[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7735-7736]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0119]

Fiscal Year 2023 Generic Drug Science and Research Initiatives
Workshop; Public Workshop; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
announcing the following public workshop entitled ``FY 2023 Generic
Drug Science and Research Initiatives Workshop.'' The purpose of the
public workshop is to provide an overview of the status of science and
research initiatives for generic drugs and an opportunity for public
input on these initiatives. FDA is seeking this input from a variety of
stakeholders--industry, academia, patient advocates, professional
societies, and other interested parties--as it fulfills its commitment
under the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2022 (GDUFA III) to
develop an annual list of science and research initiatives specific to
generic drugs. FDA will take the information it obtains from the public
workshop into account in developing its Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Generic
Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) science and research initiatives.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on May 11, 2023 from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., and May 12, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time.
Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by
June 12, 2023. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
registration date and information.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held in person and will be
accessible virtually. Registrants will have an opportunity to indicate
their interest in attending the public workshop in person. If there are
restrictions imposed by applicable health guidelines for in-person
gatherings, or seating capacity limitations, registrants interested in
attending the public workshop in person will be contacted. The public
workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, sections B,
and C), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public workshop
participants (non-FDA employees) is through Bldg. 1, where routine
security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security
information, please refer to https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/visitor-information.
    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely
filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be
submitted on or before June 12, 2023. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time at the end of June 12, 2023. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance
receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
for ``FY 2023 Generic Drug Science and Research Initiatives Workshop;
Public Workshop; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the

``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,
240-402-7500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Raney, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 75, Rm. 4732, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]; or Robert Lionberger, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4722, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-
7957, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In July 2012, Congress passed the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments
of 2012 (GDUFA I) (Pub. L. 112-144). GDUFA I was designed to enhance
public access to safe, high-quality generic drugs and to modernize the
generic drug program. To support this goal, FDA agreed in the Generic
Drug User Fee Act Program Performance Goals and Procedures (GDUFA I
commitment letter) to work with industry and interested stakeholders on
identifying science and research initiatives specific to generic drugs
for each fiscal year covered by GDUFA I.
    In August 2017, GDUFA was reauthorized until September 2022 through
the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2017 (GDUFA II) (Pub. L. 115-
52), and in September 2022, GDUFA was reauthorized until September 2027
through the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2022 (GDUFA III) (Pub.
L. 117-180, 136 Stat. 2155). In the GDUFA Reauthorization Performance
Goals and Program Enhancements Fiscal Years 2023-2027 (GDUFA III
commitment letter),\1\ FDA agreed to conduct annual public workshops
``to solicit input from industry and stakeholders for inclusion in an
annual list of GDUFA III regulatory science initiatives.'' This public
workshop scheduled for May 11, 2023, and May 12, 2023, seeks to fulfill
this agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The GDUFA III commitment letter is available at https://www.fda.gov/media/153631/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Topics for Discussion at the Public Workshop

    The purpose of this public workshop is to obtain input from
industry and other interested stakeholders on identifying generic drug
science and research initiatives for FY 2024. FDA is interested in
receiving input about regulatory science initiatives for the ongoing
years of the GDUFA III science and research program, and particularly
for FY 2024.
    Topics discussed during the workshop will likely include challenges
and considerations for oral, parenteral, and other generic products,
including complex products. Specific presentations and discussions at
this workshop will be announced at a later date and may differ from the
topics above. However, input about the topics above will help the
Agency identify and expand its scientific focus for the next fiscal
year.
    FDA will consider all comments made at this workshop or received
through the docket (see ADDRESSES) as it develops its FY 2024 science
and research initiatives. Information concerning the science and
research initiatives for generic drugs can be found on the Science &
Research website at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/generic-drugs/science-research.

III. Participating in the Public Workshop

    Registration: Registration is free. Persons interested in attending
this public workshop must register online at https://fda.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_J3MsCbCWQwyuA1AojKF_8Q. Registration may be
performed at any time before or during the workshop.
    Requests for Oral Presentations: During online registration you may
indicate if you wish to present your public comments. Requests to
provide public comments via a pre-recorded presentation or a live
presentation, including in-person or virtual presentations, should be
submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of March 31, 2023. We
will do our best to accommodate requests to make public comments.
Individuals and organizations with common interests are urged to
consolidate or coordinate their presentations, and request time for a
joint presentation, or submit requests for designated representatives
to participate in the workshop. Based upon the public comment
presentation requests received by March 31, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time, we will determine the amount of time allotted to each presenter
and the approximate time each oral presentation is to begin; we will
select and notify participants by April 11, 2023. If selected for
presentation, any presentation materials must be emailed to
[email protected] no later than May 1, 2023, 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time. No commercial or promotional material will be
permitted to be presented or distributed at the public workshop.
    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
be webcast. Please register online (as described above) to attend the
workshop remotely (virtually). Registrants will receive a hyperlink
that provides access to the webcast on both days.
    FDA has verified the website addresses in this document, as of the
date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but websites are
subject to change over time.
    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as a transcript of the
public workshop is available, it will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov or on the Science & Research FDA website accessible
at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/generic-drugs/science-research. It may
also be viewed at the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES).

    Dated: February 1, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02453 Filed 2-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


SPCC 7 3 8 OPA 1997 0002 0071 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED IN 1993 FOR SPILL PREVENTION ISSUES IN THE SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE (SPCC) RULEMAKING U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Table of Contents Response to Comments Received in 1993 for Spill Prevention Issues in the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rulemaking Section Page Introduction 3 1. Authority to Require Preparation of Plans  §112.1( f) 5 2. Plan Amendment by the RA  §112.4( a) 8 3. Submission of a Plan that contains a deviation  §112.7( a)( 2) 9 4. Contingency Planning  §112.7( d)( 1) 11 5. Employee Training  §112.7( f) 12 6. Brittle fracture evaluation  §112.7( i) 18 7. Facility Security 22 8. Corrosion Protection 22 9. Lightning Strike Protection 23 10. Leak Detection 23 11. Certification of Tank Installation Plans 24 12. General Comments 24 3 INTRODUCTION Purpose of this Document The purpose of this document is to respond to comments received on the 1993 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) proposed rule (58 FR 8824, February 17, 1993, 40 CFR part 112). These proposed revisions are in addition to revisions to part 112 proposed in 1991 and 1997.

Background of this Rulemaking Part 112 of 40 CFR outlines requirements for both prevention of and response to oil spills. The prevention aspect of the rule requires preparation and implementation of an SPCC Plan. The SPCC requirements were originally promulgated on December 11, 1973 (38 FR 34164) under the authority of section 311( j)( 1)( C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The regulation established spill prevention procedures, methods, and equipment requirements for non transportation related onshore and offshore facilities with aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons (or greater than 660 gallons in a single container), or completely buried oil storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons. Regulated facilities are also limited to those that, because of their location could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful, into the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, or that affect certain natural resources.

On October 22, 1991, (56 FR 54612) we proposed changes in the applicability of the SPCC regulation and the required procedures for the completion of SPCC Plans, as well as the addition of a facility notification provision. The proposed rule also reflected changes in the jurisdiction of CWA section 311 made by amendments to the CWA in 1977 and 1978. Those proposed revisions, as modified, are included in this final rule.

