Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore Facilities
[Federal Register: February 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 33)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8462-8467]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17fe06-14]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003; FRL-8033-9]
RIN 2050-AG28
Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is today extending the
dates by which facilities must prepare or amend Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and implement those Plans.
This action allows the Agency time to take final action on proposed
revisions to the July 17, 2002 SPCC rule before owners and operators of
facilities are required to meet requirements of that rule when
preparing or amending their SPCC Plans.
DATES: This final rule is effective February 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPA-2005-0003, contains the information related to this rulemaking,
including the response to comment document. All documents in the docket
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which 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 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 of 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) 421-9810 or TDD (703) 421-3323. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this final 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), and a third time on
August 11, 2004 (see 69 FR 48794).
Under the regulations in effect prior to this final rule, Sec.
112.3(a) and (b) required a facility that was in operation on or before
August 16, 2002 to make any necessary amendments to its SPCC
[[Page 8463]]
Plan by February 17, 2006, and to fully implement its SPCC Plan by
August 18, 2006. A facility that came into operation after August 16,
2002, but before August 18, 2006, was required to prepare and fully
implement an SPCC Plan on or before August 18, 2006. Thus, for
facilities in operation on or before August 16, 2002, the regulations
provided a six-month period between the compliance date for Plan
amendment and the compliance date for Plan implementation. In addition,
Sec. 112.3(c) required onshore and offshore mobile facilities to
prepare or amend and implement SPCC Plans on or before August 18, 2006.
On December 12, 2005, the Agency published in the Federal Register
a proposed rule that would amend the SPCC requirements in several areas
(see 70 FR 73524). Specifically, the proposal would allow owners and
operators of facilities with an oil storage capacity of 10,000 gallons
or less, that also meet other qualifying criteria, the option of self-
certification of their SPCC Plans (in lieu of review and certification
by a Professional Engineer); it would provide facilities with certain
types of oil-filled operational equipment an alternative to the
secondary containment requirement that would not require a
determination of impracticability; it would define airport mobile
refuelers, and exempt such vehicles meeting the definition from the
specifically sized secondary containment requirements for bulk storage
containers; it would amend the requirements for animal fats and
vegetable oils (AFVOs) by removing certain sections of the regulations
in Subpart C of Part 112 that do not apply to facilities that handle,
store, or transport AFVOs; and it would define farms, and would provide
a separate extension of the compliance dates for certain farms.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comments and our response to them regarding the separate
extension of the compliance dates for farms will be addressed in the
rulemaking that addresses the substantive modifications that were
proposed for the SPCC rule on December 12, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the same day, but in a separate notice in the Federal Register
(see 70 FR 73518), the Agency also proposed to extend the dates in
Sec. 112.3(a), (b), and (c) by which a facility must prepare or amend
and implement its SPCC Plan. Under the proposed extension 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 October 31, 2007. Likewise, a facility that came
into operation after August 16, 2002 would have to prepare and
implement an SPCC Plan on or before October 31, 2007. Finally, a mobile
facility would have to prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan on
or before October 31, 2007.
The Agency's proposal to extend the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3
(which is made final in today's notice) was designed to allow the
Agency time to take final action on the proposed amendments to the SPCC
requirements before owners and operators are required to prepare,
amend, and implement their SPCC Plans. The Agency believed that the
extension was appropriate to allow owners and operators to take
advantage of any modifications that would be provided by a final SPCC
amendment rule. In addition, the Agency believed that the extension
would allow the regulated community the opportunity to understand the
material presented in its newly released guidance ``SPCC Guidance for
Regional Inspectors'' \2\ before preparing or amending their SPCC
Plans. Finally, the Agency believed that the proposed extension was
necessary for facilities that might have difficulty meeting the
upcoming compliance dates because they were adversely affected by the
recent hurricanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This guidance is intended to assist regional inspectors in
reviewing a facility's implementation of the SPCC rule. The 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 several SPCC-related
issues. The guidance is available on the Agency's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of This Final Rule
This final rule extends the dates in Sec. 112.3 by which owners
and operators of facilities must prepare or amend their SPCC Plans as
proposed. Under the new Sec. 112.3(a), a facility that was in
operation on or before August 16, 2002 must make any necessary
amendments to its SPCC Plan, and implement that Plan, on or before
October 31, 2007. Under the new Sec. 112.3(b), a facility that came
into operation after August 16, 2002 must also prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan on or before October 31, 2007. Finally, under the new Sec.
