Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore Facilities, 77357-77360 [E6-21507]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Dated: December 19, 2006.
Edward Callahan,
Acting Director, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E6–22051 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–0949; FRL–8258–4]
RIN 2050–AG36
Oil Pollution Prevention; NonTransportation Related Onshore
Facilities
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is proposing to extend the dates
by which facilities must prepare or
amend Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plans (SPCC Plans),
and implement those Plans. This action
would allow the Agency time to
promulgate further revisions to the July
17, 2002 SPCC rule (in addition to those
published elsewhere in this Federal
Register) before owners and operators
are required to meet requirements of the
rule related to preparing or amending,
and implementing SPCC Plans. EPA
expects to propose further revisions to
the SPCC rule in 2007.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by January 25, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
directed to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OPA–2006–0949. Comments may be
submitted by one of the following
methods:
(1) Federal Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments; or
(2) Mail: The mailing address of the
docket for this rulemaking is EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–0949, EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(3) Hand Delivery: Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Please note that per EPA’s policy, all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:25 Dec 22, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
regulations.gov.
Please also note that the Federal
regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means that EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of the comment
and along 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.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the docket index at https://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information is not
publicly available (i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by a statute). Certain material,
such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form.
Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room B102, 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 to make an
appointment to view the 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 (800) 553–7672 (hearing impaired).
In the Washington, DC metropolitan
area, call (703) 412–9810 or TDD (703)
412–3323. For more detailed
information on specific aspects of this
proposed rule, contact either Vanessa
Rodriguez at (202) 564–7913
(rodriguez.vanessa@epa.gov) or Mark W.
Howard at (202) 564–1964
(howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0002, Mail Code
5104A.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77357
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720;
E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351.
II. Background
On July 17, 2002, the Agency
published a final rule that amended the
SPCC regulations (see 67 FR 47042). The
rule became effective on August 16,
2002. The final rule included
compliance dates in § 112.3 for
preparing, amending, and implementing
SPCC Plans. The original compliance
dates were amended on January 9, 2003
(see 68 FR 1348), again on April 17,
2003 (see 68 FR 18890), a third time on
August 11, 2004 (see 69 FR 48794), and
a fourth time on February 17, 2006 (see
71 FR 8462).
Under the current provisions in
§ 112.3(a) and (b), a facility that was in
operation on or before August 16, 2002
must make any necessary amendments
to its SPCC Plan and fully implement it
by October 31, 2007; a facility that came
into operation after August 16, 2002, but
before October 31, 2007, must prepare
and fully implement an SPCC Plan on
or before October 31, 2007. In addition,
§ 112.3(c) requires onshore and offshore
mobile facilities to prepare or amend
and implement SPCC Plans on or before
October 31, 2007.
Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
EPA finalized a set of SPCC rule
amendments that address certain
targeted areas of the SPCC requirements
and a number of issues and concerns
raised by the regulated community. As
highlighted in the EPA Regulatory
Agenda and the 2005 OMB report on
‘‘Regulatory Reform of the U.S.
Manufacturing Sector,’’ EPA is
considering further amendments to
address other areas where regulatory
reform may be appropriate. For these
additional areas, the Agency expects to
issue a proposed rule in 2007. Areas
where regulatory reform may be
appropriate include, and are not limited
to, oil and natural gas exploration and
production, farms, and Tier I facilities.
Because the Agency may not be able to
promulgate such regulatory
amendments before the current October
31, 2007 compliance date for SPCC
becomes effective, EPA believes it is
appropriate to provide an extension of
the compliance date.
III. Proposal to Extend the Compliance
Dates
This proposed rule would extend the
dates in § 112.3(a), (b) and (c) by which
a facility must prepare or amend and
implement its SPCC Plan. As a result of
E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM
26DEP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
77358
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
this proposed rule, a facility that was in
operation on or before August 16, 2002
would have to make any necessary
amendments to its SPCC Plan, and
implement that Plan, on or before July
1, 2009. This would allow owners and
operators of SPCC regulated facilities
time to prepare or amend and
implement its SPCC Plan in accordance
with the modifications to the 2002 SPCC
requirements the EPA plans to propose
in 2007. A facility that came into
operation after August 16, 2002 would
have to prepare and implement an SPCC
Plan on or before July 1, 2009.
This proposed rule would similarly
extend the compliance dates in Section
112.3(c) for mobile facilities. Under this
proposal, a mobile facility must prepare
or amend and implement an SPCC Plan
on or before July 1, 2009.
