10044 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold a public hearing at a time and

place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Lieutenant

P.C. Barnett, Eleventh Coast Guard

District, Aids to Navigation and

Waterways Management Branch, Project

Officer, and Lieutenant R.J. Barber,

Eleventh Coast Guard District Legal

Office, Project Attorney.

Background and Purpose

The Isthmus Cove Anchorage

Grounds (the Anchorage) were codified

by final rulemaking CGFR 67–46,

published in 32 FR 17728 (December 12,

1967). The Wrigley Marine Science

Center (the Center) was built during that

same year. The Center’s primary

function was and continues to be to

provide an environment that facilitates

scientific investigation. It was

intentionally located in close proximity

to a virtually undisturbed marine

environment to allow researchers the

opportunity to conduct long-term

underwater investigations of sea life

under conditions where human

influences are minimal.

In 1988, the state of California

established the Wrigley Marine Science

Center Marine Life Refuge (the Refuge),

formerly known as the Catalina Marine

Science Center Marine Life Refuge, near

the Center. A portion of the waters of

the Refuge is located within the waters

of the Anchorage.

In order to protect and preserve the

delicate ecosystem of the Refuge and to

prevent damage caused by anchors to

the valuable scientific equipment being

used to conduct research within the

Refugee, the state of California, as part

of the original legislation establishing

the Refuge, prohibits unauthorized

anchoring and mooring within the

Refuge.

Discussion of Proposed Regulations

The proposed amendment to the

Isthmus Cove Anchorage Grounds

regulation seeks to reduce the size of the

Anchorage by removing from it the

waters located in Fisherman Cove and

those waters shoreward from a line

extending approximately 50 yards from

shore connecting Blue Cavern Point to

Fisherman Cove. In order to reduce

confusion among recreational and

commercial mariners, and in order to

enhance the safety of navigation in

support of the efforts of the State of

California, the Coast Guard proposes to

exclude the area encompassed by the

Marine Life Refuge from the Anchorage

Grounds.

The proposed amendment to the

regulation also describes the Anchorage

more accurately by using coordinates in

addition to making reference to wellknown landmarks.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under Section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under Section 6(a)(3) of

that Order. It has been exempted from

review by the Office of Management and

Budget under that Order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10e of the Department of Transportation

regulatory policies and procedures is

unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal

would have significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ include

independently owned and operated

small businesses that are not dominant

in their field and that otherwise qualify

as ‘‘small business concerns’’ under

section 3 of the Small Business Act (15

U.S.C. 632). Because it expects the

impact of this proposal to be minimal,

the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this proposal, if adopted,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612 and has

determined that this proposal does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Environmental Assessment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that, under section 2.B.2

of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

this proposal is categorically excluded

from further environmental

documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

Anchorage grounds.

Proposed Regulations

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend Part 110 of Title 33, Code of

Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 110—ANCHORAGE

REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 110

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 2030, 2035 and

2071; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 1.05–1(g).

Section 110.1a and each section listed in

110.1a is also issued under 33 U.S.C. 1223

and 1231.

2. Section 110.216 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 110.216 Pacific Ocean at Santa Catalina

Island, CA

(a) * * *

(2) Isthmus Cove. All the waters

bounded by a line connecting the

following coordinates, beginning at 33°–

27′–12′′ N, 118°–30′–05′′ W (the

promontory known as Lion Head);

thence southeast to 33°–26′–55.5′′ N,

118°–28′–44′′ W; thence west-southwest

to 33°–26′–50′′ N, 118°–29′–08′′ W;

thence southwest to 33°–26′–39′′ N,

118°–29′–19′′ W; thence along the

shoreline returning to the point of

origin, excluding the followingdescribed non-anchorage area: an area

300 feet wide (170 feet west and 130 feet

east of the centerline of the Catalina

Island Steamship Line pier), extending

1600 feet from the root of the pier, and

an area 150 feet seaward of the shoreline

extending approximately 1500 feet east

and 1500 feet northwest of the

centerline of said pier.

* * * * *

Dated: January 19, 1995.

D.D. Polk,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Eleventh Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 95–4409 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

33 CFR Parts 154 and 156

[CGD 93–056]

RIN 2115–AE59

Facilities Transferring Oil or

Hazardous Materials in Bulk

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10045

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

revise the regulations covering facilities

transferring oil or hazardous material in

bulk. These revisions are intended to

update and clarify the current

regulations. The revisions should result

in regulations that are more effective in

providing a high level of safety and

environmental protection.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 93–056),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or may be delivered to

room 3406 at the same address between

8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

Comments on collection-of-information

requirements must be mailed also to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, 725 17th Street NW,

Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk

Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Jonathan C. Burton, Marine

Environmental Protection Division,

(202) 267–6714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written data,

views, or arguments. Persons submitting

comments should include their names

and addresses, identify this rulemaking

(CGD 93–056) and the specific section of

this proposal to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit two copies of

all comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 8 by 11

inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose stamped, self-addressed

postcards or envelopes.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period. It may change this proposal in

view of the comments.

The Coast Guard plans no public

hearing. Persons may request a public

hearing by writing to the Marine Safety

Council at the address under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

the reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If it determines that the

opportunity for oral presentations will

aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard

will hold a public hearing at a time and

place announced by a later notice in the

Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are Lieutenant

Jonathan C. Burton, Project Manager,

Marine Environmental Protection

Division and Ms. Helen Boutrous,

Project Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.

Background and Purpose

Until 1990, the regulations covering

the transfer of products between vessels

and facilities capable of transferring oil

or hazardous materials in bulk to or

from a vessel with a capacity of 250

barrels or more were contained in two

different parts of the Code of Federal

Regulations. Facilities transferring oil in

bulk were covered by 33 CFR part 154,

while those transferring hazardous

materials in bulk were covered by 33

CFR part 126 (Handling of Explosives or

Other Dangerous Cargoes Within or

Contiguous to Waterfront Facilities).

