[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34700-34701]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2218]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

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

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On March 8, 2022, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed flood hazard determination notice that contained an erroneous
table. This notice provides corrections to that table to be used in
lieu of the erroneous information. The table provided here represents
the proposed flood hazard determinations and communities affected for
Chippewa County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and where
applicable, the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for each community
are

available for inspection at both the online location and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2218, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed in the table below, in
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and
FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR
67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
are made final.

Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice published at 87
FR 12971 in the March 8, 2022, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA
published a table titled ``Chippewa County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated
Areas''. This table contained inaccurate information as to the
communities affected by the proposed flood hazard determinations in
Chippewa County, Wisconsin, featured in the table. In this document,
FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information. The
information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously
published.

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Community                Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Chippewa County, Wisconsin and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 11-05-2527S Preliminary
     Date: September 29, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Chippewa Falls............  City Hall, Inspection Zoning Office,
                                     30 West Central Street, Chippewa
                                     Falls, WI 54729.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-12220 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16146-16149]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06526]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9960-44-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AG91

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Further Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
delay the effective date of the final rule that amends the Risk
Management Program regulations under the Clean Air Act published in the
Federal Register on January 13, 2017. On March 16, 2017, the EPA
published in the Federal Register a stay and delay of the effective
date pending reconsideration to June 19, 2017. The EPA is proposing to
further delay the effective date to February 19, 2019. This action
would allow the Agency time to consider petitions for reconsideration
of this final rule and take further regulatory action, which could
include proposing and finalizing a rule to revise the Risk Management
Program amendments.

DATES:
    Comments. Written comments must be received by May 19, 2017.
    Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed
rule on April 19, 2017 in Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEM-2015-0725, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held in Washington, DC on
April 19, 2017 at William J. Clinton East Building, Room 1153 (Map
Room), 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. The hearing
will convene at 9:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. (all times are Eastern
Standard Time). The sessions will run from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon,
with a break between 12:00 Noon and 1:00 p.m., continuing from 1:00
p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Persons wishing to preregister may be assigned a time
according to this schedule. The afternoon session beginning at 1:00
p.m. will be extended one hour after all scheduled comments have been
heard to accommodate those wishing to make a comment as a walk-in
registrant. Please register at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/rmp-proposed-rule-effective-date-public-hearing-tickets-32733701382 to
speak at the hearing. The last day to preregister in advance to speak
at the hearing is April 11, 2017. Additionally, requests to speak will
be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk,
although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled.
If you require the service of a translator or special accommodations
such as audio description, we ask that you identify such needs during
preregistration for the hearing, on or before April 11, 2017, to allow
sufficient time to arrange such accommodations.
    The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The
EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and
register. Because this hearing is being held at U.S. government
facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be
prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in
order to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID
Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements for
entering federal facilities. If your driver's license is issued by
Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or the state of
Washington, you must present an additional form of identification to
enter the federal building. Acceptable alternative forms of
identification include: Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced
driver's licenses and military identification cards. In addition, you
will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you
bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to
return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be
allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the
building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for
security reasons.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations,
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim
transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be included in
the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow
the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however,
please plan for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind
schedule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Belke, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Mail Code 5104A), Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or: Kathy Franklin, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Electronic copies of this document and related news releases are
available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/rmp. Copies of this
proposed rule are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    This rule applies to those facilities, referred to as ``stationary
sources'' under the Clean Air Act (CAA), that are subject to the
chemical accident prevention requirements at 40 CFR part 68. This
includes stationary sources holding more than a threshold quantity (TQ)
of a regulated substance in a process. Table 5 provides industrial
sectors and the associated NAICS codes for entities potentially
affected by this action. The Agency's goal is to provide a guide for
readers to consider regarding entities that potentially could be
affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities
not listed in this table. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person(s) listed in the introductory section of this action under the
heading entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

   Table 5--Industrial Sectors and Associated NAICS Codes for Entities
                   Potentially Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Sector                             NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of Environmental Quality      924.
 Programs.
Agricultural Chemical Distributors:          ...........................
    Crop Production........................  111.
    Animal Production and Aquaculture......  112.
    Support Activities for Agriculture and   115.
     Forestry Farm.
    Supplies Merchant Wholesalers..........  42491.
    Chemical Manufacturing.................  325.
    Chemical and Allied Products Merchant    4246.
     Wholesalers.
    Food Manufacturing.....................  311.
    Beverage Manufacturing.................  3121.
    Oil and Gas Extraction.................  211.
    Other..................................  44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 61, 72.
    Other manufacturing....................  313, 326, 327, 33.
Other Wholesale:                             ...........................
    Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods....  423.
    Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods.  424.