On February 17, 1993 (58 FR 8824), we again proposed clarifications of and technical changes to the SPCC rule, as well as facility response plan (FRP) requirements to implement the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The proposed SPCC changes included clarifications of certain requirements, authorization for the EPA Regional Administer (RA) to require Plan preparation at otherwise exempt facilities, prevention training, and requirements for brittle fracture evaluation. All FRP comments were summarized in a June 1994 Comment Response Document. The FRP requirements of the 1993 proposal were promulgated on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 47384) and codified at 40 CFR 112.20 21. The SPCC requirements, as modified, are finalized today. 4 Organization of this Comment Response Document We first identified the issues in the June 1994 Comment Response Document that were related to the SPCC provisions, rather than to the FRP provisions. Comments on proposed revisions related to the SPCC issues were not given complete responses at the time because we deferred action on those proposals. We carefully reviewed the issues and the letters received in the public docket, and developed the categories shown in the Table of Contents. For each category in this document, we provide summaries of the issue and the points raised by the commenters. These summaries are supplemented, where necessary, by quotations from the letters to reflect the nuances of certain comments that could not be adequately captured through summarization. After summarizing the issue and comments, we provide a response to each of the comments or group of similar comments on each issue. The document is arranged into sections according to the issues listed in the Table of Contents.

We identify each comment by a comment number. The comment numbers were assigned in the public docket when the letter was received. For this document, the comments we selected from each letter include only those addressing SPCC issues. 5 1. Authority to Require Preparation of Plans  §112.1( f)

Background: Section 112.1( d) exempts certain facilities from the requirement to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan. In 1993, we proposed to add §112.1( g) (redesignated as §112.1( f) in the final rule) to allow the Regional Administrator (RA) to require an otherwise exempted facility, that is subject to EPA jurisdiction under section 311( j) of the CWA, on a case by case basis, to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan.

Comments: Appeals process. Requests an appeals process for owners and operators (1141 and 1220), and others (1139, 1171, 1173) requested time frames within which the RA must act. Suggests that the proposed implementation times (six months for Plan preparation and one year for Plan implementation) may be too short to be practicable. (1208)

Authority, standards. Questions our authority to require Plan preparation by otherwise exempted facilities, and requests standards for requiring Plans. (1137, 1167, 1208, 1220, L1, and L19) Suggests that If EPA requires Plan preparation by otherwise exempt facilities, we should clarify that: (1) it only intends to cover underground storage tanks currently included in the SPCC program, (2) this expansion is not intended to be used against facilities with aboveground storage less than 1,320 gallons total facility storage or 660 gallons in a single tank, (3) it will only require underground storage tank facilities to comply with basic SPCC requirements, and (4) it will maintain the preliminary determination scheme discussed on page 8844, second full paragraph. Also notes that SPCC deficiency notices are sometimes inadequate. (L1)

Response Plans. Concerned that §112.1( g) would allow the Regional Administrator to require a small facility to prepare a response plan in addition to an SPCC Plan. (1172)

Technical expertise. Opposes the provision because of the authority given to the RA: "Paragraph 112.1( g) allows the Regional Administrator to require the operator to prepare an SPCC plan even if a Professional Engineer determines such a plan is not technically required. The Regional Administrator is a political appointee without technical training. Further, the Regional Administrator will not have visited the facility. Typically, the Agency personnel making a visit is not a Professional Engineer. Accordingly, the proposed Paragraph (g) allows a non professional person or engineer to override a technical decision on the basis of people not eligible to certify an SPCC plan." (955)

Underground Storage Tank (UST) program. Suggests that in order to address environmental concerns not adequately addressed under the UST regulation, we should revise the UST program rather than the SPCC program. (1155) 6 Response: Appeals process. We agree that an appeals process is appropriate for this section. Therefore we have included a new paragraph (f)( 5) to include such a process, and have provided time frames for the process. The appeals process is modeled upon proposed §112.4( f), which we reproposed in 1991 and have finalized today.

Authority. EPA has adequate authority under section 311 of the CWA to require any facility within its jurisdiction to prepare a Plan that could because of its location, cause a discharge as described in §112.1( b). This authority is broad enough to encompass the storage or use capacity of any exempted facility within EPA's jurisdiction, regardless of size.

Standard to use authority. RAs may invoke this section to carry out the purposes of the Act on a case specific basis when it is needed to prevent a discharge as described in §112.1( b), and thus protect the environment. While we expect to use this section sparingly, it is necessary to address gaps in other regulatory regimes that might best be remedied by requiring a facility to have an SPCC Plan. Factors the RAs may consider in making a determination that a facility needs an SPCC Plan include, but are not limited to, the physical characteristics of the facility, the presence of secondary containment, the discharge history of the facility, and the proximity of the facility to sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, parks, or wildlife refuges. An example of the use of this section might be when a facility is exempted from SPCC rules because its storage capacity is below the regulatory threshold, but the facility has been the cause of repeated discharges as described in §112.1( b). The RA might require an entire Plan, or might only require a partial Plan addressing secondary containment, for example, to prevent future discharges as described in §112.1( b).

Partial Plans. We clarify that the RA may require partial Plans to cover situations where the preparation of only a partial Plan may be necessary, such as to supplement an existing document other than a Plan or to address a particular environmental threat. The decision to require a Plan (or partial Plan) could be based on the presence of environmental concerns not adequately addressed under UST or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, or due to other relevant environmental factors. The section may be invoked when the RA determines it is necessary to "carry out the purposes of the Act."

The decision to require a partial Plan is separate from a decision to require an amendment to a Plan. In one case, the assumption is that a Plan doesn't exist; in the other, that an existing Plan needs amendment.

Response Plans. Section 112.1( f) applies only to the total or partial preparation of an SPCC Plan. It does not authorize the Regional Administrator to require you to prepare a facility response plan. We have withdrawn a proposal (see 1993 proposed 7 §112.7( d)( 1)) which would have required you to prepare a response plan when your SPCC facility lacked secondary containment. Therefore, most facilities will incur no response planning costs. Instead, if your facility lacks secondary containment, you must prepare a contingency plan following the provisions of 40 CFR part 109, and otherwise comply with §112.7( d). As a result, requirements to prepare a facility response plan are contained solely in §112.20, and not §112.1( f).

Technical expertise. PEs may work for the RA, but even if such is not the case, the RA has the expertise to determine when a facility should have an SPCC Plan. The decision to require an SPCC Plan from an otherwise exempt facility will be made on technical, not political grounds. The authority we give to the RA under §112.1( f) will be used to carry out the purposes of the CWA and protect the environment. Factors the RA may consider in making a determination that a facility needs an SPCC Plan include, but are not limited to, the physical characteristics of the facility, and the proximity of the facility to sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, parks, wildlife refuges, etc. For example, the RA may use this authority to require plan preparation by the owner or operator of a facility that has had repeated discharges as described in §112.1( b).