The Coast Guard consolidated and

revised the provisions into part 154

(Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous

Material in Bulk) in a final rule

published on September 4, 1990 (55 FR

36252). Since that time, numerous

comments have been received from

Coast Guard personnel and industry

about problems in working with part

154. Coast Guard personnel and

industry advisory groups have provided

numerous suggestions for improving

part 154. In 1992, a Coast Guard task

force, chartered as the result of a

General Accounting Office report on the

Coast Guard’s facility inspection

program, recommended a number of

changes to 33 CFR part 154. Based on

the task force’s recommendations, the

Coast Guard decided to initiate a

rulemaking project to review all of 33

CFR part 154. A solicitation was sent to

all Coast Guard Marine Safety Officers

and Captains of the Ports asking for

assistance in identifying problem areas.

Every unit solicited responded with

comments identifying changes to

provisions that, if adopted, would

greatly improve their facility oversight

and enforcement operations, and

thereby enhance industry’s ability to

comply with the regulations.

Discussion of Proposed Changes

Section 154.100 Applicability

There has been confusion regarding

the applicability of the regulations in 33

CFR part 154. Particularly, there has

been confusion over whether

applicability is determined by the

capacity of the facility or the capacity of

the vessel. The proposed rule seeks to

clarify that the total capacity of the

vessel is the determining factor. Part 154

applies to facilities transferring oil or

hazardous materials to vessels capable

of carrying 250 barrels or more of oil or

hazardous materials, or a combination

of oil types, or hazardous materials, or

both.

Also, a new paragraph is proposed to

be added to the applicability section

which would specify all of the

requirements that are applicable to

mobile transfer facilities. Both industry

and Coast Guard personnel have

indicated that such a provision would

be helpful. Inclusion of this paragraph

should eliminate confusion in

determining which requirements are

applicable to mobile facilities.

Included in the proposed list of

requirements that would apply to

mobile facilities are certain safety

requirements found in § 154.735 that do

not currently apply to mobile facilities.

These include standards for access to

the mobile facility by firefighting

personnel, proper storage of hazardous

material, sufficient fire extinguishers,

rubbish containment, protective

equipment, heating equipment

placement, electrical wiring and three

way warning signs. Additionally, this

NPRM proposes to subject mobile

facilities to the ‘‘person in charge

requirements’’ of 33 CFR 154.710.

Comments on the cost of applying these

regulations to mobile facilities are

requested.

Section 154.105 Definitions

A definition for ‘‘caretaker status’’,

and revisions to the definitions of

‘‘facility’’, and ‘‘transfer’’ are proposed.

‘‘Caretaker status’’ is proposed to be

defined as a facility that is free of oil or

hazardous material, certified as gas free

and where specified piping has been

blanked off and the letter of adequacy

has been suspended by the COTP.

The proposed revisions to the

definition of ‘‘facility’’ clarify that tank

cleaning and stripping facilities, and

floating docks or barges used as part of

the transfer platform, are considered to

be within the definition of facility. The

proposed rule also makes it clear that

barges and other floating structures used

to support an intricate part of the

facility’s operation, such as piping for
10046 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

the facility, are to be considered part of

the facility.

Finally, the proposed revision to the

definition of ‘‘transfer’’ would specify

that a transfer begins once the transfer

hose is connected, thereby requiring

owners and operators to comply with

the safety requirements pertaining to the

transfer of oil or hazardous material at

an early stage of the process. Safety

measures at this stage are crucial

because as soon as a transfer hose is

connected, there is a risk of oil or

hazardous material being inadvertently

transferred, resulting in a spill.

Therefore, hose connections should be

made only while complying with the

supervisory and other requirements

specified in part 154.

Section 154.107 Alternatives

This section is proposed to be revised

to provide that the Captain of the Port

(COTP) will take final approval or

disapproval action within 60 days,

rather than 30 days, of a request from a

facility operator to use alternate

methods, procedures or equipment

standards from those required by part

154. The additional 30 days will allow

more time for the COTP to thoroughly

evaluate requests. Every effort will be

made to respond to requests in less than

60 days if possible.

Section 154.110 Letter of Intent

This NPRM proposes to require that

the facility owner’s name, address, and

telephone number be included in the

letter of intent required by § 154.110.

Currently, this information is required

of the facility operator only. This

additional information will be of great

assistance in determining and locating

the responsible party during a spill or

other emergency.

Section 154.310 Operations Manual:

Contents

This NPRM proposes to require that a

map of the facility, drawn to scale, be

included in the operations manual. In

the past there has been confusion among

industry and enforcement personnel

over the boundaries of various facilities

subject to regulation. The required map

would depict the physical boundaries of

the facility and include all structures,

such as wharfs, and would indicate

which piping in the facility is subject to

the testing requirements of 33 CFR

156.170(c)(4). This revision would assist

Coast Guard and industry personnel in

more readily determining which pipes

are subject to Coast Guard inspection as

opposed to those regulated by the

Environmental Protection Agency. The

accuracy of the facility operator’s

determinations as to which pipes are

subject to Coast Guard inspection under

§ 156.170 would be reviewed by the

COTP when the operations manual is

submitted to the COTP for a review of

adequacy under § 154.300. This revision

would help the Coast Guard and facility

owners and operators ensure that all

piping subject to the regulations is

properly tested.

The proposed rule seeks to simplify

for industry the information retention

requirements of part 154. Currently,

§ 154.310(a)(5) requires facility

operators to retain specified information

about the products handled by the

facility. This NPRM proposes that

Material Safety Data Sheets be retained

rather than the information currently

required by § 154.310(a)(5). This

revision would provide the Coast Guard

access to information of equivalent

value, while providing an easier method

of recordkeeping for facility operators.