    Paper Manufacturing....................  322.
    Petroleum and Coal Products              324.
     Manufacturing.
    Petroleum and Petroleum Products         4247.
     Merchant Wholesalers.
    Utilities..............................  221.
    Warehousing and Storage................  493.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On January 13, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule amending 40 CFR
part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under section
112(r)(7) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The amendments addressed
various aspects of risk management programs, including prevention
programs at stationary sources, emergency response preparedness
requirements, information availability, and various other changes to
streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the underlying
rules. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the ``Risk Management
Program Amendments.'' For further information on the Risk Management
Program Amendments, see 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).
    On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a final rule delaying the
effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments from March 14,
2017, to March 21, 2017, see 82 FR 8499. This revision to the effective
date of the Risk Management Program Amendments was part of an EPA final
rule implementing a memorandum dated January 20, 2017, from the
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory
Freeze Pending Review.'' This memorandum directed the heads of agencies
to postpone until 60 days after the date of its issuance the effective
date of rules that were published prior to January 20, 2017 but which
had not yet become effective.
    In a letter dated February 28, 2017, a group known as the ``RMP
Coalition,'' \1\ submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Risk
Management Program Amendments (``RMP Coalition Petition'') as provided
for in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).\2\ Under
that provision, the Administrator is to commence a reconsideration
proceeding if, in the Administrator's judgement, the petitioner raises
an objection to a rule that was impracticable to raise during the
comment period or if the grounds for the objection arose after the
comment period but within the period for judicial review. In either
case, the Administrator must also conclude that the objection is of
central relevance to the outcome of the rule. The Administrator may
stay the effective date of the rule for up to three months during such
reconsideration. On March 13, 2017, the Chemical Safety Advocacy Group
(``CSAG'') also submitted a petition for reconsideration and stay.\3\
On March 14, 2017, the EPA received a third petition for
reconsideration and stay from the States of Louisiana, joined by
Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The petitions from CSAG and the
eleven states also requested that EPA delay the various compliance
dates of the Risk Management Program Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RMP Coalition is comprised of the American Chemistry
Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel
& Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group.
    \2\ A copy of the RMP Coalition petition is included in the
docket for this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
    \3\ A copy of the CSAG petition is included in the docket for
this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725. CSAG members include
companies in the refining, oil and gas, chemicals, and general
manufacturing sectors with operations throughout the United States
that are subject to the RMP Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator announced the
convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management
Program Amendments (a copy of this letter is included in the docket for
this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725). As explained in that
letter, having considered the objections raised in the RMP Coalition
Petition, the Administrator determined that the criteria for
reconsideration have been met for at least one of the objections. EPA
issued a three-month (90-day) administrative stay of the effective date
of the Risk Management Program Amendments until June 19, 2017 (82 FR
13968, March 16, 2017). EPA will prepare a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the near future that will provide the RMP Coalition,
CSAG, the states, and the public an opportunity to comment on the
issues raised in the petitions that meet the standard of CAA section
307(d)(7)(B) as well as any other matter we believe will benefit from
additional comment.

III. Proposal To Delay the Effective Date

    As noted above, the Administrator's authority to administratively
stay the effectiveness of a Clean Air Act rule pending reconsideration
is limited to three months. On occasion, however, we have found three
months to be insufficient to complete the necessary steps in the
reconsideration process. Therefore, when we have issued similar
administrative stays in the past, it has often been our practice to
also propose an additional extension of the stay of effectiveness
through a rulemaking process. We believe this practice is consistent
with our rulemaking authority under CAA 307(d), which generally allows
the EPA to set effective dates as appropriate unless other provisions
of the CAA control. An additional extension enables us to take comment
on issues that are in question and complete any revisions of the rule
that become necessary as a result of the reconsideration process.
    As with some of our past reconsiderations, we expect to take
comment on a broad range of legal and policy issues as part of the Risk
Management Program Amendments reconsideration, and we are in the
process of preparing the necessary comment solicitation to help focus
commenters on issues of central relevance to our decision-making.
Recognizing that these issues may be difficult and time consuming to
evaluate, and given the expected high level of interest from
stakeholders in commenting on these issues, we are proposing a further
delay of the effective date to allow additional time to open these
issues for review and comment.
    This proposed rule would delay the effective date of the Risk
Management Program Amendments to February 19, 2019. This timeframe
would allow the EPA time to evaluate the objections raised by the
various petitions for reconsideration of the Risk Management Program
Amendments, consider other issues that may benefit from additional

comment, and take further regulatory action. This schedule allows time
for developing and publishing any notices that focus comment on
specific issues to be reconsidered as well as other issues for which
additional comment may be appropriate. A delay of the effective date to
February 19, 2019, provides a sufficient opportunity for public comment
on the reconsideration in accordance with the requirements of CAA
section 307(d), gives us an opportunity to evaluate and respond to such
comments, and take any possible regulatory actions, which could include
proposing and finalizing a rule to revise the Risk Management Program
amendments, as appropriate. While it is possible that we may require
less time to complete the reconsideration and any possible regulatory
actions, we believe extending the effective date to February 19, 2019
is reasonable and prudent.
    The EPA recognizes that compliance dates for some provisions in the
Risk Management Program Amendments coincided with the rule's effective
date, while compliance dates for other provisions would occur in later
years, i.e., 2018, 2021, or 2022, depending on the provision.
Compliance with all of the rule provisions is not required as long as
the rule does not become effective. The EPA is not proposing any action
on any compliance dates at this time, as EPA plans to amend the
compliance dates as necessary when considering future regulatory
action.
    The Agency is seeking comment on this proposal to delay the
effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments. Any
alternative approaches or timeframes presented must include appropriate
rationale and supporting data in order for the Agency to be able to
consider them for final action. Because this proposal is solely focused
on the issue of whether to further extend the effective date and for
how long, comments should be limited to these issues. A separate
Federal Register notice published in the near future will specifically
solicit comment on the range of issues under reconsideration.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This proposed rule would only delay the effective date of the
Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on January 13, 2017 (see
82 FR 4594) and does not propose information collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule would not impose a
regulatory burden for small entities because it only proposes to delay
the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized
on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594). We have therefore concluded that
this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule would only delay the
effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments finalized on
January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not propose new regulatory
requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This proposed rule would only
delay the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments
finalized on January 13, 2017 (see 82 FR 4594) and does not propose any
regulatory requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 29, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-06526 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Underground
Aboveground
Scenario 1[*]
A bulk aboveground storage tank (AST) that directly supplies fuel to the hydrant piping, which fuels the aircraft.
   * The airport hydrant fuel distribution system is the AST and the underground hydrant piping.  This tank is often referred to as a feeder tank.
   * The proposed definition does not regulate any part of this system UNLESS 10% or more of the volume of the tank and associated underground piping is below ground.