UST program. The comment suggesting revision of the UST program is beyond the scope of this document. 8 2. Plan Amendment by the Regional Administrator  §112.4( a)

Background: Section 112.3( e) requires a facility owner or operator to make the Plan available to the RA for onsite review during normal working hours. The revision to §112.4 proposed in 1993 would give the RA authority to require the facility to submit information at any time, and to provide the RA authority to require that the owner or operator amend the Plan after on site review.

Comments: Appeals process. Calls for an appeals process for owners and operators. (1172, 1198, 1220)

Information submission authority. Questions the broad authority given to the RA. Stresses the cost to facilities and suggests the need for the RA to show good cause. (955, 1137, 1172 1208, 1220, 1224)

Inconsistencies. "By authorizing the various RA to pick and choose specific measures deemed necessary at a specific site, inconsistencies will arise leading to overly stringent and/ or improperly implemented spill provisions in addition to establishing site specific competitive disadvantages. Moreover, the choice of changes in the design and implementation of spill prevention measures should be left to the facility owner. Industry has the broad expertise to determine costeffective spill prevention controls and processes." (1137)

Multiple Plans. Concerned that the RA might require an owner or operator to submit Plans for all of his facilities. (1167)

Technical evaluation skills. The RA is not a Professional Engineer (PE) and does not have the technical skills to decide the need for the Plan. (955)

Response: Appeals process. We agree that an appeals process is appropriate, and have provided for it in §112.4( f).

Information submission authority. We agree that the proposal to give the RA the authority to require §112.4( a) information at any time was vague, and have therefore withdrawn that provision. We will only require such information after the discharges specified in this section. We will consider cost factors in our site specific amendment decisions.

Multiple Plans. We have withdrawn the proposal to provide the RA with authority to require submission of the information required in §112.4( a), including the Plan, at any time because we believe the proposal was vague. 9 Technical evaluation skills. PEs and others with technical expertise work for the RA, and help him make amendment decisions.

3. Submission of a Plan that contains a deviation  §112.7( a)( 2)

Background: In §112.7( a)( 2), we proposed to allow deviations from the requirements of §§ 112.7( c), 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, and 112.11, as long as the facility owner or operator described his reasons for nonconformance and discussed alternative methods, provided equivalent protection, and submitted the SPCC Plan to the RA.

Comments: Support for proposal. "This requirement appears to be in order." (1170, 1208)

Opposition to proposal.

Burdensome. "If upon inspecting a facility, EPA believes that a waiver is unjustified, it can examine the merits of the waiver in the context of that facility's compliance with the SPCC rules. We believe that it is unduly burdensome to require regulated facilities to prepare a justification and submit a plan to EPA for every waiver of the technical requirements." (1198)

Unnecessary. Opposes submission of the entire Plan because it is unnecessary. The Plan has already been certified by a PE. (955, 1063, 1145, 1218, 1239, L1)

Appeals process, RA oversight. "Alternative methods should not trigger the need to provide administratively burdensome notification. The choice of preventative systems in the design and implementation of spill prevention measures should be left to the facility owner, who has the broad expertise to determine cost effective spill prevention controls and processes. We oppose the proposed provision which provides the RA authority to require equivalent protection. If, however, the Agency chooses to promulgate this provision, [the commenter] recommends that the Agency include an appeal process." (1137)

Response: Support for proposal. We appreciate commenter support. However, we agree with the opposing commenters that submission of a deviation to the Regional Administrator is not necessary and have deleted the proposed requirement. We take this step because we believe that the requirement for good engineering practice and current inspection and reporting procedures (for example, §112.4( a)), followed by the possibility of required amendments, are adequate to review Plans and to detect the flaws in them. Upon submission of required information, or upon on site review of a Plan, if the RA decides that any portion of a Plan is inadequate, he may require an 10 amendment. See §112.4( d). If you disagree with his determination regarding an amendment, you may appeal. See §112.4( e).

Appeals process, RA oversight. We agree that there should be an appeals process and have provided it within §§ 112.1( f) and 112.4( f). RAs are to follow the principles of good engineering practice and not overrule a deviation unless it is clear that such deviation fails to afford equivalent environmental protection. This does not mean that the deviation must achieve "mathematical equivalency," as one commenter pointed out. But it does mean equivalent protection of the environment. We encourage innovative techniques, but such techniques must also protect the environment. Technical deviations, like other substantive technical portions of the Plan requiring the application of engineering judgment, are subject to PE certification. We also believe that in general PEs will seek to protect themselves from liability by only certifying measures that do provide equivalent environmental protection. But the RA must still retain the authority to require amendments for deviations, as he can with other parts of the Plan certified by a PE. 11 4. Contingency Planning  §112.7( d)( 1)

Background: When the installation of structures or equipment in §112.7( c) is not practicable, under current §112.7( d)( 1), the facility owner or operator must provide a "strong oil spill contingency plan following the provisions of 40 CFR part 109." In 1993, we proposed to replace the reference to a strong oil spill contingency plan with a reference to the facility response plan, as described in §112.20.

Comments: Opposition to proposal. Opposes the proposed change because it is unnecessary, burdensome, and beyond Congressional intent in OPA. (1063, 1198, 1208)

Response: We agree with the commenters that the present contingency plan arrangements are sufficient to protect the environment and that a facility response plan as described in §112.20 is therefore unnecessary for most SPCC facilities. We agree that structures or equipment might achieve the same or equivalent protection as response planning for some SPCC facilities. Therefore, we are withdrawing that part of the 1993 proposal (i. e., proposed §112.7( d)( 1)) requiring submission of a facility response plan and are retaining the current contingency planning provisions, which require a contingency plan following the provisions of 40 CFR part 109. We also believe that response plans should be reserved for higher risk facilities, as provided in §112.20. 12 5. Employee Training  §112.7( f)

Background: In 1993, we proposed to limit the applicability of the training requirements to only those facilities that transfer large amounts of oil. We further proposed that employees involved in "oil handling activities" be required to receive 8 hours of facility specific training within one year and 4 hours of refresher training In subsequent years. Training for new employees would be required within one week of employment. We also proposed to specify the areas in which employees should be trained to include: training in correct equipment operation and maintenance, general facility operations, discharge prevention laws and regulations, and the contents of the facility's SPCC Plan. Finally, the proposed rule would require annual unannounced drills.

Comments: Applicability of training requirements  employees.

Support for proposal. Supports mandatory training of personnel at facilities that transfer oil. (1171, 1173)

Opposition to proposal.

Burden and cost. Several commenters pointed out that they must follow training requirements of other programs. (1095, 1137, 1148 1150, 1169, 1198, and L1) "Complying with regulatory requirements of the various training programs in the environmental arena have become very difficult at large manufacturing facilities. The administrative burden and cost to develop and implement the training programs, and productivity losses associated with the time the employee is being trained are substantial. A typical [commenter] facility may have up to 50 employees that are involved with oil handling (i. e., the transfer of oil from one location to another). At a typical hourly rate of $25, the cost can exceed $10,000 per facility, excluding the substantial cost associated with productivity losses. The overwhelming administrative burden and cost associated with employee training reinforces the importance that it be required for only those situations where environmental benefits and risk are the greatest." (1137)

Employer discretion. Employees should be trained according to their specific job responsibilities (the approach taken by the USCG) rather than the facility's size or type and that the owner or operator should determine the best training practices for the facility. (1135, 1137, 1140, 1146, 1148, 1153, 1155, 1169, 1170, 1196, 1198, 1219) Depending on the task, some employees may not obtain the appropriate level of training in 8 13 hours, while others may receive more information than necessary. (1093, 1135, 1198, 1231, 1232)

Applicability of training requirements  facilities.