In the past there has been confusion

regarding the appropriate state and local

personnel to contact in the event of a

spill or other emergency. Therefore, this

NPRM proposes to add a requirement

that the names and telephone numbers

of state and local officials be included

in the list of names and addresses

currently required under § 154.310(a)(7).

This would require the facility owners

to determine who the appropriate state

and local officials to contact are in

advance, so that time will not be wasted

in the event of an emergency. Also, this

NPRM proposes to require that the name

and telephone number of the ‘‘qualified

individual’’ listed in the facility

response plan required by 33 CFR

154.1026 be included. This is also vital

information in the event of an

emergency.

Currently, § 154.310(a)(16) requires

that the operations manual include the

maximum relief valve setting for each

transfer system. This rule proposes that

the Maximum Allowable Working

Pressure (MAWP) also be recorded. This

revision is necessary because of

proposed changes to § 154.500 which

would no longer require that each hose

assembly have a MAWP of 150 pounds

per square inch. Recording of the

MAWP will ensure that tests conducted

under 33 CFR 156.170 are conducted

using the correct MAWP for the transfer

piping system being tested.

Section 154.320 Operations Manual:

Amendment

Currently, under § 154.320(a)(1),

facility operators have 14 days to

respond to a notice from the COTP

regarding any inadequacies in the

operations manual. Industry has

indicated that 14 days is an insufficient

amount of time to respond to a COTP’s

request for amendments to the

operations manual. This NPRM

proposes a 45 day response period

starting from the date of the COTP’s

notice. Also, § 154.320(a)(1) provides

that the COTP shall notify the facility

operator of any amendment required or

adopted, and that such amendment

becomes effective 30 days after the

facility operator receives notice. This

NPRM proposes to delay the effective

date of such amendments until 60 days

after notification of the facility operator.

Section 154.500 Hose Assemblies

In the past there has been confusion

regarding the maximum allowable

working pressure (MAWP) to be used

for the testing requirements in 33 CFR

156.170. Part of this confusion was

caused by the fact that a minimum

(MAWP) was specified for hose

assemblies. This forced industry to test

their hose assemblies, and usually their

piping systems, at a minimum of 225

pounds per square inch. It is more

reasonable for the MAWP to be based on

the actual design of the transfer system,

rather than a pre-specified number. The

proposed changes to this section would

eliminate a minimum burst pressure

and MAWP for hose assemblies. With

this revision, industry could develop

their tests and inspection criteria based

on the actual needs of their systems, and

avoid unnecessary expense testing to a

level higher than that of their systems’

designs.

Section 154.520 Closure Devices

Under the current regulations,

industry must have enough valves to

blank off a transfer hose, even when it

is stored, unless it is new and unused.

The proposed change would clarify that

such hoses must be blanked off during

transfer. Also, the revisions would allow

for treating a hose that is cleaned of

product in the same manner as a new,

unused hose.

Section 154.530 Small Discharge

Containment

Experience reveals that many small

spills occur during the coupling and

uncoupling of transfer hoses, and from

coupled joints. Present regulations

require containment around manifold

areas, but do not specifically require

containment around those areas where

coupled hoses may cross or are

uncoupled or coupled. Therefore, a

paragraph is proposed to be added to

§ 154.530 that would require that fixed

or portable containment be placed

under each hose connection during

coupling, uncoupling, and transfer.

Comments on the viability and costs of

this proposed revision are solicited.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10047

Section 154.540 Discharge Removal

The current regulations require that

facilities have a means to safely and

quickly remove oil and hazardous

material from the containment required

by § 154.530. To provide greater

specificity, this NPRM proposes that

facilities must have a means to remove

discharged oil or hazardous material

from the containment within one hour.

Section 154.545 Discharge

Containment Equipment

This NPRM proposes to add a

paragraph to § 154.545 that would

specify that equipment required to be

retained under this section may be used

in the planning requirements of the

facility response plan required by

subpart F.

Section 154.560 Communications

This NPRM proposes to revise

§ 154.560 to require that only

intrinsically safe radios that have been

marked accordingly by the manufacturer

of the radio may be used to meet the

requirements of § 154.560(a). This

requirement would help to ensure that

appropriate communications equipment

is used. Also, the references included in

§ 154.560(e) regarding the definition of

‘‘intrinsically safe’’ are incorrect.

Instead of the current references, the

NPRM requires that a qualified testing

laboratory, such as Underwriters

Laboratories, certify that a radio is

intrinsically safe and is marked

accordingly. In most cases, radios used

by facilities already meet the

requirements of this proposed

regulation.

Section 154.710 Persons in Charge:

Designation and Qualification

Numerous spills have been caused by

the inattention or poor training of the

person in charge at some facilities.

Therefore, it is proposed that the facility

operator must certify that the person in

charge has completed a training

program that has been approved by the

Captain of the Port, in accordance with

revised § 154.710(c) and (d). This

revision is intended to ensure that the

person in charge has received the basic

training necessary to properly operate

transfer equipment and has a thorough

understanding of the hazards involved

in a transfer of oil or hazardous

materials, and what his duties are

relative to that operation in the event of

emergency. The proposed requirement

would, however, allow facility operators

the flexibility to develop their own

training program, appropriate to the

needs and operation of their facility.

The list of those persons certified would

be kept with the operations manual.

Comments are solicited from industry

on what specific basic training

requirements should be required for the

person in charge, what established

industry training already exists to

ensure their competence, and the cost of

such training.

Additionally, there has been

confusion as to where the person in

charge is to be during the transfer, as

required by 33 CFR 156.120(t)(1). This

NPRM adds the requirement that the

person in charge is to be in visual sight

of the transfer system from the time a

hose connection is completed, until the

time when the connection is broken.

Given the importance of the person in

charge, it is also proposed that this

section apply to mobile transfer

facilities.