Aboveground

Underground

Scenario 2[*]
A bulk AST receives fuel from a pipeline (i.e. "receiver" tank), and this AST supplies fuel to an intermediary AST (i.e. "feeder" tank), which then directly supplies fuel to the hydrant piping.
   * The intermediary AST (also commonly referred to as a feeder tank) and the underground hydrant piping is the airport hydrant fuel distribution system.  The AST that receives the fuel and supplies the intermediary tank is not a part of the airport hydrant system.
   * The proposed definition does not regulate any part of this system UNLESS 10% or more of the volume of the tank and associated underground piping is below ground.
Aboveground
Underground
Scenario 3[*]
A bulk AST that directly supplies fuel to an intermediary underground storage tank (i.e. "feeder" tank), which directly feeds the hydrant piping to fuel the aircraft.
   * The bulk AST is not considered to be part of the airport hydrant fuel distribution system under this scenario.
   * The proposed definition defines the airport hydrant fuel distribution system as the storage tank directly connected to the underground hydrant piping, the underground hydrant piping, and any other connected underground piping.  This system will be regulated by the proposal.

Aboveground

Underground

Scenario 4[*]
A bulk UST receives fuel, and this UST supplies fuel to an intermediary UST (i.e. "feeder" tank), which then directly supplies fuel to the hydrant piping.
   * The bulk UST is not considered to be part of the airport hydrant fuel distribution system under this scenario.  However, the bulk UST would be regulated as a field constructed UST or as a traditional UST, depending on how it was constructed.
   * The proposed definition defines the airport hydrant fuel distribution system as the intermediary UST directly connected to the hydrant piping and the hydrant piping.  The piping between the bulk UST and the airport hydrant UST will have to meet the bulk piping requirements under the proposal.
Aboveground
Underground
Underground
Aboveground

Scenario 5[*]
This scenario contains two distinct airport hydrant fuel distribution systems and a bulk AST "receiver" tank.  The receiver AST supplies fuel to two different intermediary tanks (i.e. "feeder" tanks), and these intermediary tanks directly supply fuel to hydrant piping.
   * Each set of storage tanks directly connected to hydrant piping that fuels aircraft is a distinct airport hydrant fuel distribution system.
   * The receiver AST is not regulated by the proposed definition.
   * The proposed definition regulates the intermediary UST directly connected to an airport hydrant piping run and this hydrant piping run, as under Scenario 3.
   * The intermediary AST (also commonly referred to as a feeder tank) and the underground hydrant piping are considered by EPA to be an airport hydrant fuel distribution system.  The proposed definition does not regulate any part of this system UNLESS 10% or more of the volume of the tank and associated underground piping is below ground.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 61 (Thursday, April 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17073-17078]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06336]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0725; FRL-10021-95-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV07

Extension of 2019 and 2020 Renewable Fuel Standard Compliance and
Attest Engagement Reporting Deadlines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
modifications of certain compliance dates under the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program. First, EPA is extending the RFS compliance
deadline for the 2019 compliance year and the associated deadline for
submission of attest engagement reports for the 2019 compliance year
for small refineries. The new deadlines are November 30, 2021, and June
1, 2022, respectively. Second, EPA is extending the RFS compliance
deadline for the 2020 compliance year and the associated deadline for
submission of attest engagement reports for the 2020 compliance year
for obligated parties. The new deadlines are January 31, 2022, and June
1, 2022, respectively. Finally, EPA is extending the deadline for
submission of attest engagement reports for the 2021 compliance year
for obligated parties to September 1, 2022.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 30, 2021.
    Operational dates: For operational purposes under the Clean Air
Act, this final rule is effective as of March 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0725. 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, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material is
not available on the internet and will be publicly available only in
hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding this action,
contact Lauren Michaels, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734)
214-4640; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dates. Section 553(d) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 5, generally provides that rules
may not take effect until 30 days after they are published in the
Federal Register. EPA is issuing this final rule under CAA sec. 307(d),
which states, ``The provisions of section 553 through 557 . . . of
Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply
to actions to which this subsection applies.'' Thus, section 553(d) of
the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting
consistently with the policies underlying APA section 553(d) in making
this final rule effective upon signature. The purpose of this APA
provision is to ``give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust
their behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v.
Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United
States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting
legislative history). However, when an agency grants or recognizes an
exemption or relieves a restriction, affected parties do not need a
reasonable time to adjust because the effect is not adverse. Thus, APA
section 553(d) allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication for any rule that ``grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction'' (see 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). An accelerated
effective date may also be appropriate for good cause pursuant to APA
section 553(d)(3) where an agency can ``balance the necessity for
immediate implementation against principles of fundamental fairness
which require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount
of time to prepare for the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic,
551 F.2d at 1105.
    EPA has determined that the regulatory amendments to 40 CFR part
80, subpart M, are operational upon signature because they relieve a
restriction by extending the 2019 and 2020 compliance deadlines (and
associated attest engagement report deadlines) ahead of the otherwise
imminent 2020 RFS compliance deadline of March 31, 2021, thereby
providing obligated parties with additional time to demonstrate
compliance. There is additionally good cause for immediate
implementation of these provisions because pending litigation in the
Supreme Court makes it necessary for this rule to go into effect prior
to March 31, 2021, to ensure regulated entities do not begin complying
with removed regulatory obligations. Among other actions, EPA is today
extending the regulatory deadline for small refineries to comply with
their 2019 RFS obligations from March 31, 2020, to November 30, 2021,
because litigation pending before the United States Supreme Court is
expected to resolve legal questions regarding some small refineries'
eligibility to receive annual exemptions from their 2019 regulatory
obligations. EPA is also extending the regulatory deadline for all
obligated parties to comply with their 2020 RFS obligations, from March
31, 2021, to January 31, 2022, which is required because of agency
delay in promulgating future RFS compliance obligations and the
corresponding impact on compliance decisions. These actions mean any
delay in the effectiveness of this final rule past March 31, 2021,
would result in confusion among regulated entities regarding their
compliance obligations.
    Does this action apply to me?
    Entities potentially affected by this rule are those involved with
the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels,
including gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuels such as ethanol,
biodiesel, renewable diesel, and biogas. Potentially affected
categories include:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                    NAICS \1\ code                          Examples of potentially affected entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................................          324110  Petroleum refineries.
Industry.....................................          325193  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          325199  Other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Industry.....................................          424690  Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers.
Industry.....................................          424710  Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.
Industry.....................................          424720  Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers.
Industry.....................................          221210  Manufactured gas production and distribution.

