Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2461 

Air Act (CAA) for the Crittenden County 

ozone nonattainment area. EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revision 

because it satisfies the Emissions 

Inventory and Emissions Statements 

requirements for 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. EPA is proposing 

to approve the revision pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before February 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand deliver/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dylan Van Dyne, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–7113; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

vandyne.dylan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final section of this Federal Register, 

EPA is approving the State’s SIP 

submittal as a direct rule without prior 

proposal because the Agency views this 

as non-controversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

For additional information see the 

direct final rule, which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: December 24, 2008. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–620 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 112 

[EPA–HQ–OPA–2008–0821; FRL–8762–6] 

RIN 2050–AG650 

Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill 

Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Rule Requirements— 

Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

proposing to amend the Spill 

Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) rule to tailor 

and streamline the requirements for the 

dairy industry. Specifically, EPA 

proposes to exempt milk containers and 

associated piping and appurtenances 

from the SPCC requirements provided 

they are constructed according to the 

current applicable 3–A Sanitary 

Standards, and are subject to the current 

applicable Grade ‘‘A’’ Pasteurized Milk 

Ordinance (PMO) or a State dairy 

regulatory requirement equivalent to the 

current applicable PMO. This proposal 

addresses concerns raised specifically 

by the dairy sector on the applicability 

of the SPCC requirements to milk 

containers. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 17, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OPA–2008–0821, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: EPA Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail code: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPA–2008– 

0821. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. 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, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket is (202) 

566–0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact the 

Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil 

Information Center at 800–424–9346 or 

TDD at 800–553–7672 (hearing 

impaired). In the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area, contact the 

Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil 

Information Center at 703–412–9810 or 

TDD 703–412–3323. For more detailed 

information on specific aspects of this 

proposed rule, contact either Vanessa E. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

2462 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1The requirements of the Edible Oil Regulatory 

Reform Act do not apply to the Food and Drug 

Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection 

Service. 

Rodriguez at 202–564–7913 

(rodriguez.vanessa@epa.gov), or Mark 

W. Howard at 202–564–1964 

(howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20460–0002, Mail 

Code 5104A. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

contents of this preamble are: 

I. General Information 

II. Entities Potentially Affected by This 

Proposed Rule 

III. Statutory Authority and Delegation of 

Authority 

IV. Background 

V. This Action 

A. 3-A Sanitary Standards and PMO 

Requirements 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) is 

proposing an amendment to the Spill 

Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) rule to exempt 

storage containers (both bulk and 

processing vessels) containing milk, as 

well as associated piping and 

appurtenances from the SPCC 

requirements, if they are constructed 

according to the current applicable 3–A 

Sanitary Standards, and are subject to 

the current applicable Grade ‘‘A’’ 

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) or a 

State dairy regulatory requirement 

equivalent to the current applicable 

PMO. 

II. Entities Potentially Affected by This 

Proposed Rule 

Industry sector NAICS code 

Farms .............................. 111, 112 

Food Manufacturing ........ 311, 312 

The Agency’s goal is to provide a 

guide for readers to consider regarding 

entities that potentially could be 

affected by this action. However, this 

action may affect other entities not 

listed in this table. The list of 

potentially affected entities in the above 

table may not be exhaustive. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed in the preceding 

section entitled FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

III. Statutory Authority and Delegation 

of Authority 

Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. 

1321(j)(1)(C), requires the President to 

issue regulations establishing 

procedures, methods, equipment, and 

other requirements to prevent 

discharges of oil to navigable waters or 

adjoining shorelines from vessels and 

facilities and to contain such discharges. 

The President delegated the authority to 

regulate non-transportation-related 

onshore facilities to EPA in Executive 

Order 11548 (35 FR 11677, July 22, 

1970), which was replaced by Executive 

Order 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, 

1991). A Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

and EPA (36 FR 24080, November 24, 

1971) established the definitions of 

transportation-related and nontransportation-related facilities. An 

MOU between EPA, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI), and 

DOT (59 FR 34102, July 1, 1994) redelegated the responsibility to regulate 

certain offshore facilities from DOI to 

EPA. 

Then in 1995, Congress enacted the 

Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act 

(EORRA), 33 U.S.C. 2720, which 

mandates that Federal agencies 1 in 

issuing or enforcing any regulation or 

establishing any interpretation or 

guideline relating to the transportation, 

storage, discharge, release, emission or 

disposal of oil differentiate between and 

establish separate classes for various 

types of oils, specifically: animal fats 

and oils and greases, and fish and 

marine mammal oils; oils of vegetable 

origin; petroleum oils, and other nonpetroleum oils and greases. In 

differentiating between these classes of 

oils, Federal agencies are directed to 

consider differences in the physical, 

chemical, biological, and other 

properties, and in the environmental 

effects of the classes. 