Section 154.735 Safety Requirements

This NPRM proposes that § 154.735

be revised to abolish the current ‘‘hot

work permit’’ program which is

cumbersome and obsolete. Under the

current program a permit must be

obtained from the Captain of the Port,

prior to conducting welding or hot work

at a facility. A new provision is

proposed to be added which would

place responsibility for the safety of all

hot work at the facility, and the vessels

moored to it, on the facility’s owner and

operator.

Currently, § 154.735(s) provides that

tank cleaning or gas freeing operations

conducted by the facility on vessels

carrying oil residues or mixtures must

be conducted in accordance with

specified sections of the International

Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and

Terminal(s) (ISGOTT). Experience with

use of the ISGOTT standards has

revealed that, particularly in reference

to barges, some of the ISGOTT

provisions are problematic. A provision

would be added to allow facility owners

or operators to request authorization

from the COTP, in accordance with

§ 154.107, to follow an alternative

method of compliance based on sound

industry practices. An example of

guidelines that could be approved for

use by the COTP are the ‘‘Safety

Guidelines for Tank Vessel Cleaning

Facilities’’, First Ed., 1992, developed

by the American Waterways Shipyard

Conference. Copies of these guidelines

may be obtained from American

Waterways Shipyard Conference, 1600

Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000, Arlington, VA

22209.

The current regulations are vague

regarding security at a facility. The

proposed rule would require that access

to the marine transfer area from the

shoreside or waterside is limited to

facility personnel, delivery and service

personnel, Coast Guard personnel, and

other authorized persons. It further

proposes that these personnel have

identification. These parameters are

similar to those found in 33 CFR

127.703 and therefore should be better

understood by both industry and

inspection personnel.

Currently part 154 does not prohibit

smoking. This NPRM would propose to

limit smoking in the same manner as the

provisions of 33 CFR 126.15(b). Most

facilities already follow this standard.

This NPRM proposes to require that

three way warning signs, similar to

those required under 33 CFR

126.15(o)(2)(i), be displayed on the

facility at the point of transfer, without

obstruction, at all times on a fixed

facility and during coupling, transfer

operation, and uncoupling on a mobile

facility. Many of the facilities previously

covered by part 126 still have these

warning signs. Both industry and Coast

Guard personnel have suggested that

these signs would be valuable for all

facilities covered by 33 CFR part 154.

Section 154.740 Records

One of the primary goals of this

rulemaking is to consolidate documents

and descriptions of procedures and tests

required by part 154 into one

centralized location that would greatly

facilitate inspections and ensure that

this information is immediately

available in the event of a spill or other

emergency. Therefore, this NPRM

proposes that the records required by

this section, such as the Letter of Intent,

Letter of Adequacy, person-in-charge

qualifications, and the piping and hose

tests be maintained in the same location

as the operations manual but not as a

part of the operations manual.

33 CFR Part 156

Conforming changes to certain

sections of 33 CFR part 156 have been

proposed as discussed below to ensure

consistency with the changes proposed

for part 154.

Section 156.120 Requirements for

Transfer

This section is proposed to be revised

to explicitly state that a transfer begins

when a connection of any transfer hose

or loading arm is made. At that point,

all elements required to conduct a

transfer must be in place. This revision

is consistent with the proposed

definition of ‘‘transfer’’ in § 154.105 and

is intended to prevent an accidental

spill from the transfer of oil or

hazardous material before all

protections required during a transfer

are in place.
10048 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Section 156.160 Supervision by Person

in Charge

To conform with the training

requirements set forth in § 154.710, a

provision is proposed to be added to

§ 156.160 to clarify that the person in

charge must visually monitor the

transfer, throughout the transfer.

Section 156.170 Equipment Tests and

Inspections

Revisions are proposed to this section

to complement the testing records

required to be kept with the operations

manual by § 154.720.

The revisions clarify that a static

liquid pressure test is acceptable, and

the test medium for transfer hoses is not

required to be water. Those facilities in

a caretaker status or that only transfer

infrequently will now be required to test

30 days before their first transfer

occurring more than one year from their

last tests and inspections. This

inspection schedule will allow a

reduction in costs for facilities that

transfer infrequently while still

providing an appropriate level of

environmental protection.

It would also be made clear that the

COTP has the authority to allow

alternative methods of compliance to

the testing requirements in this section.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). A

draft Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT has been

prepared and is available in the docket

for inspection or copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES. The

Evaluation is summarized as follows.

It is estimated that 2591 fixed and 539

mobile marine transportation related

facilities will be affected by these

regulations. Many of the proposed

revisions are clarifying changes that will

pose no additional costs on facilities

presently in compliance with the

regulations. For example, certain

information previously kept separately

would now be required to be kept in the

same location as the operations manual

but requires little additional information

not already prescribed by some other

regulation. Since this information is not

required to be included in the

operations manual no additional cost is

incurred for review by the Coast Guard

or the facility.

There are some new requirements

associated with this NPRM. These

requirements include a map showing

the boundaries of the Coast Guard’s

jurisdiction (§ 154.310(a)(2)); additional

requirements for mobile transfer

facilities including standards for access

by firefighting personnel, proper storage

of hazardous material, sufficient fire

extinguishers, rubbish containment,

protective equipment, heating

equipment placement, three way

warning sign, electrical wiring and the

‘‘person in charge requirements’’

(§ 154.100(d)); a more extensive training

and qualification program for persons in

charge (§ 154.710(c)); containment

under each hose connection during

coupling, uncoupling, and transfer

(§ 154.530(a)(3)); and three way warning

signs (§ 154.735(v)).

However, other proposed revisions

lessen the burden on industry in such

areas as the use of the material safety

data sheets rather than maintaining this

information separately (§ 154.310(a)(5));

deletion of the requirement that transfer

hoses have a minimum maximum

allowable working pressure of 150 psi

(§ 154.500(b)); and the deletion of the

requirement for a facility to obtain a hot

work permit (§ 154.735(l)).

