed by transportation of these materials
at temperatures equal to or exceeding their flash points. Liquids in
this higher flash point range (80 [deg]F to 200 [deg]F) include
kerosene, fuel oil, turpentine and certain alcohols, all of which
present fire hazards during transportation, and are referred to
generically as ``combustible liquids.'' The 200 [deg]F upper limit is
commonly used by industry, government, and the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) as the regulatory limit for defining flammable/
combustible liquids.
    On December 5, 1970, the Board published an NPRM under Docket No.
HM-67 (35 FR 18534) proposing to change the method of determining the
flash point of materials from the Tagliabue open-cup test method to the
Tagliabue closed-cup test method in an effort to establish a more
accurate flash point of materials.
    The issues addressed in these three notices were consolidated under
Docket HM-102 and published as an NPRM on

June 15, 1972 (37 FR 11898). The NPRM included proposals for a new
definition for the class of materials identified as ``flammable
liquid'' and created and defined a new class of materials identified as
``combustible liquid,'' in addition to modifying the definition for
pyrophoric liquids within the flammable liquid hazard class.
    On January 24, 1974, the Hazardous Materials Regulation Board
published a final rule under Docket HM-102 (39 FR 2768) that, among
other issues, (1) Specified a new definition for the class of materials
identified as ``flammable liquid;'' (2) created and defined a new class
of materials identified as ``combustible liquids;'' (3) modified the
definition for ``pyrophoric liquid'' within the flammable liquid class;
and (4) set forth the requirements for the materials that were covered
by these new definitions.
    The final rule defined these hazard classes as follows:
    1. A ``flammable liquid'' is any liquid having a flash point below
100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C) that does not meet one of the definitions
specified under then Sec.  173.300 (i.e., materials defined as
compressed gases).
    2. A ``combustible liquid'' is any liquid having a flash point at
or above 100 [deg]F (37.8 [deg]C), and below 200 [deg]F (93.3 [deg]C).
    3. A ``pyrophoric liquid'' is ``any liquid that ignites
spontaneously in dry or moist air at or below 130 [deg]F (54.5 [deg]C).
    In following years, the agency published additional notices
proposing revisions to the provisions for flammable and combustible
materials, culminating in the publication of a final rule on December
21, 1990 under Docket HM-181 (55 FR 52402). Generally, this rule
comprehensively revised the HMR with respect to hazard communication,
classification, and packaging requirements to enhance safety through
better classification and performance-oriented, risk based packaging,
and to promote flexibility and technological innovation in packaging,
reduce the need for special permits (formerly ``exemptions''), and
facilitate international commerce. The final rule adopted international
standards (United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous
Goods or ``UN Recommendations'') for defining flammable liquids and
retained a domestic exception for flammable liquids reclassed as
combustible liquids. The upper flash point range for flammable liquids
was subsequently extended to meet the UN standard of 60 [deg]C (140
[deg]F) for flammable liquids. The definition for combustible liquids
under the HMR was retained both as a domestic classification option for
liquids with flash points between 38 [deg]C (100 [deg]F) and 60 [deg]C
(140 [deg]F) and as a requirement for liquids with flash points between
60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F) and below 93 [deg]C (200 [deg]F). The
classification system in the UN Recommendations has no combustible
liquid category or hazard class.
    Commenters to the HM-181 rulemaking asserted that the exceptions
provided in the HMR for the transportation of combustible liquids
create an unnecessary variance between domestic and international
transportation and increase the potential for non-compliance. For
instance, commenters stated the domestic exception would lead to
identical materials being classified differently, and would result in
confusion among transportation, enforcement, and emergency response
personnel. At the time, we disagreed with these commenters and stated
that although different classifications for the same materials could
occur under this exception, we anticipated little or no confusion on
the part of shippers already dealing with a dual packaging and marking
system, i.e., differing requirements for domestic and international
transportation. We also stated that the exception for combustible
liquids would not hamper enforcement or emergency response personnel
who are trained in the use of the HMR, UN identification numbers, the
identification of materials using DOT's placarding system, and DOT's
Emergency Response Guidebook.
    This issue was raised again in a subsequent HM-181 final rule
published on December 20, 1991 (56 FR 66124) that responded to
petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of the rule. Several
petitioners urged the agency to remove the combustible liquid class
definition and the reclassification option. The petitioners stated that
the domestic combustible liquid classification introduced unneeded
regulatory complexity and violated the stated aims of HM-181 to
simplify the HMR. This being both a safety and economic issue, we
disagreed with the petitioners who would eliminate the combustible
liquid class altogether, believing that the significant number of
domestically regulated materials with flash points between 38 [deg]C
(100 [deg]F) and 93 [deg]C (200 [deg]F) pose risks in transportation
that cannot be ignored.
    Under HM-181, we revised the HMR to clarify that only flammable
liquids that do not meet the definition of any other hazard class may
be reclassed as combustible liquids. This revision was intended to
prevent reclassification of materials that meet the definition of a
hazardous substance or hazardous waste and, thus, meet the definition
for a Class 9 (Miscellaneous) material. We also narrowed the provisions
to generally prohibit reclassification for materials offered for air or
vessel transportation, with certain exceptions. The phrase ``except
Class 9'' was subsequently removed from Sec. Sec.  173.120(b)(1) and
(b)(2), and 173.150 under the Docket HM-181 Correction/Response final
rule published on October 1, 1992 (57 FR 45446), in which the Class 9
definition was clarified to state that a material which meets the
definition of another hazard class, but also falls within one of the
Class 9 criteria (e.g., hazardous substance) does not meet the
definition of Class 9.
    Section 173.120 of the HMR currently defines a ``flammable liquid''
as a liquid having a flash point of not more than 60 [deg]C (140
[deg]F), or any material in a liquid phase with a flash point at or
above 38 [deg]C (100 [deg]F) that is intentionally heated and offered
for transportation or transported at or above its flash point in a bulk
packaging, with some exceptions for liquids that also meet the
definition for Division 2.1 (Flammable gas), 2.2 (Non-flammable gas),
or 2.3 (Poisonous gas) materials, as defined in Sec.  173.115; mixtures
that are not offered for transportation at or above their flash points;
liquids with a flash point greater than 35 [deg]C (95 [deg]F) that do
not sustain combustion; liquids with a flash point greater than 35
[deg]C (95 [deg]F) and with a fire point (the temperature at which the
liquid will continue to burn after ignition) greater than 100 [deg]C
(212 [deg]F); and liquids with a flash point greater than 35 [deg]C (95
[deg]F) which is in a water-miscible solution with a water content of
more than 90 percent by mass.
    In addition, Sec.  173.120 of the HMR defines a ``combustible
liquid'' as any liquid that does not meet the definition of any other
hazard class specified in this subchapter and has a flash point above
60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F) and below 93 [deg]C (200 [deg]F). Further, in
domestic transportation, a flammable liquid with a flash point at or
above 38 [deg]C (100 [deg]F) that does not meet the definition of any
other hazard class may be reclassed as a combustible liquid. This
provision does not apply to transportation by vessel or aircraft,
except where other means of transportation is impracticable. An
elevated temperature material that meets the definition of a Class 3
(Flammable liquid) material because it is intentionally heated and
offered for transportation or transported at or above its flash point
may not be reclassed as a combustible liquid.