Support for proposal. Supports the proposed training requirements and adds that such requirements would be beneficial to all SPCC regulated facilities, not just those that meet the specified oil transfer quantity thresholds. (1140, 1153)

Opposition to proposal.

Threshold too low. The oil transfer threshold should be raised. (1165, 1172, 1208, 1217,1218) "To specify the amount of training and to require unannounced drills is unnecessarily and prohibitively expensive. [We] recommend that EPA continue the guidelines in the existing 40 CFR Part 112 (40 CFR §112.5( e)( 10)), but in the event training requirements must be adopted, then remain with the standards set forth in the rule proposal of October 21, 1991. In the event the training requirements being proposed in the February 17, 1993, notice are necessary, then increase the threshold limit so as to avoid inadvertently imposing the requirement for training on a small [facility]." (1172) The volume triggers proposed in §112.7 are not in keeping with Oil Pollution Act (OPA) criteria. (1208)

Threshold too high. The threshold should be lowered. (1171, 1173, 1245) Supports requirements for mandatory training, but feels that lowering the threshold would increase the number of facilities that would be subject to the regulation and, therefore, reduce the potential for spills. (1171, 1173) Because the hose connection/ disconnection step of the oil transfer process results in most spills, frequent small transfers are potentially more dangerous than one large transfer operation. (1245)

Complex operations. Unclear about what is meant by "complex operations." (1153)

Content of training. Training should include instruction in the implementation of the facility response plan. (1153)

Effect of 1993 proposal. Questions whether the training requirements specified in §112.7( f) in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) replace those proposed in the October 22, 1991, revisions to the SPCC rule. No training is specified for employees of facilities not meeting the oil transfer quantities and frequencies cited in the NPRM. (1142)

Suggested exemptions. 14 Extraction industries. Pipeline transportation of oil is quite safe; therefore, oil extraction industries should be exempted from the increased training requirements. (955, 1220)

Nonmarine terminals. Requests exemption for small nonmarine terminals. (1215)

Small facilities. Because of the relatively small turnover of employees at small facilities, these facilities should be exempt, and such exemptions could be granted on a case by case basis according to site specific factors. (1153, 1167, L1) "The eight hour training requirement contemplated in the proposal is too much for the vast majority of independent petroleum marketers. The smaller scale of marketer facilities does not necessitate such extensive training....[ the commenter] suggests EPA's training proposal apply only to substantial harm facilities and that EPA accept existing forms of training currently required as a substitute or supplement. If EPA insists on requiring training for all facilities that meet the transfer threshold, [we] would reiterate the above request to accept other forms of training as a substitute or supplement, and suggest that small "mom and pop" facilities, whose employees tend to be constant, are not required to undertake annual training refreshers." (L1)

Timing of employee training.

Opposition to proposal.

Alternate time frames. Opposes the proposed requirement for training within the first week of employment for new employees. Requiring additional training beyond that which is required by other agencies within the first week of employment is difficult, if not impossible. Suggests the following time frames: 30 days (1150, 1215), 45 60 days (1169), 90 days (1063, 1095), or 180 days (1137, 1196, 1198).

Before involvement in oil handling operations. EPA should specify only that training be provided before the employee becomes involved in oil handling operations. (1135, 1146, 1155, 1232)

Cost. Creating training materials and holding the proposed training would take too much time and cost too much. (1137, 1207, 1217, 1219)

Current requirements adequate. The current training requirements and those proposed in the October 22, 1991, revisions to the SPCC training requirements are sufficient. (1172, 1208, 1217) 15 Employer discretion. "[ The commenter] recommends that EPA not mandate a specific frequency of training. EPA should allow owners the flexibility to initiate training at intervals frequent enough to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC plan by their employees." (1137) The duration of the training should be left up to the discretion of the owner or operator of the facility. (1093, 1231)

Employee turnover. Four hours per year for refresher training is unnecessary for facilities without employee turnover or without changes in operations. (1135, 1198)

Length of training. Eight hours of training would not be suitable for all employees at all facilities; some would require more than 8 hours, others less. (1093, 1135, 1140, 1146, 1153, 1169, 1198, 1208, 1231) The amount of training should be based on the size, capacity, and location of the facility rather than on the type of operations (i. e., transfers) that occur at the facility. (1148, 1170) Facilities with engineered safety systems should be subject to reduced training requirements. (1198) Eight hours of training is excessive when added to the current training that is already required at SPCC regulated facilities, especially for most smaller independent petroleum marketers. (955, 1198, 1208, L1)

Response capability. We should eliminate the proposed training requirements and instead require facilities to demonstrate the ability of the employees to respond to an oil discharge. (1170, 1198, 1199)

Transfers. We should limit the term "transfer" to exclude transfers from storage containers to units that combust or utilize the oil, because the movement of oil to boilers may not pose as great a risk of release compared with other transfer operations. (1198) We should clarify the meaning of "transfer ... oilin a singleoperation" in proposed §112.7( f)( 1). (1155, 1248)

Unannounced drills. Criticizes the proposal to require annual unannounced drills. (1093, 1146, 1155, 1169, 1172, 1199, 1218, 1231) The requirement should be limited to personnel involved in spill response. (1093, 1199, 1218, 1231) The facility operator should decide when drills are needed. (1146, 1155)

Response: Support for proposal. We appreciate commenter support.

Applicability of training requirements. We believe that training requirements should apply to all facilities, large or small, including all those that store or use oil, regardless of the amount of oil transferred in any particular time. Training may help avert human error, which is a principal cause of oil discharges. "Spills from ASTs may occur as a 16 result of operator error, for example, during loading operations (e. g., vessel or tank truck  AST operation), or as a result of structural failure (e. g., brittle fracture) because of inadequate maintenance of the AST." EPA Liner Study, at 14. We have therefore retained the applicability of training to all facilities. The 1993 proposal would have limited training requirements to only certain facilities which received or transferred over the proposed amount of oil. Facilities which receive or transfer less than the proposed amount might also have discharges which could have been averted through required training. Also the proposed rule would have exempted many facilities that use rather than store oil from its scope. Therefore, we have provided in the rule that all facilities, whether bulk storage facilities or facilities that merely use oil, must train oil handling employees because all facilities have the potential for a discharge as described in §112.1( b), and training is necessary to avert such a discharge.

We agree with the commenter that training is only necessary for personnel who will use it to carry out the requirements of this rule. Therefore revised paragraph (f)( 1) provides that only oil handling personnel are subject to training requirements, as we proposed in 1993. "Oil handling personnel" is to be interpreted according to industry standards, but includes employees engaged in the operation and maintenance of oil storage containers or the operation of equipment related to storage containers and emergency response personnel. We do not interpret the term to include secretaries, clerks, and other personnel who are never involved in operation or maintenance activities related to oil storage or equipment, oil transfer operations, emergency response, countermeasure functions, or similar activities.