Comments are requested on the cost

of the small discharge containment

proposed by § 154.530(a)(3); the

additional requirements for mobile

facilities proposed by § 154.100(d); and

the training and qualification program

for persons in charge proposed by

§ 154.710(c) and the overall cost of all

of the proposed regulations to

consumers. Comments are also solicited

on the cost saving from deleting the

requirement that transfer hoses have a

minimum, maximum allowable working

pressure of 150 psi (§ 154.500(b)).

In consideration of the additions and

deletions to part 154 and 156 it is

estimated that the annual net cost to all

facilities, would be $7,665,971, where

captial costs are incurred over a five

year period.

The overriding benefit to industry and

the Coast Guard of the proposed rules

would be the establishment of rules that

are easier to understand and that would

therefore facilitate and foster industry

compliance, leading to a higher level of

environmental protection.

The direct monetary benefit of

increased protection would come from

the reduction of spills resulting from

facility operations. These proposed

regulations are designed to achieve an

overall reduction of oil and hazardous

materials spilled into the water from

facilities by 20%. The weighted average

of the annual volume of bulk oil and

hazardous material spilled from 1987–

1991 from facilities was 436,147 gallons.

The estimated costs of spill cleanup,

third party damages, and natural

resource damages resulting from this

volume totals $8,722,940. A 20%

reduction will give an annual benefit of

$1,744,588.

Comparing the monetary benefits of

the proposed provisions against the

compliance cost to industry, the annual

cost of the regulations is estimated to be

$5,921,383.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ may include (1) small

businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields and (2)

governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

The majority of facilities are owned

by large corporations. The new

requirements proposed by this NPRM,

measured against the proposed relief

from other requirements currently in

effect, will result in a negligible cost

increase for facilities that presently

comply with part 154.

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal,

if adopted, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. If, however,

you think that your business or

organization qualifies as a small entity

and that this proposal will have a

significant economic impact on your

business or organization, please submit

a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining

why you think it qualifies and in what

way and to what degree this proposal

will economically affect it.

Collection of Information

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) reviews

each proposed rule that contains a

collection-of-information requirement to

determine whether the practical value of

the information is worth the burden

imposed by its collection. Collection-ofinformation requirements include

reporting, recordkeeping, notification,

and other, similar requirements.

This proposal contains new

collection-of-information requirements

in the following sections: § 154.310,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10049

§ 154.710 and § 154.560. The following

particulars apply:

DOT No: 2115.

OMB Control No.: 2115–0078.

Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.

Title: Changes to regulations covering

Facilities Transferring Oil or Hazardous

Materials in Bulk.

Need for information: It is proposed

that information presently kept

separately, now be kept in the same

location as the operations manual by

§ 154.740. However, little new

information is required and since it is

proposed that the information be kept

with the operations manual, not in it, no

additional review requirements are

proposed. Maintaining all records in

one location where it is readily

assessable will encourage facility

owners and operators to be better

prepared and thereby help to prevent

spills and accidents resulting from

improper procedures. Also,

consolidation of the information with

the operations manual will assist Coast

Guard enforcement personnel in

performing their duties in an efficient

and effective manner. Section 154.710

would require a facility to submit a

training program for persons in charge

to the COTP for review and approval.

Training programs are necessary to

ensure the competency of the personnel

filling this critical position. The

proposal allows facility operators the

flexibility of designing a program that

meets their needs.

Proposed use of information: To

determine regulatory compliance.

Frequency of response: Occasional

and annual.

Burden estimate: 7,258.

Respondents: 3,130 operators of bulk

oil and hazardous material transfer

facilities.

Form(s): Not applicable.

Average burden hours per respondent:

1.9

The Coast Guard has submitted the

requirements to OMB for review under

section 3504(h) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act. Persons submitting

comments on the requirements should

submit their comments both to OMB

and to the Coast Guard where indicated

under ADDRESSES.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612 and has determined that this

proposal does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

The Coast Guard intends to preempt

State and local law only to the extent

that compliance with the State law

would preclude compliance with these

proposed requirements.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement is not

necessary. An Environmental

Assessment and a draft Finding of No

Significant Impact are available in the

docket for inspection or copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

The majority of the proposed changes

are administrative in nature and involve

the maintenance of records and

descriptions of procedures to be

retained in the operations manual.

Other proposed revisions involve

changes in equipment or procedures

that are designed to enhance

environmental protection by attempting

to prevent spills of oil and hazardous

materials from bulk liquid facilities or

minimize the effects of such

occurrences. Therefore, these revisions

should have only a positive affect upon

the environment.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 154

Fire prevention, Hazardous

substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

33 CFR Part 156

Hazardous substances, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR parts 154 and 156 as

follows:

PART 154—FACILITIES

TRANSFERRING OIL OR HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS IN BULK

1. The authority citation for part 154

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321 (j)(1)(C),

(j)(5), (j)(6) and (m)(2); sec. 2, E.O. 12777, 56

FR 54757; 49 CFR 1.46. Subpart F is also

issued under 33 U.S.C. 2735.

Subpart A—General

2. In § 154.100, paragraph (a) is

revised and a new paragraph (d) is

added to read as follows:

§ 154.100 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to each facility

that is capable of transferring oil or

hazardous material, in bulk, to or from

a vessel, where the vessel has a total

capacity, from a combination of all bulk

products carried, of 250 barrels or more.

This part does not apply to the facility

when it is in a caretaker status.

* * * * *

(d) The following sections of this part

apply to mobile facilities:

(1) Section 154.107 Alternatives.

(2) Section 154.108 Exemptions.

(3) Section 154.110 Letter of intent.

(4) Section 154.120 Facility

examinations.

(5) Section 154.300 Operations

manual: General.