    A flash point is the minimum temperature at which a liquid gives
off vapor within a test vessel in sufficient concentration to form an
ignitable mixture with air near the surface of the liquid. Materials
with higher flashpoints are thus less likely to ignite than materials
with lower flash points. Because of their higher flash points,
combustible liquids do not pose as great a risk in transportation as
flammable liquids. Therefore, the regulatory requirements applicable to
their transportation are less stringent than those for flammable
liquids. For example, combustible liquids transported in non-bulk
packagings are excepted from all HMR requirements, unless the
combustible liquid also meets the definition for a hazardous substance,
hazardous waste, or marine pollutant. In addition, combustible liquids
may be transported in non-specification bulk packagings. A combustible
liquid that is not a hazardous substance, a hazardous waste, or a
marine pollutant is not subject to HMR requirements if it is a mixture
of one or more components that has a flash point at or above 93 [deg]C
(200 [deg]F), comprises at least 99 percent of the volume of the
mixture, and is not transported as a liquid at a temperature at or
above its flash point. Also, a combustible liquid that does not sustain
combustion is not subject to the requirements of the HMR as a
combustible liquid. Either the test method specified in ASTM D 4206 or
the procedure in appendix H of part 173 may be used to determine if a
material sustains combustion when heated under test conditions and
exposed to an external source of flame.
    The HMR provide additional exceptions for flammable (Class 3) and
combustible liquids under Sec.  173.150. Limited quantities of
flammable and combustible liquids are excepted from labeling
requirements, unless the material also meets the definition of Division
6.1 (Poison) or is offered for transportation or transported by
aircraft, and the specification packaging requirements of the HMR when
packaged in combination packagings, each not exceeding 30 kg (66
pounds) gross weight, in accordance with this section. In addition,
shipments of limited quantities are not subject to placarding. A
limited quantity of a flammable or combustible liquid may be reclassed
and renamed as a ``consumer commodity'' as defined in Sec.  171.8 of
the HMR. An aqueous solution containing 24 percent or less alcohol by
volume and no other hazardous material may be reclassed as a
combustible liquid, and is not subject to the HMR requirements if it
contains no less than 50 percent water.

III. Petitions for Rulemaking

    In this ANPRM, PHMSA is soliciting comments on issues related to
the transportation of combustible liquids in both domestic and
international commerce. We have received two petitions for rulemaking
suggesting that domestic requirements for the transportation of
combustible liquids should be harmonized with international standards.
In addition, we have received a petition for rulemaking suggesting that
the HMR should include more expansive domestic exceptions for shipments
of combustible liquids. The petitions are described below.

