[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2461-2465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-830]


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

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.

[[Page 2462]]

Rodriguez at 202-564-7913 ([email protected]), or Mark W. 
Howard at 202-564-1964 ([email protected]), 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 non-transportation-related facilities. An 
MOU between EPA, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and DOT (59 
FR 34102, July 1, 1994) re-delegated 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 non-petroleum 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The requirements of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act do 
not apply to the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
112.1. In the SPCC rule, the term ``bulk storage container'' is defined 
at Sec.  112.2 as ``any container used to store oil.'' Therefore, bulk 
storage containers storing milk are subject to the applicable 
provisions under Sec.  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 Sec.  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,

[[Page 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 state-designated 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

[[Page 2464]]

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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  112.1 by adding paragraphs (d)(2)(ii)(G) and (d)(13) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  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