(6) Section 154.310 Operations

manual: Contents. Paragraphs (a)(2)

through (a)(7), (a)(9), (a)(12), (a) (14)

through (17), (a) (20) through (24), (c),

and (d).

(7) Section 154.320 Operations

manual: Amendment.

(8) Section 154.325 Operations

manual: Letter of adequacy.

(9) Section 154.500 Hose assemblies.

Paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), (c), (d) (1)

through (3), and (e) (1) through (4).

(10) Section 154.530 Small discharge

containment. Paragraphs (a) (1) through

(2), and (d).

(11) Section 154.545 Discharge

containment equipment.

(12) Section 154.550 Emergency

shutdown.

(13) Section 154.560

Communications.

(14) Section 154.570 (c) and (d)

Lighting.

(15) Section 154.700 General.

(16) Section 154.710 Persons in

charge: Designation and qualification.

(17) Section 154.730 Persons in

charge: Evidence of designation.

(18) Section 154.735 Safety

requirements. Paragraphs (a) through

(d), (f) through (g), (i), (j) (1) through (2),

(k) (1) through (2), (l) through (m), (o)

through (q), (r) (1) through (3), (s), and

(u) through (v).

(19) Section 154.740 Records.

Paragraphs (a) through (f).

(20) Section 154.750 Compliance with

operations manual.

3. In § 154.105, the following

definition Caretaker status is added in

alphabetical order, and the definitions

of Facility, and Transfer are revised, to

read as follows:

§ 154.105 Definitions.

* * * * *

Caretaker status denotes a facility

where all piping, storage tanks, and

related equipment is completely free of

oil or hazardous material; that has been

certified as being gas free; where piping

terminating near any body of water has

been blanked; and where the letter of

adequacy has been suspended by the

COTP upon request of the facility.

* * * * *
10050 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Facility means either an onshore or

offshore facility and includes, but is not

limited to, structures, equipment, and

appurtenances thereto, used or capable

of being used to transfer oil or

hazardous material to or from a vessel

or public vessel. Also included are

facilities that tank clean or strip and any

floating structure that is an intricate part

of the facility’s operation. A facility

includes Federal, State, municipal, and

private facilities.

* * * * *

Transfer means any movement of oil

or hazardous material to, from, or

within a vessel by means of pumping,

gravitation, or displacement. A transfer

is considered to begin when all

connections are made so that such

movement is possible, regardless of

when the actual movement begins.

* * * * *

4. In § 154.107, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 154.107 Alternatives.

* * * * *

(b) The COTP takes final approval or

disapproval action on the request,

submitted in accordance with paragraph

(a) of this section, in writing, within 60

days of receipt of the request.

5. In § 154.110, paragraph (b)(1) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 154.110 Letter of intent.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The names, addresses, and

telephone numbers of the facility

operator and the facility owner;

* * * * *

Subpart B—Operations Manual

6. In § 154.310, paragraphs (a)(2),

(a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(16) and (a)(22) are

revised and paragraph (a)(23) is added

to read as follows:

§ 154.310 Operations manual: Contents.

(a) * * *

(2) A physical description of the

facility including a map of the facility,

drawn to scale, showing the boundaries

of the facility, mooring areas, transfer

locations, control stations, wharfs, the

extent and scope of piping subject to the

tests required by § 156.170(c)(4) of this

chapter, and the locations of safety

equipment;

* * * * *

(5) A copy of the Material Safety Data

Sheet for each product transferred at the

facility;

* * * * *

(7) The names and telephone numbers

of the qualified individual identified

under § 154.1026 and the Coast Guard,

State, local, and other personnel who

may be called by the employees of the

facility in an emergency.

* * * * *

(16) The maximum allowable working

pressure (MAWP) of each loading arm,

transfer pipe system, and hose assembly

required to be tested by § 156.170 of this

chapter, including the maximum relief

valve setting (or maximum system

pressure when relief valves are not

provided) for each transfer system;

* * * * *

(22) Statements explaining that each

hazardous materials transfer hose is

marked with either the name of each

product which may be transferred

through the hose or with letters,

numbers or other symbols representing

all such products and the location in the

operations manual where a chart or list

of symbols used and a list of the

compatible products which may be

transferred through the hose can be

found for consultation before each

transfer; and

(23) For facilities that tank clean or

strip, a description of their procedures.

* * * * *

7. In § 154.320, paragraph (a)(1) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 154.320 Operations manual:

Amendment.

(a) * * *

(1) The COTP will notify the facility

operator in writing of any inadequacies

in the operations manual. The facility

operator may submit written

information, views, and arguments

regarding the inadequacies identified,

and proposals for amending the manual,

within 45 days from the date of the

COTP notice. After considering all

relevant material presented, the COTP

shall notify the facility operator of any

amendment required or adopted, or the

COTP shall rescind the notice. The

amendment becomes effective 60 days

after the facility operator receives the

notice, unless the facility operator

petitions the Commandant to review the

COTP’s notice, in which case its

effective date is delayed pending a

decision by the Commandant. Petitions

to the Commandant must be submitted

in writing via the COTP who issued the

requirement to amend the operations

manual.

* * * * *

Subpart C—Equipment Requirements

8. In § 154.500, paragraphs (a) and (b)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 154.500 Hose assemblies.

* * * * *

(a) The minimum design burst

pressure for each hose assembly must be

at least four times the sum of the

pressure of the relief valve setting (or

four times the maximum pump pressure

when no relief valve is installed) plus

the static head pressure of the transfer

system at the point where the hose is

installed.

(b) The maximum allowable working

pressure (MAWP) for each hose

assembly must be more than the sum of

the pressure of the relief valve setting

(or the maximum pump pressure when

no valve is installed) plus the static

head pressure of the transfer system at

the point where the hose is installed.