Industry.....................................          454319  Other fuel dealers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether
your entity would be affected by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

Outline of this Preamble

I. Background and Extension of Deadlines
    A. Extension of the 2019 RFS Compliance Deadline for Small
Refineries
    B. Extension of the 2020 RFS Compliance Deadline for All
Obligated Parties
    C. Corresponding Attest Engagement Report Deadlines
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
III. Statutory Authority

I. Background and Extension of Deadlines

    In January 2021, EPA proposed amendments to the RFS regulations to
extend the deadline for obligated parties to demonstrate compliance
with their 2019 and 2020 RFS obligations.\1\ We are finalizing the
amendments as proposed to extend the deadlines for small refineries to
submit reports demonstrating compliance with their 2019 RFS obligations
and their corresponding attest engagement reports. We are also
finalizing amendments to extend the deadlines for all obligated parties
to submit reports demonstrating compliance with their 2020 RFS
obligations and their corresponding attest engagement reports. Finally,
in response to stakeholder feedback, we are also extending the 2021
attest engagement report deadline for all obligated parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 86 FR 3928 (January 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For small refineries, we are extending the 2019 compliance deadline
in light of the continued uncertainty surrounding small refinery
exemptions (SREs) under the RFS program.\2\ We are finalizing a 2019
compliance deadline for small refineries of November 30, 2021, and an
attest engagement report deadline of June 1, 2022. For the 2020
compliance year, we are extending the compliance deadline for all
obligated parties because we have not yet promulgated an annual
rulemaking establishing the 2021 RFS standards. We are finalizing a
2020 compliance deadline for all obligated parties of January 31, 2022,
and an attest engagement report deadline of June 1, 2022. Finally, for
the 2021 compliance year, we are extending the attest engagement report
deadline for obligated parties to September 1, 2022. These new
deadlines are summarized in Table I.A-1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program, established under
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 211(o), requires a certain volume of
renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based
transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel used in the United
States. Small refineries may petition EPA annually for exemption
from their RFS obligations under CAA section 211(o)(9)(B). For more
information about small refinery exemptions (SREs), see https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/rfs-small-refinery-exemptions.

 Table I.A-1--Original and Revised Annual Compliance and Attest Engagement Reporting Deadlines for Obligated Parties for the 2019 (as Applicable), 2020,
                                                                and 2021 Compliance Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Original annual compliance     Revised annual compliance    Original attest engagement     Revised attest engagement
    Regulated party category                deadline                      deadline                 reporting deadline            reporting deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2019 Compliance Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small refineries...............  March 31, 2020...............  November 30, 2021...........  June 1, 2020................  June 1, 2022.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2020 Compliance Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligated parties..............  March 31, 2021...............  January 31, 2022............  June 1, 2021................  June 1, 2022.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2021 Compliance Year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligated parties..............                   March 31, 2022 (unchanged)                  June 1, 2022................  September 1, 2022.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Obligated party commenters were generally supportive of our
proposal to extend the compliance deadlines, although some suggested
that additional compliance deadline extensions would be helpful. In
contrast, biofuels industry groups suggested extensions were either not
justified or excessive in length. We also received comments from
stakeholders involved in the attest engagement process who provided
feedback on the scope and sequencing

of attest report deadline extensions. We have considered these
comments, and in some cases, adjusted our regulations in response to
the comments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Further discussion of the comments received, and our
responses to them, can be found in the Response to Comments
document, available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Extension of the 2019 RFS Compliance Deadline for Small Refineries