A. VOHMA Petition for Rulemaking

    The International Vessel Operators Hazardous Materials Association
(VOHMA) submitted a petition for rulemaking [P-1498; PHMSA-2007-28238]
concerning differing domestic and international requirements for the
transportation of combustible liquids. As indicated above, the UN
Recommendations do not include a definition or classification for
combustible liquids. The UN Recommendations are not regulations, but
rather are recommended standards issued by the UN Sub-Committee of
Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. These recommendations are
amended and updated biennially and serve as the basis for many
national, regional and international modal regulations, including the
International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for
the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical
Instructions) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG)
Code.
    In the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods
(Model Regulations), 15th Revised Edition, Chapter 2.3; Section
<IP_ADDRESS>, ``Flammable liquids'' are defined as liquids, or mixtures of
liquids, or liquids containing solids in solution or suspension (for
example, paints, varnishes, lacquers, etc., but not including
substances otherwise classified on account of their dangerous
characteristics) which give off a flammable vapor at temperatures of
not more than 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F), closed-cup test, or not more than
65.6 [deg]C (150.08 [deg]F), open-cup test, normally referred to as the
flash point. This class also includes:
    a. Liquids offered for transport at temperatures at or above their
flash point; and
    b. Substances that are transported or offered for transport at
elevated temperatures in a liquid state and which give off a flammable
vapor at a temperature at or below the maximum transport temperature.

    Note: Since the results of open-cup tests and of closed-cup
tests are not strictly comparable and even individual results by the
same test are often variable, regulations varying from the above
figures to make allowance for such differences would be within the
spirit of this definition.

    Liquid desensitized explosives (see <IP_ADDRESS>) are also included in
the Class 3 hazard class. Liquid desensitized explosives are explosive
substances which are dissolved or suspended in water or other liquid
substances, to form a homogeneous liquid mixture to suppress their
explosive properties (<IP_ADDRESS>.3). Entries in the Dangerous Goods List
for liquid desensitized explosives are: UN1204, UN 2059 UN 3064, UN
3343, UN 3357 and UN 3379.
    Liquids meeting the definition in Chapter 2.3; Section <IP_ADDRESS> with
a flash point of more than 35 [deg]C (95 [deg]F) which do not sustain
combustion are not considered hazardous materials for purposes of the
UN Recommendations, the ICAO Technical Instructions, or the IMDG Code.
Liquids are considered to be unable to sustain combustion for the
purposes of these Regulations (i.e., they do not sustain combustion
under defined test conditions) if:
    a. They have passed a suitable combustibility test (see SUSTAINED
COMBUSTIBILITY TEST prescribed in the Manual of Tests and Criteria,
Part III, sub-section 32.5.2;
    b. Their fire point according to ISO 2592:2000 is greater than 100
[deg]C
    (212 [deg]F); or
    c. They are water miscible solutions with a water content of more
than 90% by mass.
    In its petition, VOHMA notes that the differing domestic and
international requirements for combustible liquids has resulted in
conflicting and confusing hazard communication requirements with the
result that international shipments may be frustrated as foreign
authorities attempt to reconcile HMR hazard communication schemes with
international regulations. For example, VOHMA notes that many paints,
inks, adhesives, solvents, and petroleum products have flash points
between 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F) and 93 [deg]C (200 [deg]F) and are
offered for transportation as combustible liquids within the United
States. However, the HMR permit such shipments to be described on a
shipping paper and to display markings, labels, and placards in the
same manner as

shipments of flammable liquids with flash points of less than 60 [deg]C
(140 [deg]F). When these shipments are destined for export to a
jurisdiction outside the United States, foreign inspectors, stowage
planners, interlining carriers, and intermodal feeder companies may
become confused by the display of a UN identification number of a
material that is not regulated in international commerce and thus may
delay forwarding the shipments until the confusion is resolved. We
agree with VOHMA that these frustrated shipments impede commerce and
may also result in additional risks in the ports and terminals where
they are held.
    In its petition, VOHMA also expresses concern that HMR provisions
that permit reclassification of flammable liquids with a flash point at
or above 38 [deg]C (100 [deg]F) as combustible liquids could result in
the movement of undeclared shipments in international commerce.
Reclassed combustible liquids are excepted from the HMR when
transported in non-bulk packagings such as one-gallon cans, five-gallon
jerricans, or 55-gallon drums. However, materials with flash points
between 38 [deg]C (100 [deg]F) and 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F) are fully
regulated as Class 3 materials in international commerce. We agree with
VOHMA that unmarked and unlabeled packages of reclassed combustible
liquids may find their way into international distribution with the
result that the shipments are not declared as dangerous goods and will
not be appropriately handled and stowed in international
transportation.
    To address these problems, VOHMA asks PHMSA to use the
``Combustible liquid, n.o.s.'' proper shipping name entry in the
Hazardous Materials Table (HMT), with an associated technical name in
parentheses, when the material is reclassified in accordance with Sec.
173.150(f) and is intended for rail or highway transportation only, or
has a flash point above 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F) but below 93 [deg]C (200
[deg]F). This would serve to distinguish shipments regulated only in
the United States from shipments regulated in international commerce.