* * * * *

9. Section 154.520 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 154.520 Closure devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, each facility to which

this part applies must have enough

butterfly valves, wafer-type resilient

seated valves, blank flanges, or other

means acceptable to the COTP to blank

off the ends of each hose or loading arm

that is not connected for the transfer of

oil or hazardous material. Such hoses

must be blanked off during the transfer

of oil or hazardous material.

(b) New, unused hose, and hose that

has been cleaned and is gas free, is

exempt from the requirements of

paragraph (a) of this section.

10. In § 154.530, paragraph (a) is

revised and paragraph (e) is added to

read as follows:

§ 154.530 Small discharge containment.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(c), (d) and (e) of this section, each

facility to which this part applies must

have fixed catchments, curbing, or other

fixed means to contain oil or hazardous

material discharged in at least—

(1) Each hose handling area (that area

on the facility that is within the area

traversed by the free end of the hose or

loading arm when moved from its

normal stowed or idle position into a

position for connection);

(2) Each hose connection manifold

area; and

(3) Under each hose connection

during coupling, uncoupling, and

transfer.

* * * * *

(e) Fixed or portable containment may

be used to meet the requirements of

paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

11. Section 154.540 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 154.540 Discharge removal.

Each facility to which this part

applies must have a means to safely
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10051

remove discharged oil or hazardous

material, within one hour of its release,

from the containment required by

§ 154.530 without discharging the oil or

hazardous material into the water.

12. In § 154.545, paragraph (e) is

added to read as follows:

§ 154.545 Discharge containment

equipment.

* * * * *

(e) Equipment and procedures

maintained to satisfy the provisions of

this chapter may be utilized in the

planning requirements of subpart F of

this part.

13. In § 154.560, paragraph (e) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 154.560 Communications.

* * * * *

(e) Portable radio devices used to

comply with paragraph (a) of this

section during the transfer of flammable

or combustible liquids must be marked

as intrinsically safe by the manufacturer

of the device and certified as

intrinsically safe by a national testing

laboratory or other certification

organization approved by the

Commandant.

Subpart D—Facility Operations

14. In § 154.710, paragraphs (c) and

(d), introductory text, (d)(7) and (d)(8)

are revised and paragraph (d)(9) is

added to read as follows:

§ 154.710 Persons in charge: Designation

and qualification.

* * * * *

(c) That person has completed a

training program, established by the

facility operator and approved by the

Captain of the Port in accordance with

§§ 154.720(a)(23) and 154.325, that

provides the person with the knowledge

and training necessary to properly

operate the transfer equipment at that

facility, perform the duties described in

paragraph (d) of this section, follow the

procedures required by this part, and

fulfill the duties required of a person in

charge during an emergency, except that

for new facilities, the Captain of the Port

may authorize alternative experience

and training requirements and;

(d) The facility operator must certify

that the person in charge has the

knowledge and skills necessary to—

* * * * *

(7) Follow local discharge reporting

procedures;

(8) Carry out the facility’s response

plan for discharge reporting and

containment; and

(9) Visually observe transfers

continuously throughout the transfer

operations to ensure compliance with

the procedures required by this part and

be immediately available to the transfer

personnel.

15. In § 154.735, the introductory text,

paragraphs (l), and (s) through (t) are

revised and paragraphs (u) through (w)

are added to read as follows:

§ 154.735 Safety requirements.

Each operator of a facility to which

this part applies shall ensure that the

following safety requirements are met at

the facility:

* * * * *

(l) All welding or hot work conducted

at the facility, or on any vessel moored

to the facility, is the responsibility of the

facility owner and operator.

* * * * *

(s) Tank cleaning or gas freeing

operations conducted by the facility on

vessels carrying oil residues or mixtures

shall be conducted in accordance with

sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 of the

International Safety Guide for Oil

Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT).

Except that—

(1) Prohibitions in ISGOTT against the

use of recirculated wash water do not

apply if the wash water is first

processed to remove product residues;

(2) The provision in ISGOTT section

8.2.10 concerning flushing the bottom of

tanks after every discharge of leaded

gasoline does not apply;

(3) The provision in ISGOTT section

8.2.11 concerning the removal of sludge,

scale, and sediment does not apply if

personnel use breathing apparatus

which protect them from the tank

atmosphere; and

(4) Upon the request of the facility

owner or operator in accordance with

§ 154.107, the COTP may allow the use

of alternative standards to ISGOTT if the

COTP determines that the alternative

standards provide an equal level of

protection to the ISGOTT standards.

(t) Guards shall be stationed, or

equivalent controls acceptable to the

COTP shall be used, to detect fires,

report emergency conditions, and

ensure that access to the marine transfer

area from the shoreside and waterside is

limited to—

(1) Personnel who work at the facility

including persons assigned for transfer

operations, vessel personnel, and

delivery and service personnel in the

course of their business;

(2) Coast Guard personnel;

(3) Other Federal, State, or local

governmental personnel; and

(4) Other persons authorized by the

operator.

(u) Except for those specified in

paragraphs (t)(1) and (2) of this section,

no person is to be allowed into the

marine transfer area unless that person

is identified by a facility-issued

identification card or other

identification card displaying his or her

photograph, or is an escorted visitor

displaying an identifying badge.

(v) Smoking shall be prohibited at the

facility except that facility owners or

operators may authorize smoking in

designated areas if—

(1) The designated smoking areas are

in accordance with local ordinances and

regulations;

(2) Signs are conspicuously posted

marking such authorized smoking areas;

and

(3) ‘‘No Smoking’’ signs are

conspicuously posted elsewhere on the

facility.

(w) Warning signs shall be displayed

on the facility at the point of transfer,

without obstruction, at all times for

fixed facilities and for mobile facilities

during the coupling, transfer operation,

and uncoupling. The warning signs

shall conform to 46 CFR 151.45–2(e)(1)

or 46 CFR 153.955.

16. In § 154.740, the introductory text

and paragraph (b) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 154.740 Records.