    The RFS regulations establish deadlines for obligated parties with
renewable volume obligations (RVOs) to submit annual compliance
demonstration reports to EPA, and later deadlines for the same parties
to submit associated attest engagement reports. Under existing RFS
regulations, obligated parties must submit compliance demonstration
reports for each calendar year by March 31 of the following year, and
associated attest engagements by June 1 of the following year.\4\ In
this action, we are revising certain reporting deadlines applicable to
the 2019, 2020, and 2021 compliance years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 80.1451(a) and 80.1464(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit issued a decision in Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) v. EPA
invalidating several SREs granted by EPA.\5\ The small refineries whose
SREs were invalidated by the court in the RFA case sought rehearing
from the Tenth Circuit, which was denied on April 7, 2020.\6\ Thus, the
Tenth Circuit's decision was not final until after the 2019 compliance
reporting deadline had already passed on March 31, 2020. On September
4, 2020, the small refinery intervenors in that suit filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted
on January 8, 2021, in HollyFrontier v. RFA.\7\ Briefing in that case
is ongoing, and oral argument is scheduled for April 27, 2021. The
Supreme Court's decision in HollyFrontier has the potential to affect
the availability of SREs. Due to the resulting uncertainty, we do not
believe it would be appropriate to require small refineries to
demonstrate compliance with their 2019 obligations until the Supreme
Court renders a decision in HollyFrontier.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Renewable Fuels Ass'n v. EPA, 948 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2020)
(RFA).
    \6\ Order, RFA, No. 18-9533 (10th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020).
    \7\ HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels
Ass'n, No. 20-472 (U.S.).
    \8\ EPA received a letter from the Small Refineries Coalition
dated July 30, 2020, requesting that EPA modify the 2019, 2020, and
2021 compliance deadlines and corresponding attest engagement
reporting deadlines. The letter suggests that uncertainty due to the
lack of 2019 and 2020 SRE decisions and the unknown 2021 RFS
standards ``make it practically impossible for small refineries to
plan for compliance.'' This letter is available in the docket for
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed extension of the 2019
compliance deadline for small refineries. We believe that it is
appropriate to do so only for small refineries because it is only the
compliance requirements of these parties that would be affected by the
outcome of the HollyFrontier case.\9\ All other obligated parties'
compliance obligations for 2019 remain the same regardless of the
HollyFrontier decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Most small refineries currently have pending 2019 SRE
petitions before the agency. We are extending this flexibility to
all small refineries because others may elect to submit petitions in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the proposed rule, EPA will allow small refineries to
revisit their compliance reports in the time period between
finalization of this rule and up to the new compliance date for 2019
established by this rulemaking. This means that if a small refinery
carried forward a deficit to demonstrate 2019 compliance by March 31,
2020, but later receives an SRE for 2019 or retires RINs \10\ in
accordance with its obligation, that initial decision to carry forward
a deficit will not constitute a carry-forward deficit (i.e., failing to
meet the requirement to retire sufficient RINs as described in 40 CFR
80.1427(a)(1)) that would make the small refinery ineligible to do the
same for 2020 under 40 CFR 80.1427(b). Small refineries that did not
submit a compliance report by March 31, 2020, will need to submit a
compliance report to comply with the new November 30, 2021, compliance
deadline, unless they receive an exemption for 100% relief of their RFS
compliance obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ RINs, or renewable identification numbers, are credits
generated by renewable fuel producers and used for compliance with
RFS obligations. For more information about RINs, see https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-identification-numbers-rins-under-renewable-fuel-standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This deadline extension applies only to those parties who meet the
definition of small refinery in CAA section 211(o)(1)(k) and 40 CFR
80.1441(e)(2)(iii) for the 2019 compliance year. Limiting the extension
in this way is appropriate because only small refineries' compliance
obligations are affected by the HollyFrontier case and it is consistent
with our eligibility requirements regarding SREs. We recognize that in
recent years we have determined that some parties who have petitioned
for SREs have been deemed ineligible by EPA, often due to the
refinery's throughput (i.e., more than 75,000 barrels of crude oil per
day) or the nature of their business (i.e., not a petroleum refinery).
The parties that EPA has found ineligible because they do not meet the
definition of small refinery in recent years will similarly not be
eligible for the compliance date extension for small refineries.
    We note that all of the existing regulatory flexibilities for small
refineries--including the ability to satisfy up to 20 percent of their
2019 RVOs using 2018 carryover RINs under 40 CFR 80.1427(a)(5) and the
ability to carry forward a deficit from 2019 to 2020 if they did not
carry forward a deficit from 2018 under 40 CFR 80.1427(b)--will
continue to be available to them to demonstrate compliance for 2019 on
the new November 30, 2021, compliance deadline. This means that small
refineries that carried forward a deficit for 2019 in their initial
2019 compliance reports (filed in 2020) can reverse that decision in
new compliance reports and retain their ability to carry forward a
deficit for 2020. It also means that small refineries that did not
submit a 2019 compliance report by March 31, 2020, can also carry
forward a deficit for 2020. Finally, small refineries can either carry
forward a deficit for 2019 (if they did not do so for 2018) or for 2020
(if they do not do so for 2019). Due to the ongoing litigation, we take
no position on the availability of SREs for the 2019 compliance year,
but refer stakeholders to EPA's announcement on February 24, 2021,
regarding the HollyFrontier case.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Available at: https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/epa-signals-new-position-small-refinery-exemptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Extension of the 2020 RFS Compliance Deadline for All Obligated
Parties