IV. Background 

EPA has promulgated a series of 

amendments to the SPCC rule. Facilities 

handling animal fats and vegetable oils 

(AFVOs), including dairy farms that are 

subject to the SPCC rule because of their 

oil storage capacity, may benefit from a 

number of these amendments, 

including: streamlined requirements 

promulgated for qualified facilities 

(‘‘Tier II’’), a basic set of requirements 

for a subset of qualified facilities (‘‘Tier 

I’’); amendments to the security, 

integrity testing, and facility diagram 

requirements; an exemption from the 

loading/unloading rack requirements; 

an exemption for pesticide application 

equipment and related mix containers, 

and for single-family residential heating 

oil containers; and clarification for fuel 

nurse tanks and for the definition of 

‘‘facility.’’ 

Additionally, the SPCC rule 

amendments differentiate integrity 

testing requirements at § 112.12(c)(6) for 

an owner or operator of a facility that 

handles certain types of AFVOs. EPA 

provides the Professional Engineer (PE) 

or an owner or operator self-certifying 

an SPCC Plan with an alternative option 

for integrity testing for containers that 

store AFVOs, based on compliance with 

certain U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) regulations and 

other criteria. 

Milk typically contains a percentage 

of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum 

oil. Thus, containers storing milk are 

subject to the SPCC rule when they meet 

the applicability criteria set forth in 

§ 112.1. In the SPCC rule, the term ‘‘bulk 

storage container’’ is defined at § 112.2 

as ‘‘any container used to store oil.’’ 

Therefore, bulk storage containers 

storing milk are subject to the applicable 

provisions under § 112.12. Additionally, 

milk is processed in vessels during the 

pasteurization process. These vessels, 

while not bulk storage containers, are 

considered oil-filled manufacturing 

equipment and are subject to the general 

provisions of the SPCC rule under 

§ 112.7. 

In response to EPA’s October 2007 

proposal for amendments to the SPCC 

rule (72 FR 58378, October 15, 2007), 

several commenters requested that EPA 

exempt containers used to store milk 

from the SPCC requirements. 

Specifically, these commenters 

suggested that milk storage containers 

be exempted from the SPCC 

requirements because the Grade ‘‘A’’ 

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) 

addresses milk storage and tank 

integrity. These commenters identified 

the PMO, which specifically addresses 

milk intended for human consumption, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2463 

as a model ordinance maintained 

through a cooperative agreement 

between the States, the FDA, and the 

regulated community. States typically 

adopt it either by reference, or by 

directly incorporating similar 

requirements into their statutes or 

regulations. 

V. This Action 

EPA is proposing to exempt from 

SPCC requirements containers and 

associated piping and appurtenances 

that store milk provided they are 

constructed according to current 

applicable 3–A Sanitary Standards, and 

are subject to the current applicable 

PMO or a State dairy regulatory 

requirement equivalent to the current 

applicable PMO. In addition, the 

capacity of these milk containers would 

not be included in a facility’s total oil 

storage capacity calculation (see 

112.1(d)(2)(ii). 

A. 3–A Sanitary Standards and PMO 

Requirements 

Milk containers and their associated 

piping and appurtenances are generally 

constructed according to an industry 

standard established by the 3–A 

Sanitary Standards (McLean, VA), 

which satisfy the PMO construction 

requirements for milk containers and 

associated piping and appurtenances. 

These standards include American Iron 

and Steel Institute 300 Series stainless 

steel (i.e., austenitic stainless steel) or a 

metal that is at least as corrosion 

resistant and that meet specific design 

criteria, including, but not limited to, 

requirements for contact with milk (e.g., 

polished contact surfaces). Milk 

containers and associated piping and 

appurtenances must have smooth and 

impervious surfaces that are free of 

breaks and corrosion, including at joints 

and seams. These standards further 

specify the requirements for easy access 

to inspect the container’s internal 

surfaces. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) also recognizes the 

3–A Sanitary Standards-compliant 

containers under 7 CFR part 58 for 

purposes of USDA milk grading and 

inspection programs. 

All milk handling operations subject 

to the PMO are required to have an 

operating permit, and are subject to 

inspection by the state dairy regulatory 

agencies. That is, PMO establishes 

criteria for the permitting, inspection 

and enforcement of milk handling 

equipment and operations that govern 

all processes for milk intended for 

human consumption. These include, but 

are not limited to, specifications for the 

design and construction of milk 

handling equipment, equipment 

sanitation and maintenance procedures, 

temperature controls, and pasteurization 

standards. In addition, because many 

kinds of harmful bacteria can grow 

rapidly in milk, and thus the PMO 

requires that milk containers be 

frequently emptied, cleaned, and 

sanitized (for example, every 72 hours). 