You may incorporate SPCC training requirements into already existing training programs required by other Federal or State law at your option or may conduct SPCC training separately.

You must document that you have conducted required training courses. Such documentation must be maintained with the Plan for three years.

Complex operations. In the 1993 preamble, we noted that the complexity of operations includes such factors as the number of tanks and transfer points, throughput, and the presence of sophisticated pumping or switching equipment at regulated facilities.

Content of training. Content of training. Specifying a minimum list of training subjects is necessary to ensure that facility employees are aware of discharge prevention procedures and regulations. As suggested by a commenter, we have added knowledge of discharge procedure protocols to the list of training subjects because such training will help avert discharges. Therefore, we have specified that training must include, at a minimum: the operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent the discharge of oil; discharge procedure protocols; applicable pollution control laws, rules, and regulations; general facility operations; and, the contents of the facility Plan. 17 As noted above, we require response training for facilities that must submit response plans, but such training is not necessary for all SPCC facilities.

In response to the utility commenter who asserted that utility employees do not need to be trained in the maintenance of oil storage tanks because such maintenance does not involve the transfer and handling of oil, we note that training must address relevant maintenance activities at the facility. If there is no transfer and handling of oil, such topic need not be covered in training.

Effect of 1993 proposal. The 1993 proposal superseded the 1991 proposal.

Timing of employee training. We agree with commenters who thought it desirable to leave the timing and number of hours of training of oil handling employees, including new employees, to the employer's discretion. "Proper instruction" of oil handling employees, as required in the rule, means in accordance with industry standards or at a frequency sufficient to prevent a discharge as described in §112.1( b). This standard will allow facilities more flexibility to develop training programs better suited to the particular facility. While the rule requires annual discharge prevention briefings, we also agree that the annual briefings required are not drills. In any case, the SPCC rules do not require drills, as explained below.

For purposes of the rule, it is not necessary to define a "new employee" because all oilhandling personnel are subject to training requirements, whether new or not. You do, however, have discretion as to the timing of that training, so long as the timing meets the requirements of good engineering practice.

Unannounced drills. We agree that the proposed requirement is unnecessary because drills are already required at FRP facilities, which are higher risk facilities. Therefore, there are no new costs. We do not believe that the risk at all SPCC facilities approaches the same level as at FRP facilities. 18 6. Brittle fracture evaluation  §112.7( i)

Background: In 1993, we proposed to require a facility owner or operator to evaluate a field constructed tank for risk of failure due to brittle fracture, if the tank undergoes repair, alteration, or a change in service. Evaluation would be accomplished by adherence to industry standards contained in American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 653, entitled "Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction." In the preamble to the proposed rule, we mentioned that as an alternative to incorporation of Section 3 of API Standard 653, we considered requiring all tanks to undergo a full hydrostatic test to determine their potential for brittle fracture.

Comments: Support for proposal. Agrees that brittle fracture evaluation should be conducted in accordance with industry standards contained in API Standard 653. These commenters did not support hydrostatic testing as an alternative. Shopfabricated tanks do not require an evaluation for brittleness. (1149,1150, 1169, 1172, 1198, 1208, L1)

Opposition to proposal.

Secondary containment. Opposes the proposal on the basis that the evaluation was unnecessary for small volume tanks and tanks with secondary containment. (1173)

Small facilities. Small facilities should be exempted from the proposed requirement. (1167)

Additional measures. Recommends additional (i. e., in addition to evaluation for brittle fracture) protective measures for incorporation into the proposal, specifically undertank liners, and hydrostatic testing of tanks. (1200)

Alternatives to brittle fracture.

API standards. Industry standards specify when and where owners or operators should use specific tests. API Standard 653 allows the owner or operator the flexibility to implement a number of options for identifying and preventing problems which ultimately lead to a tank integrity failure. (67) We should adopt the inspection provisions of API Standard 653 since it is specifically for aboveground tanks storing petroleum and suggests intervals for internal and external inspections. (71) API Standard 653 is a more appropriate starting point than API Standard 650 for determining material toughness. Standard 653 concerns tank inspection, repair, alteration, and reconstruction and addresses brittle fracture concerns. (102) 19 Change in service. Asks for clarification of the term "change in service." (1141, 1167, 1198, 1225) Disagrees that a tank evaluation is necessary with every change of service. (L8)

Field erected tank. Asks for clarification of the term "field erected tank." (955)

Other catastrophes. We should incorporate API Standard 653 into our rules to accommodate the possibility of tank failures other than through brittle fracture. (1149)

Alteration, Repair. Asks for clarification of the terms "alteration" or "repair," so that they excludes ordinary day to day maintenance activities, which are conducted to maintain the functional integrity of the tank and do not weaken the tank. The definitions should not include the term "or related equipment" to conform with API Standard 653. (1093, 1198, 1231)

Steel bolted tanks. Such testing is unnecessary for steel bolted tanks because they are too thin to be subject to brittle fracture since material properties are uniform through the thickness. (955, 1218, 1220, 1199)

Response: Support for proposal. We appreciate commenter support.

Additional measures. We will consider under tank liners as a possibility for a future rulemaking. Hydrostatic testing of tanks is a possible method now for integrity testing in combination with visual inspection.

Applicability. The requirement to evaluate field constructed tanks for brittle fracture whenever a field constructed aboveground container undergoes repair, alteration, reconstruction, or change in service is necessary because brittle fracture may cause sudden and catastrophic tank failure, resulting in potentially serious damage to the environment and loss of oil. The requirement must be applicable to large and small facilities alike, because all the field constructed aboveground containers have a risk of failure. The presence or absence of secondary containment does not eliminate the need for brittle fracture evaluation because the intent of the rule is to prevent a discharge whether or not it will be contained.

The requirement for evaluation of a field constructed aboveground container must be undertaken when the container undergoes a repair, alteration, reconstruction, or change in service that might affect the risk of a discharge or failure due to brittle fracture, or when a discharge or failure has already occurred due to brittle fracture or other catastrophe. Catastrophic failures are failures which may result from events such as lightning strikes, dangerous seismic activity, etc. As a result of a catastrophic failure, the entire contents of a container may be discharged to the environment in the same way as if brittle fracture had occurred. 20 Steel bolted tanks. While the requirement applies to all field constructed aboveground containers, if you can show that the evaluation is unnecessary for your steel bolted tanks, you may deviate from the requirement under §112.7( a)( 2) if you can explain your reasons for nonconformance and provide equivalent environmental protection. We note that portions of steel bolted tanks, such as the bottom or roof, may be welded, and therefore subject to brittle fracture.

Alteration. We agree with the commenter will not include the term "or related equipment" in the definition of "alteration" to conform with API Standard 653, which does not include alterations of related equipment as a criterion for brittle fracture evaluation. "Alteration" means any work on a container involving cutting, burning, welding, or heating operations that changes the physical dimensions or configurations of the container. Typical examples include the addition of manways and nozzles greater than 12 inch nominal pipe size and an increase or decrease in tank shell height.

Alternatives to brittle fracture evaluation. We have eliminated the incorporation by reference to API Standard 653 from the rule. We have also therefore withdrawn proposed Appendix H, the API Standard 653 brittle fracture flowchart. We believe that API Standard 653 is an acceptable standard to test for brittle fracture. However, an incorporation by reference of any standard might cause the rule to be instantly obsolete should that standard change or should a newer, better method emerge. A potential standard might also apply only to a certain subset of facilities or equipment. Therefore, as with most other requirements in this part, if you explain your reasons for nonconformance, alternative methods which afford equivalent environmental protection may be acceptable under §112.7( a)( 2). If acoustic emission testing provides equivalent environmental protection it may be acceptable as an alternative. That decision, in the first instance, is one for the Professional Engineer and owner or operator.

Change in service. A "change in service" is a change from previous operating conditions involving different properties of the stored product such as specific gravity or corrosivity and/ or different service conditions of temperature and/ or pressure.

Field erected tank. A field erected tank or container is one that is assembled outside of a factory at the location of its intended use. A field constructed container cannot be shipped partially or fully constructed, and must be fabricated at the job site. It is to be contrasted with a shop constructed tank which is assembled in a factory and shipped to the job site completely assembled, but may need minor modifications in the field.

Other catastrophes. In response to the comment, we added "or other catastrophe" after the words "brittle fracture" to indicate that failures of other kinds might require evaluation. 21 Repair. We agree with the commenter and will not include the term "or related equipment" in the definition of "repair" to conform with API Standard 653, which does not include repairs of related equipment as a criterion for a brittle fracture evaluation.

"Repair" means any work necessary to maintain or restore a container to a condition suitable for safe operation. Typical examples include the removal and replacement of material (such as roof, shell, or bottom material, including weld metal) to maintain container integrity; the re leveling or jacking of a container shell, bottom, or roof; the addition of reinforcing plates to existing shell penetrations; and the repair of flaws, such as tears or gouges, by grinding or gouging followed by welding. We understand that some repairs (such as repair of tank seals), alterations, or changes in service will not cause a risk of failure due to brittle fracture; therefore, we have amended the rule to refer to those repairs, alterations, or changes in service that affect the risk of a discharge or failure due to brittle fracture. 22 7. Facility Security Background: In 1993, we requested information on the need for security measures (in addition to those in §112.7( e)( 9)) to mitigate the potential for discharges. In the final rule, we have renumbered §112.7( e)( 9) as §112.7( g).

Comments: Security provisions in the rule are adequate and additional security measures are unnecessary. (1169,1198) Any additional security measures should be based on site specific factors and left up to the discretion of the owner or operator and certifying engineer. (1169, 1171, 1173)

Response: We agree, and have not added additional security measures, but we have increased the flexibility of the provision to allow greater consideration of site specific factors. Additional comments on security are addressed in the Response to Comments document for the 1991 proposal.

8. Corrosion Protection Background: In 1993, we requested comment and cost information on the effectiveness of cathodic protection and other corrosion protection methods for preventing leaks.

Comments: Support for a requirement. Supports a requirement for corrosion protection if portions of the aboveground tank are in contact with soil. (1150, 1200)

Opposition to a requirement. "... existing practices/ standards are adequate to identify potential areas of concern with tank bottoms and that cathodic protection should be one option available to the facility in developing a cost effective tank management approach." (1169) New regulations are unnecessary. (1198)

Cost. "[ The commenter] is employing cathodic protection as a means of controlling corrosion of the external (soil side) bottom of new aboveground storage tanks and the soil side of new replacement bottoms of exiting tanks. Cathodic protection is used to supplement select sand bottom padding used to support the tank bottom. The select sand and cathodic protection are installed within the envelope of a secondary containment liner. Unit cost for providing and installing the cathodic protection portion of this system varies inversely with tank size, ranging from approximately $1.00 to $2.00 per square foot of tank bottom area. A significant drawback to this design is the prohibitive cost to repair or replace the cathodic protection system once installed. Cathodic protection can be retrofitted to existing tanks in the absence of impervious secondary containment liners at lesser unit cost due to flexibility of system design and combination of multiple tanks into one position scheme. However, these systems are rendered ineffective if impervious secondary containment liners are installed." (1148) 23 Response: We appreciate the comments. We are not adding additional provisions to require corrosion protection for aboveground containers at this time. We will consider these comments for a future rulemaking.

9. Lightning Strike Protection Background: Lightning strikes and fires resulting from the strikes can contribute to the discharge of oil. In 1993, we requested comment on the costs and benefits of installing protection systems on Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs).

Comments: Mandatory lightning strike protection is unnecessary. (1148, 1169, 1198, 1224) The low incidence of damage to tanks from lightning would mean that such requirements would not be cost effective. (1148, 1224)

Response: We appreciate the comments and will consider them in a future rulemaking.

10. Leak Detection Background: We noted in the 1993 preamble that early detection of small oil leaks could alert owners or operators to needed repairs or mitigation measures, prevent damage to the environment, and save on costs of cleanup. We requested comment and cost effectiveness information on leak detection methods for ASTs, such as ultrasonic testing and inventory reconciliation, and comment on the appropriateness of testing underground piping for leaks.

Comments: Support for requirement. With regard to leak testing of underground piping associated with tanks, the requirements of API 570 should be followed. (1148) "By the argument presented in this comment, it is suggested that the most practical and cost effective method to prevent bottom leaks in large tanks is a combination of leak detection equipment in new tanks and tank inspection for all tanks." (1149) Inventory reconciliation and periodic conductivity testing should be required for ASTs, as well as periodic hydrostatic testing of all underground piping. (1171, 1173) A study on leak detection methods for ASTs should be conducted and that hydrostatic testing of underground piping for leaks should be required. (1200)

Opposition to requirement. "[ The commenter] recommends that the EPA permit alternatives to internal tank inspections in the final rule in order to allow facilities the flexibility to address site specific conditions." (1169) Additional leak detection requirements are unnecessary, particularly for viscous fuel oils. (1198) Inventory reconciliation is not an accurate or reliable method of leak detection. (1198, 1149, 1148, 1206) 24 Response: We appreciate the comments and will consider them in a future rulemaking.

11. Certification of Tank Installation Plans Background: In 1993, we requested comment on methods that would ensure the proper installation of ASTs (e. g., certification of tank installation plans and/ or monitoring of installation by a PE or other qualified individual). A PE is required to review and certify the SPCC Plan, but the SPCC requirements do not address specific facility procedures such as tank installation. The UST regulations (40 CFR 280.20( e)) require certification of compliance with proper installation practices and certification of the qualifications of tank installers.

Comments: American Petroleum Institute (API) standards. Tanks are constructed in accordance with API standards and these standards are sufficient. Support for requiring qualified individuals to ensure proper tank design and installation plans. (1148, 1149, 1200)

UST program. Certification for ASTs should follow the UST program. (1169)

Unnecessary. Additional certification programs are unnecessary. (L6, L8)

Response: We appreciate the comments and will consider them in a future rulemaking.

12. General Comments Comments: Other technical considerations. The "other technical considerations," which were not proposed but listed in the 1993 Preamble, should not be requirements because they would have little environmental benefit and substantial costs. (1058, 1137, 1172) The impacts from many of the problems considered in the "other technical considerations" can be mitigated by proper secondary containment. (1208)

Response: Other technical considerations. We appreciate these comments and will consider them in a future rulemaking.


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12653-12655]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1042]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because
of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates
will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed
in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Mitigation Assistant
Administrator of FEMA reconsider the changes. The modified BFEs may be
changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering
Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each
community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE
determinations are available for inspection is provided.
    Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of
changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required to either adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, 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 the
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes BFEs are in
accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This interim rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This interim rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This interim rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.     newspaper where     Chief executive officer    Effective date of modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Alabama: Madison.................  Unincorporated areas   February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Mike         June 15, 2009..................       010151
                                     of Madison County      February 13, 2009;    Gillespie, Chairman,
                                     (09-04-0502P).         Madison County        Madison County
                                                            Record.               Commission, 6994
                                                                                Courthouse 700, 100
                                                                                Northside Square,
                                                                                Huntsville, AL 35801.
 Arkansas: Craighead..............  City of Jonesboro (07- August 11, 2008;      The Honorable Doug         December 16, 2008..............       050048
                                     06-2616P).             August 18, 2008;The   Forman, Mayor, City of
                                                            Jonesboro Sun.        Jonesboro, 515 West
                                                                                Washington Avenue,
                                                                                Jonesboro, AR 72401.
Colorado:
    Boulder.......................  City of Boulder (08-   February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Shaun        January 28, 2009...............       080024
                                     08-0790P).             February 13, 2009;    McGrath, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Daily Camera.     Boulder, P.O. Box 791,
                                                                                Boulder, CO 80306.
     Boulder......................  Unincorporated areas   February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Ben          January 28, 2009...............       080023
                                     of Boulder County      February 13, 2009;    Pearlman, Chairman,
                                     (08-08-0790P).         The Daily Camera.     Boulder County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                                                471 Boulder, CO 80306.

 Connecticut: New Haven...........  Town of Hamden (08-01- July 24, 2008; July   The Honorable Craig        July 30, 2008..................       090078
                                     0419P).                31, 2008; New Haven   Henrici, Mayor, Town of
                                                            Register.             Hamden, Town Hall, 2750
                                                                                Dixwell Avenue, Hamden,
                                                                                CT 06518.
Florida
    Miami-Dade....................  City of Miami (08-04-  February 9, 2009;     The Honorable Manual A.    January 30, 2009...............       120650
                                     6874P).                February 16, 2009;    Diaz, Mayor, City of
                                                            Miami Herald.         Miami, 3500 Pan American
                                                                                Drive, Miami, FL 33133-
                                                                                5595.
     Pinellas.....................  City of Clearwater     February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Frank V.     January 28, 2009...............       125096
                                     (08-04-6704P).         February 13, 2009;    Hibbard, Mayor, City of
                                                            St. Petersburg        Clearwater, P.O. Box
                                                            Times.                4748, Clearwater, FL
                                                                                33758.
Georgia:
     Liberty......................  City of Flemington     January 25, 2009;     The Honorable Sandra S.    June 2, 2009...................       130124
                                     (08-04-4998P).         February 1, 2009;     Martin, Mayor, City of
                                                            Coastal Courier.      Flemington, P.O. Box 46,
                                                                                Hinesville, GA 31310.
     Liberty......................  City of Hinesville     January 25, 2009;     The Honorable James        June 2, 2009...................       130125
                                     (08-04-4998P).         February 1, 2009;     Thomas, Mayor, City of
                                                            Coastal Courier.      Hinesville, 115 East
                                                                                Martin Luther King, Jr.
                                                                                Drive, Hinesville, GA
                                                                                31313.
Idaho:
     Ada..........................  Unincorporated areas   February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Fred         June 15, 2009..................       160001
                                     of Ada County (08-10-  February 13, 2009;    Tilman, Chairman, Ada
                                     0658P).                Idaho Statesman.      County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 200 West
                                                                                Front Street, Boise, ID
                                                                                83702.
     Ada..........................  City of Meridian (08-  February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Tammy de     June 15, 2009..................       160180
                                     10-0658P).             February 13, 2009;    Weerd, Mayor, City of
                                                            Idaho Statesman.      Meridian, Meridian City
                                                                                Hall, Suite 300, 33 East
                                                                                Broadway Avenue,
                                                                                Meridian, ID 83702.
     Teton........................  Unincorporated areas   March 20, 2008;       The Honorable Larry        March 13, 2008.................       160230
                                     of Teton County (07-   March 27, 2009;       Young, Chairman, Teton
                                     10-0061P).             Teton Valley News.    County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                                                756, Driggs, ID 83422.
     Teton........................  Unincorporated areas   May 8, 2008; May 15,  The Honorable Larry        September 12, 2008.............       160230
                                     of Teton County (07-   2008; Teton Valley    Young, Chairman, Teton
                                     10-0770P).             News.                 County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                                                756, Driggs, ID 83422.
 Iowa: Dubuque....................  Unincorporated areas   February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Donna        June 15, 2009..................       190534
                                     of Dubuque County      February 13, 2009;    Smith, Supervisor,
                                     (08-07-0804P).         Telegraph Herald.     Dubuque County Board of
                                                                                Supervisors, 720 Central
                                                                                Avenue, Dubuque, IA
                                                                                52001.
 Maine: Cumberland................  Town of Falmouth (09-  February 6, 2009;     The Honorable William      June 15, 2009..................       230045
                                     01-0124P).             February 13, 2009;    Armitage, Chair,
                                                            Portland Press        Falmouth Town Council,
                                                            Herald.               271 Falmouth Road,
                                                                                Falmouth, ME 04105.
 Missouri: Clay, Platte, and        City of Kansas City    February 12, 2009;    the Honorable Mark W.      June 19, 2009..................       290173
 Jackson.                            (08-07-0725P).         February 19, 2009;    Funkhouser, Mayor, City
                                                            The Daily Record.     of Kansas City, City
                                                                                Hall, 29th Floor, 414
                                                                                East 12th Street, Kansas
                                                                                City, MO 64106.
 New Mexico: Sandoval.............  City of Rio Rancho     February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Thomas E.    June 15, 2009..................       350146
                                     (08-06-3060P).         February 13, 2009;    Swisstack, Mayor, City
                                                            The Albuquerque       of Rio Rancho, 3200
                                                            Journal.              Civic Center Circle
                                                                                Northeast, Rio Rancho,
                                                                                NM 87144.
 Pennsylvania: Lehigh.............  Township of Upper      February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Edward       January 29, 2009...............       421044
                                     Macungie (08-03-       February 13, 2009;    Earley, Chairman, Upper
                                     1442P).                The Morning Call.     Macungie Township, 8330
                                                                                Schantz Rd.,
                                                                                Breinigsville, PA 18031.
Texas:
     Brazos.......................  City of Bryan (08-06-  February 12, 2009;    The Honorable Mark         June 19, 2009..................       480082
                                     2045P).                February 19, 2009;    Conlee, Mayor, City of
                                                            Bryan College         Bryan, 300 South Texas
                                                            Station Eagle.        Avenue, Bryan, TX 77803.
     Collin.......................  City of Frisco (09-06- February 6, 2009;     The Honorable Maher Maso,  June 15, 2009..................       480134
                                     0212P).                February 13, 2009;    Mayor, City of Frisco,
                                                            Frisco Enterprise.    6101 Frisco Square
                                                                                Boulevard, Frisco, TX
                                                                                75034.
     Guadalupe....................  City of Cibolo (08-06- February 12, 2009;    The Honorable Johnny       June 18, 2009..................       480267
                                     2221P).                February 19, 2009;    Sutton, Mayor, City of
                                                            Seguin Gazette        Cibolo, P.O. Box 826,
                                                            Enterprise.           Cibolo, TX 78108.
     Guadalupe....................  Unincorporated areas   February 23, 2009;    The Honorable Mike         June 18, 2009..................       480266
                                     of Guadalupe County    February 19, 2009;    Wiggins, Guadalupe
                                     (08-06-2221P).         Seguin Gazette        County Judge, 307 West
                                                            Enterprise.           Court Street, Seguin, TX
                                                                                78155.
     Hunt.........................  City of Greenville     July 30, 2008;        The Honorable Tom Oliver,  December 4, 2008...............       485473
                                     (08-06-1111P).         August 6, 2008;       Mayor, City of
                                                            Herald Banner.        Greenville, P.O. Box
                                                                                1049, Greenville, TX
                                                                                75401.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: March 2, 2009.
Michael K. Buckley,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E9-6629 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


MEMO TO FILE

DATE:		November 5, 2018

SUBJECT:	Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, FBIR Compressor Station; MCP Operating, LLC, Endangered Species Act

FROM:	Colin Schwartz, EPA Region 8 Air Program

TO:		Source Files:
		205c AirTribal, TAT, MCP Operating, LLC. FBIR Compressor Station
		SMNSR-TAT-000895-2018.001
		Docket ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0574

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §1536, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR, part 402, the EPA is required to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of such species' designated critical habitat. Under ESA, those agencies that authorize, fund, or carry out the federal action are commonly known as "action agencies." If an action agency determines that its federal action "may affect" listed species or critical habitat, it must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). If an action agency determines that the federal action will have no effect on listed species or critical habitat, the agency will make a "no effect" determination. In that case, the action agency does not initiate consultation with the FWS and its obligations under Section 7 are complete.

In complying with its duty under ESA, the EPA, as the action agency, examined the potential effects on listed species and designated critical habitat relating to issuing this Clean Air Act (CAA) synthetic minor New Source Review permit in Mountrail County, North Dakota, on Indian country lands within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.

Region 8 Air Program Determination

The EPA has concluded that the synthetic minor NSR permit action will have "No effect" on listed species or critical habitat. Based on information provided by the operator, the EPA requested concurrence that there will be "no effect" of threatened and endangered species that the FWS has listed for the area of impact. The EPA initiated consultation under Section 7 and the FWS concurred that the project is not expected to have significant impact on fish and wildlife resources.

Permit Request

The EPA received an application from MCP Operating, LLC (MCP), requesting a synthetic minor permit to construct and operate the FBIR Compressor Station in accordance with the requirements of the Tribal Minor New Source Review (MNSR) permitting program. This permit is proposed to approve the construction and operation of a compressor station. This facility would be capable of separating condensate and natural gas, compressing the natural gas to increase pressure and dehydrating the natural gas to a pipeline quality for sales. Potential uncontrolled emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are above major New Source Review (NSR) thresholds. Therefore, MCP has requested enforceable emission limitations to bring allowable emissions below major source levels. In addition, MCP has requested limitations to bring allowable emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) below the thresholds for applicability to various Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations for major HAP sources at 40 CFR part 63, as well as major Title V thresholds for criteria pollutants and HAP.

This proposed permit would establish facility-wide annual limits on the throughput of natural gas and condensate. It requires the installation, maintenance and operation of a process flare to control VOC and HAP emissions from natural gas handling during maintenance, startup, shutdown and upset conditions. It also requires the installation, maintenance and operation of an enclosed vapor combustor to control VOC and HAP emissions from a triethylene glycol (TEG) dehydration unit that includes a TEG reboiler and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) condenser, and working, standing, breathing and flashing loss emissions from condensate storage tanks. The proposed permit also contains requirements to operate a catalytic control system and air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) controller on three (3) natural gas-fired 4-stroke lean-burn (4SLB) spark ignition (SI) internal combustion engines (ICE) used for natural gas compression at the facility, including associated CO, VOC, and NOx emissions limits.
This permit contains emissions limits, construction and operational limitations and associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Upon compliance with the permit, MCP will have legally and practicably enforceable restrictions on emissions that can be used when determining the applicability of other Clean Air Act (CAA) permitting requirements, such as those imposed by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program at 40 CFR part 52 and the Title V Operating Permit Program at 40 CFR part 71 (Part 71).

The facility is located at:

	      SENE Sec 4 T150N R93W
	Latitude 47.838823, Longitude -102.580448

Conclusion

The EPA has concluded that the proposed synthetic minor NSR permit action will have "No effect" on listed species or critical habitat. The EPA initiated consultation under Section 7 and the FWS concurred that the project is not expected to have significant impact on fish and wildlife resources. More information regarding this decision can be found in the administrative docket.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39030-39031]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17232]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557, FRL-9966-06-Region 8]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State of
Colorado to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for sulfur dioxide (SO2) on June 2, 2010
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2012.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0557. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are set forth in section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific
infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The
elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in
our notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 6, 2017 (82 FR
25999).
    In our proposed rule, the EPA proposed to approve some
infrastructure elements and to take no action on others for the 2010
SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS from the State's July
10, 2013 and December 1, 2015 certifications,\1\ respectively. In this
rulemaking, we are taking final action to approve those infrastructure
elements from the State's certifications for which we proposed
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Where an air agency determines that the provisions in or
referred to by its existing EPA approved SIP are adequate with
respect to a given infrastructure SIP element (or subelement) even
in light of the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the air
agency may make a SIP submission in the form of a certification.''
EPA's ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2),'' September
13, 2013, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    No comments were received on our June 6, 2017 notice of proposed
rulemaking.

III. Final Action

    For reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is taking final
action to approve infrastructure elements from the State's
certifications as shown in Table 1. Elements we are taking no action on
are reflected in Table 2.
    A comprehensive summary of infrastructure elements and new rules
being approved into the Colorado SIP through this final rule action are
provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1--List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the
                            EPA Is Approving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 10, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
 (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
December 1, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II),
 (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2--List of Colorado Infrastructure Elements and Revisions That the
                       EPA Is Taking No Action On
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     No action  (Revision to be made in separate rulemaking action)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 13, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
December 1, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

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

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 16, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA Section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 28, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. In 52.353, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.353  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
provided submissions to meet infrastructure requirements for the State
of Colorado for the 2010 SO2 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
were received on July 10, 2013 and December 1, 2015, respectively. The
State's Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS is approved with respect to section (110)(a)(1)
and the following elements of section (110)(a)(2): (A), (B), (C) with
respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

[FR Doc. 2017-17232 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P