B. DGAC Petition for Rulemaking

    The Dangerous Goods Advisory Council (DGAC) also submitted a
petition for rulemaking [P-1531; PHMSA-2008-0303] for amendment of the
requirements for combustible liquids in bulk packagings in order to
reduce port congestion and improve transportation efficiency in port
areas. A bulk packaging is defined in Sec.  171.8 as a packaging, other
than a vessel or barge, including a transport vehicle or freight
container, in which hazardous materials are loaded with no intermediate
form of containment and that has: (1) A maximum capacity greater than
450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a liquid; (2) a maximum net
mass greater than 400 kg (882 pounds) and a maximum capacity greater
than 450 L (119 gallons) as a receptacle for a solid; or (3) a water
capacity greater than 454 kg (1000 pounds) as a receptacle for a gas as
defined in Sec.  173.115 of the HMR. The DGAC petition highlights many
of the issues identified by VOHMA in its petition, with a particular
focus on problems encountered in international transportation for
shipments of materials DGAC terms ``high flash point combustible
liquids''--that is, combustible liquids with flashpoints between 60
[deg]C (140 [deg]F) and 93 [deg]C (200 [deg]F). DGAC suggests that the
regulatory differences between the HMR and international regulatory
requirements for these combustible liquids are disruptive to the flow
of goods in port areas and contribute to port congestion. According to
DGAC, imported bulk shipments of high flash point combustible liquids
arriving in U.S. ports must be marked and placarded in accordance with
HMR requirements. Similarly, the marks and placards that are applied to
bulk shipments of such combustible liquids for U.S. transportation must
be removed in the port prior to export. DGAC estimates that export
shipments are delayed for an average of three days awaiting removal of
HMR-required marks and placards and import shipments are delayed an
average of five days awaiting application of HMR-required marks and
placards. To alleviate this problem, DGAC requests that PHMSA except
high flash point combustible liquids from all HMR requirements when
transported in specification packages of less than 3000 liters
capacity, (the upper capacity limit for intermediate bulk containers
(IBCs), or when in an ISO (UN) portable tank in international commerce.

C. U.S. Custom Harvesters Petition for Rulemaking

    U. S. Custom Harvesters, Inc. (Custom Harvesters) also submitted a
petition for rulemaking [P-1536; PHMSA-2009-0099] requesting
modification of current requirements applicable to combustible liquids.
According to the petition, a custom harvester has invested in the
equipment (which includes grain harvesting combines, silage harvesters,
grain trucks, tractors and grain carts) necessary to harvest wheat,
corn, corn silage and cotton. The custom harvester industry replaces
the farmer in the field during harvest.
    Custom Harvesters is concerned that current requirements applicable
to bulk shipments of combustible liquids inhibit the industry's ability
to hire seasonal workers to transport the diesel fuel necessary to re-
fuel harvesting equipment in the fields. Because the diesel fuel is
typically transported from a local service station or farm cooperative
in tanks with capacities greater than 450 L (119 gallons) (i.e., in
bulk quantities), the commercial motor vehicles transporting the diesel
fuel must be operated by a driver with a commercial driver license with
a hazmat endorsement. (In accordance with 49 CFR part 383, a hazmat
endorsement is required for drivers of commercial motor vehicles that
transport placarded amounts of hazardous materials. Bulk shipments of
combustible liquids must be placarded.) Custom Harvesters asks us to
consider an exception from placarding for combustible liquids
transported in quantities that do not exceed 3785 L (1,000 gallons) in
a single packaging.
    Approximately 100 persons submitted comments in support of the U.S.
Custom Harvesters' petition. The commenters stress the difficulty of
hiring seasonal, foreign workers who may not be able to obtain a CDL
with a hazmat endorsement in a timely fashion.

IV. Comments Requested

    Based on the petitions for rulemaking described in the previous
section of this preamble and our own review of domestic and
international regulations applicable to the transportation of
combustible liquids, we have identified a number of issues that we may
wish to address through rulemaking, including: (1) Harmonizing the HMR
definitions and requirements for combustible liquids with international
standards; (2) modifying HMR requirements for marking and placarding
shipments of combustible liquids to eliminate confusion that occurs
when shipments marked and placarded for domestic transportation are
transported in international commerce; and (3) expanding current HMR
exceptions for combustible liquids to accommodate unique operational
requirements. These issues are discussed in more detail below.

A. International Harmonization

    Because there is no provision in the UN Recommendations, the
International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Technical
Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Aircraft, or
the International Maritime

Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code for flammable liquids to be reclassed as
combustible liquids and, indeed, no international regulation of liquids
with a flash point over 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F), we recognize that the
HMR provisions for the transportation of combustible liquids may
potentially be confusing to both domestic and international shippers
and carriers of flammable and combustible liquid shipments. We also
recognize this lack of clarity may present a tangible safety concern,
such as the mishandling or misidentification of these shipments in
transportation, or the transportation of undeclared shipments. Further,
in addition to our primary focus on the safe transportation of
hazardous materials, one of our associated goals is to facilitate
international commerce through harmonization with international
standards, to the extent that harmonization does not compromise our
safety objectives. Therefore, we are considering a proposal to
eliminate the current domestic exception that allows the
reclassification of high flash point flammable liquids (i.e., those
with a flash point at or above 38 [deg]C (100 [deg]F)) as combustible
liquids. This potential revision would establish a uniform definition
for a flammable liquid as a liquid having a flash point of not more
than 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F), for both domestic and international
transportation. Non-bulk shipments of these materials could then be
consistently transported as flammable liquids in the United States and
abroad, thereby reducing the possibility for the frustration or unsafe
handling of shipments whether transported within or outside the United
States and the problem of differing marking, labeling and placarding
requirements for domestic and international shipments.
    However, to the extent there is justification for providing relief
from some, if not all, provisions of the HMR applicable to high flash
point flammable liquids, we may want to consider a revision to the HMR
that would include the current domestic exceptions for high-flash point
flammable liquids in non-bulk packagings in a revised set of
requirements for Class 3 materials, thereby eliminating the necessity
to reclass these materials as combustible liquids to utilize the
exceptions. We believe this alternative could be less cumbersome and
could facilitate a clearer understanding of the regulations.

B. Unique Identifiers for Combustible Liquid Shipments

    In addition to considering harmonizing the HMR definitions and
requirements for flammable liquids with international standards, we are
considering whether utilization of unique identifiers for combustible
liquid shipments could help to eliminate the confusion that currently
results when shipments of reclassed combustible liquids or combustible
liquid shipments regulated under the HMR but not regulated under
international standards are transported to or from the United States.
    As VOHMA notes in its petition, the HMR currently permit reclassed
combustible liquids in bulk packagings to be described on a shipping
paper (except the hazard class must be modified to read ``Combustible
liquid'') and marked and placarded in the same manner as materials with
flash points under 60 [deg]C (140 [deg]F). Thus, a shipment of paint
reclassed as a combustible liquid would be described on a shipping
paper as ``UN1263, Paint, Combustible Liquid, III'' and placarded with
a Class 3 placard (without text) displaying the UN identification
number ``1263''. Even though these shipments are not regulated for
international transportation, the shipping paper entries and placards
suggest that this is a fully regulated shipment. As VOHMA suggests, we
could require shippers who reclass flammable liquids as combustible
liquids to utilize the domestic identification number NA1993, the
proper shipping name ``Combustible liquid, n.o.s.,'' followed by the
technical name for the material, as listed in the Sec.  172.101 HMT, in
parentheses (for example, ``NA1993, Combustible liquid, n.o.s. (paint),
III). Bulk packagings containing reclassed combustible liquids would be
marked COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID and placarded with the COMBUSTIBLE placard
and the domestic identification number NA1993.
    For international shipments of materials regulated as combustible
liquids under the HMR but not regulated as hazardous materials under
international regulations, we could develop a hazard communication
scheme that would clearly identify these shipments when transported in
the United States, but that would not be confusing to foreign officials
and transport personnel when transported in international commerce. For
example, we could except such shipments from placarding requirements
and instead require bulk packages containing combustible liquids to be
marked COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID and NA1993 (the domestic identification
number). These identifiers are not recognized internationally and so
may be less likely to cause confusion or shipment delays overseas.
Alternatively, we could adopt DGAC's suggestion and provide an
exception from marking and placarding requirements for high flash point
combustible liquids.

C. Expanded Exceptions for Domestic Transportation

    As the petition from the U. S. Custom Harvesters suggests, there
are situations where current HMR requirements for the transportation of
combustible liquids create an operational burden for those who use
combustible liquids in agricultural and similar operations. Moreover,
the HMR exception from regulation for combustible liquids in non-bulk
packagings may lead shippers and users of combustible liquids to use
less efficient transportation methods--such as utilizing several non-
bulk packagings rather than a single bulk packaging or making multiple
trips using non-bulk packagings--to avoid the regulatory costs
associated with fully regulated bulk shipments. Less efficient
transport methods may also be less safe transport methods if they
increase the number of trips necessary to deliver the materials and the
number of times the material must be handled before it is delivered to
its destination.
    We are considering expanding current exceptions applicable to the
transportation of combustible liquids to accommodate unique operational
requirements or needs. For example, as the U. S. Custom Harvesters
petition suggests, we are considering whether to expand current
exceptions applicable to non-bulk shipments of combustible liquids to
shipments of less than a threshold amount, such as 3,785 L (1,000
gallons). Alternatively, we may wish to consider expanding current
exceptions for hazardous materials that are transported in support of
agricultural operations as specified in Sec.  173.5, to include
activities such as the harvesting operations described in the U. S.
Custom Harvesters petition. For liquids, the maximum quantity
authorized in Sec.  173.5(b) is currently 1,900 L (502 gallons). Or we
may wish to consider expanding the current materials of trade (MOTs)
exceptions in Sec.  173.6 to incorporate an exception for combustible
liquids transported in bulk up to a maximum quantity, such as 1,500 L
(400 gallons) as currently authorized for certain Class 9 mixtures or
3,785 L (1000 gallons) as requested by the U.S. Custom Harvesters, in
support of refueling operations or as a general exception for all
combustible liquids.