The Agency believes the extension of
the compliance date proposed in this
notice is warranted for several reasons.
The Agency is not in a position, at this
time, to indicate all the areas for
possible regulatory reform that may be
addressed as part of a 2007 SPCC
proposal. This extension would allow
those potentially affected in the
regulated community an opportunity to
make changes to their facilities and to
their SPCC Plans necessary to comply
with the revised requirements expected
to be proposed in 2007, rather than with
the existing requirements.
Further, the Agency believes that this
proposed extension of the compliance
dates would also provide facilities time
necessary to fully understand the
regulatory relief offered by revisions to
the 2002 SPCC rule as finalized
elsewhere in today’s Federal Register.1
In addition, the Agency intends to
issue revisions to the SPCC Guidance
for Regional Inspectors, to address both
the revisions finalized elsewhere in
today’s Federal Register, and the
upcoming revisions expected to be
proposed in 2007. The guidance
document is designed to facilitate an
understanding of the rule’s
applicability, to help clarify the role of
the inspector in the review and
evaluation of the performance-based
SPCC requirements, and to provide a
consistent national policy on SPCCrelated issues. The guidance also is
available to both the owners and
operators of facilities that may be
subject to the requirements of the SPCC
rule and to the general public on the
1 As stated in the rules, facilities must maintain
their existing plans, to the extent they are required
to have one. However, facilities that want to take
advantage of the regulatory changes being finalized
today may do so, but the owner and operator of the
facility will need to modify their existing plan
accordingly.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:25 Dec 22, 2006
Jkt 211001
Agency’s Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/oilspill. The Agency
believes that this proposed extension
would provide the regulated community
the opportunity to understand the
material presented in the revised
guidance before preparing or amending
their SPCC Plans.
The Agency is seeking comment on
this proposal to extend the date by
which SPCC Plans must be amended
and implemented in accordance with
amendments to the SPCC Rule. Any
alternative approaches presented must
include appropriate rationale and
supporting data in order for the Agency
to be able to consider them for final
action.
IV. Applicability to Farms
Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
EPA finalized an extension of the
compliance dates for the owner or
operator of a farm, as defined in § 112.2,
to prepare or amend and implement the
farm’s SPCC Plan until the effective date
of a rule addressing whether to provide
differentiated requirements for farms.
The Agency will be conducting
additional information collection and
analysis to determine if differentiated
SPCC requirements may be appropriate
for farms. The Agency will be working
with USDA to collect data that would
more accurately characterize oil
handling at these facilities, thereby
allowing the Agency to focus on
priorities where substantial
environmental improvements can be
obtained.
Today’s proposal does not affect this
extended compliance date for farms. To
the extent that the revisions EPA
intends to propose in 2007 address
differentiated requirements for farms,
the ultimate compliance date for farms
and other facilities may be the same. In
any case, the Agency will announce the
new compliance date for farms in the
Federal Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under the terms of Executive Order
12866, this action has been judged as
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
because it would extend the compliance
dates in § 112.3, but would have no
other substantive effect. However,
because of its interconnection with the
related SPCC rule amendments finalized
elsewhere in this Federal Register
notice (see discussion above in section
III), which is a significant action under
the terms of Executive Order 12866, this
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
action was nonetheless submitted to
OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. Small entity is defined as:
(1) A small business as defined in the
Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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-forprofit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, the Agency concludes
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 will 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.
This proposed rule would relieve the
regulatory burden for small entities by
extending the compliance dates in
§ 112.3.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM
26DEP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205
of UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most-effective or
least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. This proposed rule would
reduce burden and costs for all
facilities.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. As
was explained above, the effect of the
proposed rule would be to reduce
burden and costs for owners and
operators of all facilities, including
small governments that are subject to
the rule.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:25 Dec 22, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 CWA
section 311(o), States may impose
additional requirements, including more
stringent requirements, relating to the
prevention of oil discharges to navigable
waters. EPA encourages States to
supplement the Federal SPCC regulation
and 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
On November 6, 2000, the President
issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249) entitled, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175
took effect on January 6, 2001, and
revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal
Consultation) as of that date.
Today’s proposed rule would not
significantly or uniquely affect
communities of Indian tribal
governments. Therefore, the Agency has
not consulted with a representative
organization of tribal groups.
G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risk
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77359
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
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 is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211—Actions
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d) (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 such as materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices that
are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This proposed rule does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, NTTAA
does not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Oil
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM
26DEP1
77360
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Dated: December 12, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40 CFR, chapter I, part
112 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is proposed to be amended 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; E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351.