    We are also finalizing the proposed modification of the 2020
compliance deadline for all obligated parties to January 31, 2022. We
are doing so because EPA has not yet proposed the 2021 RFS standards,
including applicable volumes, and we recognize the importance to
obligated parties of planning their compliance for a given calendar
year by understanding their obligations for the years before and
after.\12\ This is particularly true given the two-year ``lifespan''
for RINs, such that 2020 RINs can be used for compliance with either
2020 or 2021 obligations. Compliance obligations for

2021 will remain unknown until EPA finalizes the 2021 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For discussion of obligated parties' interest in such
extensions in past actions, see 80 FR 33099, 33149 (June 10, 2015)
and 78 FR 49794, 49823 (August 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also modifying the 2020 compliance deadline to allow small
refineries who have not yet demonstrated compliance with their 2019
obligations sufficient time between each year's compliance obligation
demonstration. Modifying the 2020 compliance deadline to a date after
the 2019 compliance deadline for small refineries will allow for
complete 2019 compliance by all obligated parties, including these
small refineries, prior to having to demonstrate 2020 compliance.
Requiring full compliance with the 2019 standards prior to the 2020
compliance deadline will provide all obligated parties and market
participants with an accurate picture of the RIN market, including the
availability of 2019 carryover RINs to comply with 2020 standards.
    We are finalizing the proposed 2020 compliance date of January 31,
2022, for all obligated parties. This deadline allows several things to
occur prior to that compliance date. First, it allows small refineries
to complete compliance with their 2019 obligations. Second, it provides
60 days between the 2019 and 2020 compliance deadlines to allow for
obligated parties to make additional RIN acquisitions, transfers,
transactions, and retirements prior to the 2020 compliance deadline.
Finally, this deadline provides 60 days between 2020 and 2021
compliance deadlines, allowing the 2021 compliance deadline to remain
on March 31, 2022, as currently prescribed in our regulations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 40 CFR 80.1451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Corresponding Attest Engagement Report Deadlines

    We are finalizing the proposed changes to the deadlines for attest
engagement reports required under 40 CFR 80.1464(g) for small
refineries for 2019 compliance demonstrations and for all obligated
parties for 2020 compliance demonstrations. In addition, we are also
adopting a change to the 2021 attest engagement reporting deadline for
all obligated parties to ensure enough time for attest auditors to
reasonably conduct the 2019, 2020, and 2021 attest engagement reports;
this change is supported by stakeholder feedback on the proposed rule
and consideration of the administrative complications that will
accompany the attest engagement compliance and reporting deadline
extensions being finalized in this rule. However, after consideration
of public comments received, we are not finalizing the proposed changes
to the 2020 attest engagement reporting deadline for RIN-generating
renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel,
and other parties owning RINs, for the reasons explained below.
    For small refineries, given the short period of time between when
small refineries will have to demonstrate compliance with their 2019
and 2020 obligations, we do not believe it is feasible for them to
conduct an attest engagement for 2019 between the new 2019 and 2020
compliance deadlines. Therefore, we are finalizing the requirement that
small refineries conduct their 2019 attest engagement by June 1, 2022.
    For all obligated parties, we are also finalizing that the 2020
attest engagement reporting deadline be June 1, 2022. We believe this
will provide all obligated parties with the time necessary to conduct
their attest engagements in a timely manner and on a similar schedule.
Because attest engagements are based on the information in the
previously submitted compliance reports, sequencing the attest
engagement to occur after the compliance deadline is a reasonable
approach. We believe that this sequencing of reports, and the time
allowed between them, will allow obligated parties to proceed to
demonstrate compliance with both their 2019 and 2020 RVOs in a logical
and orderly fashion with all relevant information available and with
sufficient intervening time so as not to pose an increased burden.
    For the 2021 compliance year, we are extending the attest
engagement reporting deadline for all obligated parties to September 1,
2022. We agree with feedback received from stakeholders who prepare
attest engagement reports for obligated parties that it would be useful
to stagger attest engagement deadlines to accommodate the staggered
nature of the annual compliance deadlines and so as not to overwhelm
auditors and processes for preparing and submitting reports.\14\ This
stakeholder highlighted concerns regarding the proposed requirement
that the 2019 (for small refineries), 2020, and 2021 attest report
deadlines would fall on the same date, which would almost certainly
mean that the limited number of attest auditors that perform these
services for obligated parties would not have enough time to perform
the audits and prepare the reports, thereby creating an administrative
bottleneck.\15\ Another commenter recommended that we maintain at least
90 days between respective annual compliance deadlines and annual
attest engagement reporting deadlines.\16\ We agree with these comments
and believe providing an additional three months for 2021 attest
engagements will provide auditors a reasonable amount of time to
perform the audits. This change also will not impact obligated parties'
plans and actions to comply with their RFS obligations, since the
attest engagements are after-the-fact reports summarizing those
compliance measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``External Party Meeting Log for RFS Compliance Date
Extension Rule,'' available in the docket for this action.
    \15\ See also comments from Weaver suggesting staggered attest
report dates for 2019-2021 (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0725--
0011.
    \16\ See comments from AFPM (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0725-0023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, we do not believe that requiring small refineries to
submit both their 2019 and 2020 attest engagement reports by June 1,
2022, will create much additional effort for attest auditors due to the
relatively low number of small refineries and the fact that all other
obligated parties have already submitted their 2019 attest engagement
reports, which were due on June 1, 2020.
    In response to public comment, we are not finalizing the proposed
changes to the deadline for 2020 attest engagement reports for RIN-
generating renewable fuel producers, RIN-generating importers of
renewable fuel, and other parties owning RINs. A commenter stated that
such a deadline extension was unnecessary because all the records and
reports needed to perform the attest audits and prepare the attest
engagement reports for these parties are already available and not
dependent on the compliance deadlines for obligated parties. The
commenter highlighted concern that attest auditors may already be
stretched to provide sufficient time and resources to complete all
audits in such a short window for obligated parties, and there was no
need to compound this situation by extending the attest audit deadlines
for these parties and we agree with these comments. Additionally, based
on our experience overseeing compliance with reporting deadlines, we
believe we should maintain existing reporting deadlines when possible,
as this provides regulated parties with regulatory certainty.
Therefore, we are maintaining the 2020 attest engagement reporting
deadline of June 1, 2021, for RIN-generating renewable fuel producers,
RIN-generating importers of renewable fuel, and other parties owning
RINs.\17\ We also encourage