D. Combustible Liquids in Non-Bulk Packaging

    Currently, Sec.  173.150(f)(2) specifies that the requirements of
the HMR do not

apply to a material classed as a combustible liquid in a non-bulk
packaging unless the combustible liquid is a hazardous substance, a
hazardous waste, or a marine pollutant. Simply put, under these
specific conditions, a combustible liquid in a non-bulk packaging is
not subject to the HMR. Section 173.140 of the HMR defines a Class 9
miscellaneous hazardous material as a material which presents a hazard
during transportation but which does not meet the definition of any
other hazard class. Class 9 materials include any material which has an
anesthetic, noxious or other similar property which could cause extreme
annoyance or discomfort to a flight crew member so as to prevent the
correct performance of assigned duties. It also includes any material
that meets the definition in Sec.  171.8 of the HMR for an elevated
temperature material, a hazardous substance, a hazardous waste, or a
marine pollutant.
    Applied together, these two sections of the HMR indicate that a
flammable liquid in a non-bulk packaging and reclassed as a combustible
liquid, is not subject to the HMR, but could, nonetheless, be regulated
under the HMR when it meets the criteria for Class 9 material, i.e., a
marine pollutant. To illustrate, a material that is a marine pollutant,
does not meet any other hazard class definition, and has a flashpoint
between 140 [deg]F and 200 [deg]F, is classed as a Class 9 material
under the IMDG Code and may be transported under the provision of
Sec. Sec.  171.22 and 171.23 (formerly Sec.  171.12) as a Class 9
material. However, this same material could be classed as a combustible
liquid under the HMR. Likewise, a material that is an excepted package
for limited quantities for Class 7 (radioactive materials) could be
transported as a combustible liquid because of similar language under
the exception criteria for Class 7 (radioactive materials) found in
Sec. Sec.  173.421 and 173.422.
    We believe there are instances when a shipment transported both
domestically and internationally under these scenarios could cause
confusion or undue hardship, may frustrate shipments, or could create
an unnecessary risk along the transportation cycle. As previously
noted, one of our objectives in reviewing the HMR is to increase
international harmonization without sacrificing our safety goals. We
believe an alternative may exist to maintain an acceptable level of
safety in the transportation of hazardous substances and hazardous
wastes as Class 9 materials, without their inclusion under the current
combustible liquids definition or Class 7 (radioactive materials)
exceptions. Therefore, we are considering a proposal to remove the
phrase ``which does not meet the definition of any other hazard class''
from the definitions of combustible liquids and Class 9 materials. In
addition, we are considering listing ``stand-alone'' restrictions for
each of these materials, and would rely on the Precedence of Hazard
Table under Sec.  173.2a for the proper classification of materials
having more than one hazard. Because the section in the HMR regarding
excepted packages for limited quantities of Class 7 (radioactive
materials) also contains similar wording to the two classes noted
above, we are also considering a revision to remove the phrase ``meet
the definition of a hazardous substance or hazardous waste'' from Sec.
173.422 and Sec.  173.424.
    These revisions may more clearly indicate that if a shipment of a
material is a Class 9 or Class 7 material in a non-bulk packaging, it
would be transported as a Class 9 or Class 7 material, respectively,
and not a combustible liquid. We believe such revisions could reduce
undue burden on the regulated community, mitigate the potential for the
inaccurate or contradictory classification of Class 7 (radioactive
materials), Class 9, and combustible liquid materials, and increase the
level of safety during the transportation of these materials.

V. Questions

    PHMSA invites commenters to submit comments based on the above
discussion and the following questions:
    1. Should the HMR continue to apply to materials with a flashpoint
above 60[deg] C (140[deg] F) and below 93[deg] C (200[deg] F)? What
benefits would result from de-regulation of combustible liquids? What
are the safety implications of such de-regulation? How would such de-
regulation affect emergency response?
    2. Should the HMR continue to permit Class 3 materials with
flashpoints between 38[deg] C (100[deg] F) and 60[deg] C (140[deg] F)
to be reclassed and transported as combustible liquids? What are the
benefits of eliminating this reclassification exception? Would there be
costs associated with eliminating this reclassification exception? What
are the safety implications of eliminating the reclassification
exception? How would elimination of the reclassification exception
affect emergency response?
    3. Should the HMR provide expanded exceptions for the
transportation of combustible liquids? For example, should the HMR
except combustible liquids below a certain threshold (e.g., not more
than 1,893 L (500 gallons), 3000 L (793 gallons), 3,785 L (1,000
gallons), or 13,249 L (3,500 gallons) from packaging, hazard
communication, or other requirements? What are the potential impacts on
hazard communication and emergency response notification of such
changes?
    4. Should the HMR include expanded exceptions for farm operations
or agribusinesses? Should the HMR include expanded materials of trade
exceptions for persons who transport combustible liquids? What are the
potential impacts on hazard communication and emergency response
notification of such changes? Are there additional exceptions that
should be considered?
    5. Should the HMR continue to permit combustible liquids to be
described using shipping names and identification numbers applicable to
Class 3 materials? Should PHMSA adopt a requirement for all combustible
liquids to be described as ``Combustible liquid, n.o.s.''? For example,
for hazardous material shipping names currently in the Sec.  172.101
HMT, such as Paint, Diesel fuel, Fuel oil, Kerosene, Turpentine,
Methallyl alcohol, etc. What safety benefits would result from the use
of shipping descriptions unique to combustible liquid materials? How
would such a change affect emergency response?
    6. Should the HMR provide for use of a unique combustible liquid
marking (e.g., the words ``COMBUSTIBLE'' or ``COMBUSTIBLE LIQUID'' in
red letters on a white background) in place of COMBUSTIBLE placards and
other hazard communication for bulk shipments of combustible liquids?
Should the HMR provide for use of the domestic identification number,
NA1993, on bulk packages utilizing a combustible liquid marking? What
are the potential impacts on hazard communication and emergency
response notification of such a change? Are there other practical
alternatives to use of COMBUSTIBLE placards for bulk shipments?

VI. Additional Issues

    PHMSA will base any future proposal for changes on the suggestions
and comments provided by interested parties and our own initiatives.
Additionally, any proposals would include the analyses required under
the following statutes and executive orders in the event we determine
that rulemaking is appropriate:

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 requires agencies to regulate in the
``most cost-

effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned determination that the
benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,'' and to develop
regulations that ``impose the least burden on society.'' We therefore
request comments, including specific data if possible, concerning the
costs and benefits that may be associated with revisions to the HMR
based on the issues presented in this notice. A rule that is considered
significant under E.O. 12866 must be reviewed and cleared by the Office
of Management and Budget before it can be issued.

B. Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that may have a substantial, direct effect on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We invite state and local governments with an interest in
this rulemaking to comment on any effect that revisions to the HMR
relative to the transportation of combustible liquids may cause.

C. Executive Order 13175

    E.O. 13175 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input
from Indian tribal government representatives in the development of
rules that ``significantly or uniquely affect'' Indian communities and
that impose ``substantial and direct compliance costs'' on such
communities. We invite Indian tribal governments to provide comments if
they believe there will be an impact.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Policies
and Procedures

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), we must consider whether a proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' include small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000. If you believe that revisions to the HMR
relative to the transportation of combustible liquids would have a
significant economic impact on small entities, please provide
information on such impacts.
    Any future proposed rule would be developed in accordance with
Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking'') and DOT's procedures and policies to promote
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act to ensure that potential
impacts on small entities of a regulatory action are properly
considered.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires
that PHMSA provide interested members of the public and affected
agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and
recordkeeping requests. It is possible that new or revised information
collection requirements could occur as a result of any future
rulemaking action.

F. Environmental Assessment

    The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375,
requires Federal agencies to analyze proposed actions to determine
whether the action will have a significant impact on the human
environment. The Counsel on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations
order federal agencies to conduct an environmental review considering
(1) The need for the proposed action, (2) alternatives to the proposed
action, (3) probable environmental impacts of the proposed action and
alternatives, and (4) the agencies and persons consulted during the
consideration process. 40 CFR 1508.9(b). PHMSA welcomes any data or
information related to environmental impacts that may result from a
future rulemaking addressing the transportation of combustible liquids.

G. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you
may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

H. International Trade Analysis

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies
may participate in the establishment of international standards, so
long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as
providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude imports that meet
this objective. The statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
for U.S. standards. PHMSA participates in the establishment of
international standards in order to protect the safety of the American
public, and we would assess the effects of any rule to ensure that it
does not exclude imports that meet this objective. Accordingly, any
proposals would be consistent with PHMSA's obligations under the Trade
Agreement Act, as amended.

I. Statutory/Legal Authority for this Rulemaking

    1. 49 U.S.C. 5103(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
prescribe regulations for the safe transportation, including security,
of hazardous materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.
    2. 49 U.S.C. 5120(b) authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
ensure that, to the extent practicable, regulations governing the
transportation of hazardous materials in commerce are consistent with
standards adopted by international authorities. This notice considers
potential amendments to the HMR that would maintain alignment with
international standards by incorporating various amendments. The
continually increasing amount of hazardous materials transported in
international commerce warrants the harmonization of domestic and
international requirements to the greatest extent * * * The majority of
amendments in any harmonization rule should result in cost savings and
ease the regulatory compliance burden for shippers engaged in domestic
and international commerce, including trans-border shipments within
North America.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 106.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2010-7544 Filed 4-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14797-14799]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

March 23, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12762-000.
    c. Date filed: December 28, 2006 and amended on February 22, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Hydro Green Energy, LLC.