2. Section 112.3 amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) as proposed
to be amended elsewhere in this Federal
Register on December 26, 2006 and
revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 112.3 Requirement to prepare and
implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan.
mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) If your onshore or offshore facility
was in operation on or before August 16,
2002, you must maintain your Plan, but
must amend it, if necessary to ensure
compliance with this part, and
implement the Plan no later than July 1,
2009. If your onshore or offshore facility
becomes operational after August 16,
2002, through July 1, 2009, and could
reasonably be expected to have a
discharge as described in § 112.1(b), you
must prepare and implement a Plan on
or before July 1, 2009.
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) If you are the owner or operator
of an onshore or offshore facility that
becomes operational after July 1, 2009,
and could reasonably be expected to
have a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b), you must prepare and
implement a Plan before you begin
operations.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) If you are the owner or operator of
an onshore or offshore mobile facility,
such as an onshore drilling or workover
rig, barge mounted offshore drilling or
workover rig, or portable fueling facility,
you must prepare, implement, and
maintain a facility Plan as required by
this section. You must maintain your
Plan, but must amend and implement it,
if necessary to ensure compliance with
this part, on or before July 1, 2009. If
your onshore or offshore mobile facility
becomes operational after July 1, 2009,
and could reasonably be expected to
have a discharge as described in
§ 112.1(b), you must prepare and
implement a Plan before you begin
13:25 Dec 22, 2006
[FR Doc. E6–21507 Filed 12–22–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Subpart A—[Amended]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
operations. This provision does not
require that you prepare a new Plan
each time you move the facility to a new
site. The Plan may be a general Plan.
When you move the mobile or portable
facility, you must locate and install it
using the discharge prevention practices
outlined in the Plan for the facility. The
Plan is applicable only while the facility
is in a fixed (non-transportation)
operating mode.
*
*
*
*
*
Jkt 211001
48 CFR Parts 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 23, 42,
and 52
[FAR Case 2004–032; Docket 2006–0020;
Sequence 13]
RIN 9000–AK65
Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR
Case 2004–032, Biobased Products
Preference Program
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency
Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council
(Councils) are proposing to amend the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement section 9002 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002 (FSRIA), as amended by Sections
205 and 943 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. Entitled Federal Procurement of
Biobased Products, section 9002
requires that a procurement preference
be afforded biobased products within
items designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Interested parties should submit
written comments to the FAR
Secretariat on or before February 26,
2007 to be considered in the
formulation of a final rule.
The Councils, in collaboration with
OFPP, invite interested parties from
both the private and public sector to
provide comments on the biobased
procurement preference program and
the requirement that Federal agencies
shall consider maximum practicable use
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of biobased products when acquiring
products and services.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by FAR case 2004–032 by any
of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for any
document by first selecting the proper
document types and selecting ‘‘Federal
Acquisition Regulation’’ as the agency
of choice. At the ‘‘Keyword’’ prompt,
type in the FAR case number (for
example, FAR Case 2006–001) and click
on the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Please include
any personal and/or business
information inside the document.
You may also search for any
document by clicking on the ‘‘Advanced
search/document search’’ tab at the top
of the screen, selecting from the agency
field ‘‘Federal Acquisition Regulation’’,
and typing the FAR case number in the
keyword field. Select the ‘‘Submit’’
button.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(VIR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035,
ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington,
DC 20405.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FAR case 2004–032 in all
correspondence related to this case. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
clarification of content, contact William
Clark, Procurement Analyst, at (202)
219–1813. For information pertaining to
status or publication schedules, contact
the FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755.
Please cite FAR case 2004–032.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On May 13, 2002, the President
signed the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA), Public
Law 107—171. Section 9002 of the Act,
entitled Federal Procurement of
Biobased Products, requires that each
Federal agency (‘‘Procuring Agency’’ as
amended by the Energy Policy Act of
2005), which procures products within
items designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture, give a preference to
qualified biobased products, subject to
specified exceptions. This same section
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
designate items which contain products
which are or can be produced with
biobased products, establish
recommended practices with respect to
the procurement of products within the
designated items, and provide
E:\FR\FM\26DEP1.SGM
26DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77357-77360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21507]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949; FRL-8258-4]
RIN 2050-AG36
Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore
Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to extend the
dates by which facilities must prepare or amend Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC Plans), and implement those
Plans. This action would allow the Agency time to promulgate further
revisions to the July 17, 2002 SPCC rule (in addition to those
published elsewhere in this Federal Register) before owners and
operators are required to meet requirements of the rule related to
preparing or amending, and implementing SPCC Plans. EPA expects to
propose further revisions to the SPCC rule in 2007.