Each facility operator shall maintain

in the same location as the operations

manual and make available for

examination by the COTP:

* * * * *

(b) The name of each person

designated as a person in charge of

transfer operations at the facility and

certification that the person in charge

has completed the training requirements

of § 154.710;

* * * * *

PART 156—OIL AND HAZARDOUS

RING OIL OR HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS IN BULK

17. The authority citation for part 156

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1) (C)

and (D); sec. 2, E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3

CFR, 1971–1975 Comp., p. 793; 49 CFR 1.46.

Subpart B also issued under 46 U.S.C.

3715(b).

Subpart A—Oil and Hazardous Material

Transfer Operations

18. In § 156.120, the introductory

paragraph is revised to read as follows:

§ 156.120 Requirements for transfer.

A transfer is considered to begin

when a physical connection of any

transfer hose or loading arm is made

and no person shall conduct an oil

transfer operation unless—

* * * * *
10052 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

19. In § 156.160, paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 156.160 Supervision by person in

charge.

* * * * *

(c) No person shall transfer oil or

hazardous material to or from a vessel

unless each person in charge can

visually observe the transfer operation

continuously throughout the transfer

and each person in charge is

immediately available to the transfer

personnel.

20. In § 156.170, paragraphs (c)(1)(iv)

and (f)(1) are revised, paragraph (f)(2) is

redesignated as (f)(3) and revised and

new paragraphs (f)(2) and (h) are added

to read as follows:

§ 156.170 Equipment tests and

inspections.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(iv) Hoses not meeting the

requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of

this section, may be acceptable after a

static liquid pressure test is successfully

completed in the presence of the COTP.

* * * * *

(f) The frequency of the tests and

inspections required by this section

must be—

(1) For active facilities, annually or

within 30 days of the first transfer

conducted past one year from the date

of the last tests and inspections;

(2) For a facility in caretaker status,

within 30 days of the first transfer after

the facility is removed from caretaker

status; and

(3) For vessels, annually or as part of

the biennial and mid-period

inspections.

* * * * *

(h) Upon the request of the owner or

operator, the COTP may allow

alternative methods of compliance to

the testing requirements of paragraph (c)

of this section if the COTP determines

that the alternative methods provide an

equal level of protection.

Dated: February 14, 1995.

J.C. Card,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office

of Marine Safety, Security and Environmental

Protection.

[FR Doc. 95–4405 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261, 266 and 268

[SW–FRL–5157–8]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Extension of

Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or Agency) is extending

the comment period for the proposed

rule on standards for the management

and use of slag residues derived from

HTMR treatment of K061, K062, and

F006 wastes, which appeared in the

Federal Register on December 29, 1994

(see 59 FR 67256). This extension of the

comment period is provided to allow

commenters an opportunity to finalize

their data gathering efforts and

comments to the Agency’s proposal.

DATES: EPA will accept public

comments on this proposed decision

until April 14, 1995. Comments

postmarked after the close of the

comment period will be stamped ‘‘late.’’

ADDRESSES: The public must send an

original and two copies of their

comments to EPA RCRA Docket Number

F–94–SRTP–FFFFF, room 2616 (Mail

Code 5305), 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. The docket is

open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except on

Federal holidays. Call (202) 260–9327

for appointments. The public may copy

material from any regulatory docket at

no cost for the first 100 pages, and at

$0.15 per page for additional copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, contact the RCRA

Hotline, toll free at (800) 424–9346, or

at (703) 412–9810. For technical

information concerning this notice,

contact Narendra Chaudhari, Office of

Solid Waste (Mail Code 5304), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,

(202) 260–4787.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 29, 1994, EPA proposed

to conditionally allow residual materials

(‘‘slags’’) resulting from the high

temperature metal recovery (HTMR)

treatment of specified hazardous wastes

(i.e., electric arc furnace dust, steel

finishing spent pickle liquor, and

electroplating sludges) to be used in

road construction and as an anti-skid/

deicing material on road surfaces. These

slags are generated by HTMR units

processing hazardous wastes solely for

metal recovery pursuant to

§ 266.100(c)—in essence, devices

processing particular hazardous wastes

with high recoverable metal content,

minimal hazardous organic

constituents, and low BTU. EPA’s

proposal was based on the results of a

risk assessment conducted for these

HTMR slags. See 59 FR 67256 for a more

detailed explanation of the Agency’s

proposed action. Of course, until this

proceeding is concluded, EPA has made

no final determination that any of these

slag dispositions are safe.

On January 17 and January 24, 1995,

the Agency received requests from two

commenters to extend the comment

period. Basically, these commenters are

seeking additional time to thoroughly

evaluate all aspects of the risk

assessment used by EPA to support the

proposed rule and also to prepare

written comments based on their

evaluations. Among the issues raised are

whether the slags’ total metal

concentrations are adequately

characterized, and whether risk to

sensitive populations was adequately

considered (see RCRA docket for the

proposed rule). The Agency considered

these commenters’ requests and has

decided to extend the comment period

until April 14, 1995.

One issue not discussed in EPA’s

proposal is whether legitimate recycling

is occurring (and, accordingly, whether

§ 266.20 even applies to these

dispositions of the slags). See 59 FR

48026 (September 19, 1994). Such a

determination typically involves a caseby-case consideration, and the agency

has enumerated relevant factors which

ordinarily play a part in that analysis.

See, e.g., 53 FR 17606 (May 17, 1988).

EPA made no such determination in the

proposal, and does not intend to do so

in this proceeding.

The public comment period for the

proposed rule was originally scheduled

to end on February 13, 1995. This notice

extends the comment period for the

proposed rule to allow commenters an

opportunity to finalize their data

gathering efforts and responses to the

Agency’s proposed decision.

Dated: February 9, 1995.

Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,

Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.

[FR Doc. 95–4289 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M