parties required to submit annual attest engagement reports to submit
those reports early, if possible, as this may help attest auditors
better sequence their work and ensure that reports are submitted on
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See 40 CFR 80.1464(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we note that we intend to provide additional reporting
instructions on our fuels reporting website for the attest engagement
reports prior to the revised deadlines.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/program-specific-instructions-attest-engagements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We commonly post helpful and detailed information that will assist
parties in submitting compliance reports, including attest engagement
reports, to our website and we encourage them to use our website as a
resource.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0725 and 2060-0723. This action only makes a one-
time change in the compliance dates for certain regulated parties and
adjusts the due date of their compliance reports and attest engagements
to reflect this change. It does not change the information to be
collected or increase the frequency of collection.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action extends the RFS compliance
deadlines. We do not anticipate that there will be any costs associated
with these changes. We have therefore concluded that this action will
have no regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments.
Requirements for the private sector do not exceed $100 million in any
one year.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This rule only affects RFS obligated parties.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or
safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not create
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

III. Statutory Authority

    Statutory authority for this action comes from section 211(o) of
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,
Oil imports, Penalties, Petroleum, Renewable fuel, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Michael Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
80 as follows:

PART 80--REGISTRATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521, 7542, 7545, and 7601(a).

Subpart M--Renewable Fuel Standard

0
2. Amend Sec.  80.1451 by adding paragraphs (a)(1)(xiv)(E) and (F) to
read as follows:

Sec.  80.1451  What are the reporting requirements under the RFS
program?

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (xiv) * * *
    (E) For obligated parties that meet the requirements for a small
refinery under Sec.  80.1441(e)(2)(iii), for the 2019 compliance year,
annual compliance

reports must be submitted no later than November 30, 2021.
    (F) For obligated parties, for the 2020 compliance year, annual
compliance reports must be submitted no later than January 31, 2022.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  80.1464 by adding paragraphs (g)(7), (8) and (9) to read
as follows:

Sec.  80.1464  What are the attest engagement requirements under the
RFS program?

    (g) * * *
    (7) For obligated parties that meet the requirements for a small
refinery under Sec.  80.1441(e)(2)(iii), for the 2019 compliance year,
reports required under this section must be submitted to the EPA no
later than June 1, 2022.
    (8) For obligated parties, for the 2020 compliance year, reports
required under this section must be submitted to the EPA no later than
June 1, 2022.
    (9) For obligated parties, for the 2021 compliance year, reports
required under this section must be submitted to the EPA no later than
September 1, 2022.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-06336 Filed 3-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

January 22, 2015

The Honorable John Quigley

Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA  17105-2063

Dear Acting Secretary Quigley:

On December 23, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP)
from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.  The SIP
revision requests redesignation from nonattainment to attainment, and
approval of the maintenance plan of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 area.  EPA has determined that the
submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing
it to prepare Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Rose Quinto, Office of Air Program Planning, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  She is
the principal contact for this rulemaking.

	     Sincerely,

							/s/

David L. Arnold, Acting Director

                          			            Air Protection Division

cc:  Joyce E. Epps, Director, PADEP Bureau of Air Quality

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 24734]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09898]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0021]

Actavis Totowa LLC, et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of Abbreviated
New Drug Applications for Prescription Pain Medications Containing More
Than 325 Milligrams of Acetaminophen; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17163).
The document withdrew approval of 108 abbreviated new drug applications
(ANDAs) for prescription pain medications containing more than 325
milligrams (mg) of acetaminophen per dosage unit from multiple
applicants, effective March 27, 2014. The document failed to withdraw
approval of ANDAs 040825, 040822, and 040824, held by Ranbaxy
Laboratories Inc. and Ranbaxy Inc., 600 College Rd. East, Princeton, NJ
08540, and ANDA 040182, held by Pharmaceutical Associates, Inc., 201
Delaware St., Greenville, SC 29605. The holders of these applications
have voluntarily requested that approval of these applications be
withdrawn and have waived their opportunity for a hearing. FDA confirms
the withdrawal of approval of ANDAs 040825, 040824, 040822, and 040182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Turow, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2014-06801, appearing on page
17163, in the Federal Register of Thursday, March 27, 2014, the
following correction is made:
    On page 17166, in table 1, the following entries are added in
alphabetical order by Applicant:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Application No.         Drug product(s)         Applicant or holder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDA 040182.........  Acetaminophen and         Pharmaceutical
                       Hydrocodone Bitartrate    Associates, Inc., 201
                       Oral Solution, 7.5 mg/    Delaware St.,
                       500 mg/15 milliters       Greenville, SC 29605.
                       (mL), available in 473
                       mL, 118 mL, 15 mL, and
                       10 mL.
ANDA 040825.........  Acetaminophen and         Ranbaxy Laboratories
                       Hydrocodone Bitartrate    Inc., 600 College Rd.
                       Tablets, 500 mg/5 mg.     East, Princeton, NJ
                                                 08540.
ANDA 040822.........  Acetaminophen and         Do.
                       Hydrocodone Bitartrate
                       Tablets, 750 mg/7.5 mg.
ANDA 040824.........  Acetaminophen and         Ranbaxy Inc., 600
                       Hydrocodone Bitartrate    College Rd. East,
                       Tablets, 500 mg/10 mg.    Princeton, NJ 08540.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 24, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-09898 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53350-53352]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21686]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0086]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Little Snake
Hill, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the Amtrak Portal Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 5.0,
at Little Snake Hill, New Jersey. The bridge owner, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), submitted a request to require a
greater advance notice for bridge openings, to increase the time
periods the bridge remains in the closed position, and reduce bridge
openings during the morning and evening commuter rush hours. It is
expected that this change to the regulations will better serve the
needs of the community while continuing to meet the reasonable needs of
navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0086 using Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 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
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Amtrak Portal Bridge at mile 5.0, across the Hackensack River,
at Little Snake Hill, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance of 23 feet
at mean high water and 28 feet at mean low water. Horizontal clearance
is approximately 99 feet. The waterway users include recreational and
commercial vessels, including tugboat/barge combinations.
    The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.723(e).
    In December of 2018, the owner of the bridge, National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, requested a change to the drawbridge operation
regulations because the volume of train traffic across the bridge
during the peak commuting hours makes bridge

openings impractical under the current schedule. As a result, bridge
openings that occur during peak commuter train hours cause significant
delays to commuter rail traffic. The owner proposed that the bridge
opening schedule be revised so the bridge need not open for the passage
of vessel traffic, Monday through Friday, from 5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and
from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. At all other times the bridge shall open on
signal if at least 24 hour notice is given.
    The Coast Guard reached out to the maritime stakeholders with the
requested change proposed by the bridge owner. A stakeholder provided a
general objection to the change in the original request in December
2018, prior to the test deviation's publication.
    The Coast Guard published a test deviation with request for comment
that changed the original request, Hackensack River, New Jersey, in the
Federal Register (84 FR 9459), in effect from March 15, 2019 through
September 9, 2019, to test the proposed changes to the drawbridge
operation regulations. The Coast Guard received five comments in the
docket regarding this proposed rulemaking. Of those five comments,
three came from one commenter and did not address this action. One
comment supported the test deviation recommending it be made permanent.
The fifth comment came from the aforementioned stakeholder who asked
that their original negative comment be uploaded to the docket for the
test deviation. The general objection contended that Amtrak's
``inability to operate the Portal Bridge as required'' is not the
responsibility of the commenter, and that the proposed changes would
fail to solve the maintenance issues with the bridge. The Coast Guard
cannot speak to the commenter's assertion on maintenance issues or
operational issues, as this proposed change would be for traffic volume
purposes.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    As a result of comments received from the test deviation and the
bridge logs showing only three requests to open from March 14, 2019
through July 12, 2019, the Coast Guard proposes to permanently change
the drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.723(e), that would
allow Amtrak Portal Bridge at mile 5.0, across the Hackensack River, at
Little Snake Hill, New Jersey, to operate as follows:
    The draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from 5
a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Additional bridge openings
shall be provided for tide restricted commercial vessels between 7 a.m.
and 8 a.m. and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., if at least a two-hour
advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. At
all other times the bridge shall open on signal if at least two-hour
advance notice is given. It is the Coast Guard's opinion that this rule
meets the reasonable needs of marine and rail traffic.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

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 NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not
reviewed the NPRM and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    The Coast Guard believes this rule is not a significant regulatory
action. The bridge will still open for all vessel traffic after a two
hour advance notice is given, except during the morning and afternoon
commuter rush hour periods, where a one hour time period will allow
passage of commercial vessels. The vertical clearance under the bridge
in the closed position is relatively high enough to accommodate most
vessel traffic during the time periods the draw is closed during the
morning and evening commuter rush hours. We believe that this proposed
change to the drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.723(e)
will meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    The bridge provides 23 feet of vertical clearance at mean high
water that should accommodate all the present vessel traffic except
deep draft vessels. The bridge will continue to open on signal for any
vessel provided at least 2-hour advance notice is given. 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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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. If you believe this
proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

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 proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning
COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
Normally, this action is categorically excluded from further review,
under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document
for alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in this docket
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 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; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec.  117.723(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.723  Hackensack River.

* * * * *
    (e) The draw of the Amtrak Portal Bridge, mile 5.0, at Little Snake
Hill, New Jersey, need not open for the passage of vessel traffic from
5 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. Additional bridge openings
shall be provided for tide restricted commercial vessels between 7 a.m.
and 8 a.m. and between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., if at least a two-hour
advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. At
all other times the bridge shall open on signal if at least two-hour
advance notice is given.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
A.J. Tiongson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-21686 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P