112.3(c), a mobile facility must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC
Plan on or before October 31, 2007.
This rule is effective immediately. Section 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedures Act requires 30-days notice before the
effective date of a final rule. However, section 553(d)(1) allows an
exception to the 30-day notice where a rule relieves a restriction.
Since this final rule relieves a restriction, the Agency invokes
section 553(d)(1) to allow an immediate effective date.
It should be noted that today's compliance date extension affects
only requirements of the July 2002 final SPCC rule that impose new or
more stringent compliance obligations than did the 1973 SPCC rule. Any
provision in the July 2002 rule that provides regulatory relief is not
affected by these compliance date extensions because such provisions
are not ones for which it would be ``necessary'' to amend existing
Plans ``to ensure compliance with'' the July 2002 amendments (see Sec.
112.3). This issue was discussed by the Agency in two previous
extension notices on April 17, 2003 (see 68 FR 18890, at 18892-3), and
on August 11, 2004 (see 69 FR 48794, at 48796).
IV. Response to Comment
The Agency received approximately 80 comments on the proposed rule.
The discussion below summarizes and responds to the major comments
received. A more complete response to comments can be found in the
docket for this rulemaking, EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003.
The majority of commenters supported the Agency's proposal to
extend the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3. They agreed with the Agency
that the extension was necessary to allow owners and operators the
opportunity to take advantage of any modifications that might be
provided by an amendment to the SPCC rule (see discussion in section
II). Of those who supported an extension of the compliance dates, some
commenters agreed with extending the compliance dates as proposed, and
others opposed the proposed length of the extension.
A number of commenters requested that the Agency incorporate
flexibility into the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3, by extending them
until October 31, 2007, or until a date no less than one year following
implementation of the final SPCC amendment rule, whichever is later.
Commenters believed that, since the date for a final SPCC amendment
rule is uncertain, setting a compliance date of October 31, 2007 does
not guarantee owners and operators a full year between promulgation of
a final rule and the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3. These commenters
believe it is important to coordinate the compliance dates in Sec.
112.3 with a final SPCC amendment rule.
The Agency is reluctant to proceed as these commenters suggested
and set uncertain compliance dates in Sec. 112.3. At the same time,
the Agency recognizes that the regulated community needs adequate time
after EPA takes final
[[Page 8464]]
action on the proposed amendments to the SPCC Plan requirements to
amend or prepare their SPCC Plans and to implement them. The Agency
agrees that one year is a reasonable period of time to allow for
preparing, amending, and implementing SPCC Plans following final Agency
action on the proposed amendments to the SPCC rule. The Agency plans to
develop and publish a Federal Register notice taking final action on
the December 12, 2005 proposal as soon as possible. At this time, based
on the information at hand, the Agency believes that extending the
compliance dates in Sec. 112.3 until October 31, 2007 will allow
owners and operators an adequate interval to comply with the SPCC rule.
Regarding modifications of the SPCC regulations, to the extent
practicable, EPA will establish deadlines for compliance implementation
that commence one year after promulgating the regulatory revisions.
Other commenters objected to the Agency's proposal to eliminate the
six-month interim period in Sec. 112.3(a) between the compliance dates
for Plan amendment and implementation. Those commenters requested that
the date for implementing amended SPCC Plans be revised to include a
six-month period after the October 31, 2007 date for Plan amendment.
The Agency disagrees with these commenters. For the reasons
discussed above, the Agency believes the October 31, 2007 date for Plan
implementation is adequate. The effect of the Agency's decision to
eliminate the gap between Plan preparation or amendment and
implementation was to allow additional time for Plan preparation or
amendment. The Agency believes that this approach, which allows owners
and operators flexibility, makes sense given that owners and operators
are not required to submit their SPCC Plans to the Agency.
Several commenters conditioned their support of the proposed
compliance date extensions on the Agency's timely resolution of issues
related to regulation of animal fats and vegetable oils (AFVOs). These
commenters were concerned that the Agency has not yet developed
differentiated requirements for AFVOs, and some suggested that the
Agency develop a timeframe to do so.