DATES: Written comments must be received by January 25, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-
2006-0949. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
(1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments; or
(2) Mail: The mailing address of the docket for this rulemaking is
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
(3) Hand Delivery: Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Please note that per EPA's policy, all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at https://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
regulations.gov.
Please also note that the Federal regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means that EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of the
comment and along 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.
All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index at
https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by a statute). Certain material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 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 to make an appointment to view the 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 (800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this proposed rule, contact
either Vanessa Rodriguez at (202) 564-7913 (rodriguez.vanessa@epa.gov)
or Mark W. Howard at (202) 564-1964 (howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5104A.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18,
1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.
II. Background
On July 17, 2002, the Agency published a final rule that amended
the SPCC regulations (see 67 FR 47042). The rule became effective on
August 16, 2002. The final rule included compliance dates in Sec.
112.3 for preparing, amending, and implementing SPCC Plans. The
original compliance dates were amended on January 9, 2003 (see 68 FR
1348), again on April 17, 2003 (see 68 FR 18890), a third time on
August 11, 2004 (see 69 FR 48794), and a fourth time on February 17,
2006 (see 71 FR 8462).
Under the current provisions in Sec. 112.3(a) and (b), a facility
that was in operation on or before August 16, 2002 must make any
necessary amendments to its SPCC Plan and fully implement it by October
31, 2007; a facility that came into operation after August 16, 2002,
but before October 31, 2007, must prepare and fully implement an SPCC
Plan on or before October 31, 2007. In addition, Sec. 112.3(c)
requires onshore and offshore mobile facilities to prepare or amend and
implement SPCC Plans on or before October 31, 2007.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA finalized a set of SPCC
rule amendments that address certain targeted areas of the SPCC
requirements and a number of issues and concerns raised by the
regulated community. As highlighted in the EPA Regulatory Agenda and
the 2005 OMB report on ``Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing
Sector,'' EPA is considering further amendments to address other areas
where regulatory reform may be appropriate. For these additional areas,
the Agency expects to issue a proposed rule in 2007. Areas where
regulatory reform may be appropriate include, and are not limited to,
oil and natural gas exploration and production, farms, and Tier I
facilities. Because the Agency may not be able to promulgate such
regulatory amendments before the current October 31, 2007 compliance
date for SPCC becomes effective, EPA believes it is appropriate to
provide an extension of the compliance date.
III. Proposal to Extend the Compliance Dates
This proposed rule would extend the dates in Sec. 112.3(a), (b)
and (c) by which a facility must prepare or amend and implement its
SPCC Plan. As a result of
[[Page 77358]]
this proposed rule, a facility that was in operation on or before
August 16, 2002 would have to make any necessary amendments to its SPCC
Plan, and implement that Plan, on or before July 1, 2009. This would
allow owners and operators of SPCC regulated facilities time to prepare
or amend and implement its SPCC Plan in accordance with the
modifications to the 2002 SPCC requirements the EPA plans to propose in
2007. A facility that came into operation after August 16, 2002 would
have to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan on or before July 1, 2009.
This proposed rule would similarly extend the compliance dates in
Section 112.3(c) for mobile facilities. Under this proposal, a mobile
facility must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan on or before
July 1, 2009.
The Agency believes the extension of the compliance date proposed
in this notice is warranted for several reasons. The Agency is not in a
position, at this time, to indicate all the areas for possible
regulatory reform that may be addressed as part of a 2007 SPCC
proposal. This extension would allow those potentially affected in the
regulated community an opportunity to make changes to their facilities
and to their SPCC Plans necessary to comply with the revised
requirements expected to be proposed in 2007, rather than with the
existing requirements.
Further, the Agency believes that this proposed extension of the
compliance dates would also provide facilities time necessary to fully
understand the regulatory relief offered by revisions to the 2002 SPCC
rule as finalized elsewhere in today's Federal Register.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As stated in the rules, facilities must maintain their
existing plans, to the extent they are required to have one.