    e. Name of Project: Mississippi 1 Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' existing Sardis Reservoir Dam, on the Tallahatchie River, in
Panola County, Mississippi.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Mr. James H. Hancock, Jr., Batch & Bingham
LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2014, (205) 226-
3418. Mr. James R. Kunkel, PhD, P.E., Knight Piesold and Co., 1050
Seventeenth Street, Suite 450, Denver, CO 80265,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Etta Foster,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would utilize the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Sardis Dam, reservoir, and all
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would consist of: (1) four
developments: Development 1, consisting of (1) A powerhouse containing
two turbines and generators with a total capacity of 46,080 kW, and (2)
a new 72-inch-diameter, 1,000 to 2,000-foot-long, penstock; (3)
Development 2, containing multiple hydrokinetic turbines located in the
outlet channel of Sardis Dam immediately below the discharge point of
Development 1; (4) Development 3, consisting of a turbine and generator
with a capacity of 250 kW attached to a new 12-inch-diameter, 50 to
100-foot-long, penstock; (5) Development 4, consisting of multiple
hydrokinetic turbines connected to the switch yard by separate
transmission lines of approximately 500 to 10,000-foot-long; (6) a
switch yard, and (7) a 69 Kv transmission line, one to five miles long
to connect the four developments to the power grid. The project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 124 gigawatt-hours.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'' OR
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an

agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5765 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33802-33803]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0212]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior
Harbor), Between the Towns of Duluth, MN and Superior, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the regulations that govern the
drawbridges over the St. Louis River at Duluth-Superior Harbor. This
waterway borders Minnesota and Wisconsin and is listed under Minnesota
as St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor) and under Wisconsin as
Duluth-Superior Harbor (St. Louis River) in the CFR. This rule affects
both regulations. The owner of the Burlington Northern Grassy Point
Railroad Bridge at mile 5.44 requested the regulation be updated to
include permanent winter operating schedule. This rule also aligns
river mile numbers with the United States Coast Pilot and deletes
bridges from the regulations that were removed from the waterway and
makes the regulation easier to read and less confusing to the mariner.

DATES: This rule is effective August 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-
2017-0212]. In the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LWD Low Water Datum
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On April 19, 2017, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, Drawbridge Operation Regulation; St. Louis River
(Duluth-Superior Harbor), between the towns of Duluth, MN and Superior,
WI, in the Federal Register (82 FR 18407). We did not receive any
comments on this proposed rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33
U.S.C. 499. The current regulations for St. Louis River drawbridges (33
CFR 117.669 and 33 CFR 117.1083) includes the operating schedules for
the Burlington Northern Grassy Point Railroad Bridge at mile 5.44, the
Grassy Point Bridge at mile 8.0, the Arrow Head Bridge at mile 8.7, and
the Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range combined Railroad and Highway Bridge,
also known as the Oliver Bridge, at mile 13.91.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard provided a 30 day comment period in the Federal
Register and solicited comments through the Ninth Coast Guard Local
Notice to Mariners for the same 30 days and we did not receive any
comments.
    Title 33 of the Code of Regulations part 117 lists drawbridge
regulations by state. The St. Louis River is the border between
Minnesota (listed under 33 CFR 117.669) and Wisconsin (listed under 33
CFR 117.1083). The St. Louis River is listed by state separately under
both sections of the CFR. This rule will revise 33 CFR 117.1083 (under
Wisconsin) to direct readers to 33 CFR 117.669 (under Minnesota) to
simplify the rule and make it easier to reference by mariners.
    The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule of the The
Burlington Northern Grassy Point Railroad Bridge at mile 5.44 to
include authorized permanent winter hours. Mariners will still be able
to request bridge openings with 12-hours advance notice during times of
light traffic volume on the river due to ice formation that typically
prevents most vessel navigation in the channel from December 15 through
March 15 each year.
    The bridges listed in the regulations as the Grassy Point Bridge at
mile 8.0 and the Arrow Head Bridge at mile 8.7, respectively, have been
removed from the waterway and will be removed from the regulations.
    The Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range combined Railroad and Highway
Bridge, also known as the Oliver Bridge, at mile 13.91, will be renamed
the Canadian National Combined Railroad and Highway Bridge to reflect
the current owner and use. The authorization to remain in the closed
position will continue as before, but the drawbridge must return to
operable condition when notified by the District Commander to do so.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice during the
winter when ice typically prevents vessels from transiting the waterway
and vessel traffic is at its lowest. This rule will also align river
mile numbers with the United States Coast Pilot and delete bridges from
the regulations that have been removed from the waterway and make the
regulation easier to read and less confusing to the mariner.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 did
not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this
rule. 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. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section IV.A above this final rule would not have a significant
economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because the bridge will
open with advance notice.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration and a
Memorandum for the Record are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.669 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.669  St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor).

    (a) The draw of the Burlington Northern Grassy Point railroad
Bridge, mile 5.44, shall open on signal except that, from December 15
through March 15 the draw shall open if at least 12-hour notice is
given.
    (b) The draw of the Canadian National Combined Railroad and Highway
Bridge, mile 13.91, need not be opened for the passage of vessels. The
owner shall return the draw to operable condition within a reasonable
time when notified by the District Commander to do so.

0
 3. Revise Sec.  117.1083 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.1083  Duluth-Superior Harbor (St. Louis River).

    See Sec.  117.669 St. Louis River (Duluth-Superior Harbor), listed
under Minnesota.

    Dated: June 15, 2017.
N.A. Bartolotta,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2017-15371 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P