In the December 12, 2005 SPCC amendment proposed rule, the Agency
requested information that would support differentiated SPCC
requirements for AFVOs (see 70 FR 73542, at 73541). The Agency is not
prepared, at this time, to determine whether that request for comment
will produce information that is appropriate or adequate for
development of differentiated requirements for AFVOs. Thus, the Agency
believes it would be inappropriate to condition the compliance dates in
Sec. 112.3 on such uncertain factors. Further, issues specific to the
regulation of AFVOs are outside the scope of this extension. The Agency
will review and give full consideration to all comments it receives
related to AFVOs, and address those comments when it has had a chance
to assess them and any data provided.
Finally, some commenters objected to extending the compliance dates
in Sec. 112.3. Generally, those commenters believed that extension of
the dates would delay development and implementation of SPCC Plans,
which are necessary for protection of human health and the environment.
Further, they raised concerns that extending the compliance dates only
encourages non-compliance.
For example, one commenter argued that it is unnecessary and absurd
to extend the compliance dates a third time. The commenter pointed out
that this rule would extend compliance to a time four years after the
2002 SPCC rule should have first been effective, and almost 35 years
after the SPCC rules were first promulgated. The commenter believed
that facilities should already be in compliance with the 1973 rules,
and consequently should be in compliance with the rule changes proposed
by the Agency because they primarily reduce the requirements for
regulated facilities. The commenter also believed that most regulated
facilities already have developed and implemented SPCC plans to comply
with the earlier compliance dates that were subsequently extended. The
commenter believed that these facilities are ready to meet their
obligations to prevent oil spills and other releases, and that it is
entirely unnecessary to extend the compliance dates when most
facilities have developed and implemented Plans. Finally, the commenter
anticipated that extending the compliance dates will extend the
Agency's practice of reduced inspections and enforcement at SPCC
regulated facilities, continuing the increased likelihood of oil
releases and endangerment of facility personnel and neighboring
communities. By extending the compliance dates, the commenter was
concerned that the Agency would allow noncompliant facilities that have
not put SPCC Plans in place to continue to operate and endanger human
health and the environment.
The Agency believes that it is in the best interest of both the
regulated community and the environment to address areas of confusion
that arose after promulgation of the 2002 amendments. By promulgating a
proposal intended to clarify requirements and reduce burdens,
particularly on small businesses, and by making the SPCC Inspectors
Guidance available to the regulated community, the Agency believes that
a more effective and complete implementation of the SPCC regulation and
improved environmental protection will ultimately result. The Agency
also believes that the regulated community needs the additional time
allowed by the extension in order to better take advantage of the
guidance and any further amendments that are promulgated and that the
benefits of this extension outweighs the concerns raised by commentors
of increased administrative burdens.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this action has been
judged as not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it extends
the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3, but has no other substantive
effect. However, because of its interconnection with the rulemaking
proposed on December 12, 2005 (see discussion in section II), which is
a significant action under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this
action was
[[Page 8465]]
nonetheless submitted to OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
because this action does not change the requirements of the rule.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
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.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201--the SBA defines small businesses by category of business using
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and in the
case of farms and production facilities, generally defines small
businesses as having less than $500,000 in revenues or 500 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 today's final 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 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 rule relieves the regulatory burden for small entities by
extending the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3. After considering the
economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
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 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 rule would reduce burden and costs for all
facilities.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As was explained above, the effect of the rule is to
reduce burden and costs for all facilities, including small governments
that are subject to the rule by extending the compliance dates.
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 rule does not have federalism implications. It does 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
[[Page 8466]]
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 rule does not preempt State law or
regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 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 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 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 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 rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, NTTAA
does not apply.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Prior to publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register, we will submit all necessary information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States. Under the CRA, a major rule cannot take
effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
rule will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 10, 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 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 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 112.3 Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan.
* * * * *
(a) 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, by October 31, 2007,
and implement the Plan no later than October 31, 2007. If your onshore
or offshore facility becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through
October 31, 2007, 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 October 31, 2007.
(b) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
facility that becomes operational after October 31, 2007, 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 October 31, 2007. If your onshore or offshore mobile facility
becomes operational after October 31, 2007, 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
[[Page 8467]]
while the facility is in a fixed (non-transportation) operating mode.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-1502 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P