However, facilities that want to take advantage of the regulatory
changes being finalized today may do so, but the owner and operator
of the facility will need to modify their existing plan accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Agency intends to issue revisions to the SPCC
Guidance for Regional Inspectors, to address both the revisions
finalized elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and the upcoming
revisions expected to be proposed in 2007. The guidance document is
designed to facilitate an understanding of the rule's applicability, to
help clarify the role of the inspector in the review and evaluation of
the performance-based SPCC requirements, and to provide a consistent
national policy on SPCC-related issues. The guidance also is available
to both the owners and operators of facilities that may be subject to
the requirements of the SPCC rule and to the general public on the
Agency's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/oilspill. The Agency believes
that this proposed extension would provide the regulated community the
opportunity to understand the material presented in the revised
guidance before preparing or amending their SPCC Plans.
The Agency is seeking comment on this proposal to extend the date
by which SPCC Plans must be amended and implemented in accordance with
amendments to the SPCC Rule. Any alternative approaches presented must
include appropriate rationale and supporting data in order for the
Agency to be able to consider them for final action.
IV. Applicability to Farms
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA finalized an extension
of the compliance dates for the owner or operator of a farm, as defined
in Sec. 112.2, to prepare or amend and implement the farm's SPCC Plan
until the effective date of a rule addressing whether to provide
differentiated requirements for farms. The Agency will be conducting
additional information collection and analysis to determine if
differentiated SPCC requirements may be appropriate for farms. The
Agency will be working with USDA to collect data that would more
accurately characterize oil handling at these facilities, thereby
allowing the Agency to focus on priorities where substantial
environmental improvements can be obtained.
Today's proposal does not affect this extended compliance date for
farms. To the extent that the revisions EPA intends to propose in 2007
address differentiated requirements for farms, the ultimate compliance
date for farms and other facilities may be the same. In any case, the
Agency will announce the new compliance date for farms in the Federal
Register.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this action has been
judged as not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it would
extend the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3, but would have no other
substantive effect. However, because of its interconnection with the
related SPCC rule amendments finalized elsewhere in this Federal
Register notice (see discussion above in section III), which is a
significant action under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this
action was nonetheless submitted to OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
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. Small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined in the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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 today's proposed rule on
small entities, the Agency concludes 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 will 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.
This proposed rule would relieve the regulatory burden for small
entities by extending the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
[[Page 77359]]
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. This proposed rule would reduce burden
and costs for all facilities.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As was explained above, the effect of the proposed rule
would be to reduce burden and costs for owners and operators of all
facilities, including small governments that are subject to the rule.
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 CWA section 311(o), States
may impose additional requirements, including more stringent
requirements, relating to the prevention of oil discharges to navigable
waters. EPA encourages States to supplement the Federal SPCC regulation
and 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
On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249) entitled, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001,
and revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal Consultation) as of that
date.
Today's proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect
communities of Indian tribal governments. Therefore, the Agency has not
consulted with a representative organization of tribal groups.
G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risk
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
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 is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.
H. Executive Order 13211--Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (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 such as materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
NTTAA does not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 77360]]
Dated: December 12, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 CFR, chapter I,
part 112 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
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; E.O. 12777
(October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.
2. Section 112.3 amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1)
as proposed to be amended elsewhere in this Federal Register on
December 26, 2006 and revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Subpart A--[Amended]
Sec. 112.3 Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) If your onshore or offshore facility was in operation on or
before August 16, 2002, you must maintain your Plan, but must amend it,
if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, and implement the
Plan no later than July 1, 2009. If your onshore or offshore facility
becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through July 1, 2009, and
could reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.
112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan on or before July 1,
2009.
* * * * *
(b)(1) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
facility that becomes operational after July 1, 2009, and could
reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.
112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan before you begin
operations.
* * * * *
(c) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
mobile facility, such as an onshore drilling or workover rig, barge
mounted offshore drilling or workover rig, or portable fueling
facility, you must prepare, implement, and maintain a facility Plan as
required by this section. You must maintain your Plan, but must amend
and implement it, if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, on
or before July 1, 2009. If your onshore or offshore mobile facility
becomes operational after July 1, 2009, and could reasonably be
expected to have a discharge as described in Sec. 112.1(b), you must
prepare and implement a Plan before you begin operations. This
provision does not require that you prepare a new Plan each time you
move the facility to a new site. The Plan may be a general Plan. When
you move the mobile or portable facility, you must locate and install
it using the discharge prevention practices outlined in the Plan for
the facility. The Plan is applicable only while the facility is in a
fixed (non-transportation) operating mode.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-21507 Filed 12-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P