Such frequent cleaning of the containers 

suggests that any leaks or deterioration 

of container integrity would be quickly 

identified. PMO also requires an 

inspection of the dairy farms or milk 

processing plants by the statedesignated regulatory agency prior to 

issuing a permit, and routine 

inspections thereafter (for example, at 

dairy farms at least once every six 

months) by a state designated regulatory 

agency. Inspections at these facilities 

encompass those elements associated 

with the milk operation, including the 

milk containers, and associated piping 

and appurtenances. Should the 

inspection result in two consecutive 

violations of the same criterion, PMO 

enforcement provisions may result in 

the suspension or revocation of the 

facility’s operating permit. 

As a result, EPA believes that these 

requirements may provide a basis for an 

exemption of milk containers and their 

associated piping and appurtenances 

from the SPCC rule provided they are 

constructed in accordance with the 

current applicable 3–A Sanitary 

Standards, and are subject to the current 

applicable PMO sanitation requirements 

or a State dairy regulatory equivalent to 

current applicable PMO. 

EPA is requesting comment on this 

proposal. An owner or operator of a 

facility that is subject to SPCC, that has 

milk storage containers, and associated 

piping and appurtenances constructed 

in accordance with the current 

applicable 3–A Sanitary Standards, and 

that is effectively implementing the 

current applicable PMO sanitation 

requirements, is implementing 

substantial measures to prevent milk 

spoilage and contamination. While 

these measures are not specifically 

intended for oil spill prevention, control 

and countermeasure purposes, we 

believe they may prevent discharges of 

oil in quantities that are harmful and 

seek comment on this. We also seek 

comment on an exemption for milk 

product containers and their associated 

piping and appurtenances from the 

SPCC rule provided they are also 

constructed in accordance with the 

current applicable 3–A Sanitary 

Standards, and are subject to the current 

applicable PMO sanitation requirements 

or a State dairy regulatory equivalent to 

current applicable PMO. EPA is also 

requesting comment on how to address 

milk storage containers (including totes) 

that may not be constructed to 3–A 

Sanitary Standards under the SPCC rule 

and whether they should also be 

exempted from the SPCC requirements, 

provided they are subject to the current 

applicable PMO or a State dairy 

regulatory requirement equivalent to the 

current applicable PMO. Those 

commenters who support expanding the 

proposal to include those containers 

that are not constructed to 3–A Sanitary 

Standards should provide supporting 

data and information in order for the 

Agency to consider such an approach. 

EPA requests comment on any other 

alternative approaches to address milk, 

and milk product containers and 

associated piping and appurtenances 

under the SPCC rule. The Agency 

requests comments on whether any 

action to address milk, and milk 

product containers, and associated 

piping and appurtenances under the 

SPCC requirements is warranted. Any 

alternative approaches offered, 

including no action, must include an 

appropriate rationale and supporting 

data in order for the Agency to be able 

to consider them for final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 

4, 1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under EO 12866, and 

any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This 

analysis is contained in ‘‘Regulatory 

Impact Analysis’’ for the Proposed 

Amendment to the Oil Pollution 

Prevention Regulations to Exempt 

Certain Milk Containers and Associated 

Piping and Appurtenances (40 CFR 

PART 112)’’. A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for this action, 

and the analysis is briefly summarized 

in section C. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

any new information collection burden. 

The proposed rule amendment would 

exempt certain milk containers and 

associated piping and appurtenances 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

2464 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

from the rule. However, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements contained in the 

existing regulations, 40 CFR part 112, 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2050–0021. The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

a small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined in the U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA)’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201—SBA 

defines small businesses by category of 

business using North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes, 

and in the case of farms and oil 

production facilities, which constitute a 

large percentage of the facilities affected 

by this proposed rule, generally defines 

small businesses as having less than 

$0.5 million to $27.5 million per year in 

sales receipts, depending on the 

industry, or 500 or fewer employees, 

respectively; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, the Agency certifies that this 

action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. In determining 

whether a rule has a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the impact of 

concern is any significant, adverse 

economic impact on small entities, 

since the primary purpose of the 

regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ (5 

U.S.C. 603 and 604). Thus, an agency 

may certify that a rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, or 

otherwise has a positive economic effect 

on all of the small entities subject to the 

rule. 

Under this proposal, EPA would 

exempt milk storage containers and 

associated piping and appurtenances 

that are constructed according to 3–A 

Sanitary Standards and are subject to 

the current applicable Grade ‘‘A’’ 

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), or 

an equivalent state dairy requirement to 

the current applicable PMO from SPCC 

rule requirements. Overall, EPA 

estimates that this proposed action 

would reduce annual compliance costs 

by approximately $155 million for 

owners and operators of affected 

facilities. Total costs were annualized 

over a 10-year period using a 7-percent 

discount rate. To derive this savings 

estimate, EPA first estimated the 

number of dairy farms and milk 

processing facilities that would be 

affected each year (2010–2019) by the 

proposed rule. EPA next analyzed the 

expected milk and fuel oil storage 

capacity of dairy farms with varying 

numbers of cattle based on daily 

production rate per cow, storage 

requirements for milk, and 

conversations with industry 

representatives. EPA also estimated the 

milk and fuel oil storage capacity of 

milk processing facilities, and estimated 

the cost savings associated with the 

exemption for milk storage containers at 

both dairy farms and milk processing 

facilities. These savings include 

secondary containment costs, cost 

savings from preparing and maintaining 

an SPCC Plan for a smaller facility, and, 

for Qualified Facilities, preparing only a 

Plan Template and saving PE 

certification costs. A certain number of 

dairy farms are expected to become 

exempt as a result of the amendments. 

EPA has therefore concluded that this 

proposed rule would relieve regulatory 

burden for small entities and therefore, 

certify that this proposed action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

EPA continues to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcomes 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

proposed action imposes no enforceable 

duty on any State, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector; 

therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 

of the UMRA. This proposed action is 

also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments; the proposed 

amendments impose no enforceable 

duty on any small government. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It would not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Under the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) section 311(o), States 

may impose additional requirements, 

including more stringent requirements, 

relating to the prevention of oil 

discharges to navigable waters and 

adjoining shorelines. EPA recognizes 

that some States have more stringent 

requirements (56 FR 54612, October 22, 

1991). This proposed rule would not 

preempt State law or regulations. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This proposed rule would not 

significantly or uniquely affect 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2465 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Order has 

the potential to influence the regulation. 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

The overall effect of the proposed rule 

is to decrease the regulatory burden on 

facility owners or operators subject to its 

provisions. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA proposes to 

use the 3–A Sanitary Standards, 

‘‘Storage Tanks for Milk and Milk 

Products’’, 3A 01–08, November 2001, 

developed by 3–A Sanitary Standards, 

Inc. A copy of these standards may be 

obtained from the 3–A Sanitary 

Standards online store at http:// 

www.techstreet.com/3Agate.html; by 

contacting the organization at 6888 Elm 

Street, Suite 2D, McLean, Virginia 

22101; by phone at (703) 790–0295; or 

by facsimile at (703) 761–6284. EPA is 

proposing an exemption to the SPCC 

rule based on the 3–A Sanitary 

Standards, because an owner and 

operator of a facility that is subject to 

SPCC, that has milk storage containers 

and associated piping and 

appurtenances constructed in 

accordance with 3–A Sanitary 

Standards, and that is effectively 

implementing PMO sanitation 

requirements, may already be providing 

measures to prevent, control and 

provide countermeasures for discharges 

of oil in quantities that are harmful. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. The overall effect of 

the action is to decrease the regulatory 

burden on facility owners or operators 

subject to its provisions. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112 

Environmental protection, Animal 

fats and vegetable oils, Farms, Milk, Oil 

pollution, Tanks, Water pollution 

control, Water resources. 

Dated: January 9, 2009. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

112 as follows: 

PART 112—OIL POLLUTION 

PREVENTION 

1. The authority citation for part 112 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 

2720; and E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 

CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Amend § 112.1 by adding 

paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(G) and (d)(13) to 

read as follows: 

§ 112.1 General applicability. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(G) The capacity of any milk container 

and associated piping and 

appurtenances that are constructed 

according to current applicable 3–A 

Sanitary Standards, and that are subject 

to current applicable Grade ‘‘A’’ 

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance or a State 

dairy regulatory requirement equivalent 

to the current applicable Grade ‘‘A’’ 

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. 

* * * * * 

(13) Any milk container and 

associated piping and appurtenances 

that are constructed according to current 

applicable 3–A Sanitary Standards, and 

that are subject to current applicable 

Grade ‘‘A’’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 

or a State dairy regulatory requirement 

equivalent to the current applicable 

Grade ‘‘A’’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–830 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R2–ES–2008–0059; MO 9221050083– 

B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Status Review of the Bald 

Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the 

Sonoran Desert Area of Central 

Arizona and Northwestern Mexico 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of continuing 

information collection for a status 

review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

continuation of information collection 

on a status review for the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the 

Sonoran Desert area of central Arizona 

and northwestern Mexico, hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Sonoran Desert area 

bald eagle.’’ Through this action, we 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS