Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related
Onshore and Offshore Facilities
[Federal Register: April 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18890-18894]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ap03-14]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
[FRN-7484-7]
RIN 2050-AC62
Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related
Onshore and Offshore Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or we) is today
extending, by eighteen months from the dates promulgated in the July
2002 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) amendments, the
dates for a facility to amend its SPCC Plan and implement the amended
Plan (or, in the case of facilities becoming operational after August
16, 2002, prepare and implement a Plan that complies with the newly
amended requirements). We are finalizing this extension to, among other
things, provide sufficient time for the regulated community to
undertake the actions necessary to update (or prepare) their plans in
accordance with the amendments. The extension will also avoid a flood
of individual extension requests it has become apparent we will
otherwise receive.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 17, 2003.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking is located in the EPA Docket
Center at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., EPA West, Suite B-102,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket number for the final rule is OPA-2002-
0001. The docket is contained in the EPA Docket Center and is available
for inspection by appointment only, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. You may
make an appointment to view the docket by calling 202-566-0276. You may
copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no cost. If
the number of pages exceeds 100, however, we will charge you $0.15 for
each page after 100. The docket will mail copies of materials to you if
you are outside of the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/CERCLA Call 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 final
rule, contact Hugo Paul Fleischman at 703-603-8769
(fleischman.hugo@epa.gov); or Mark W. Howard at 703-603-8715
howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002, Mail Code 5203G.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule concerns an eighteen month
extension of the deadlines in 40 CFR 112.3(a) and (b). The contents of
this preamble are as follows:
I. General Information
II. Entities Affected by This Rule
III. Statutory Authority
IV. Background
V. Today's Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
Introduction. For the reasons explained in Section V of this
notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or we) is finalizing a
proposal to extend the dates in 40 CFR 112.3(a) and (b) for a facility
to amend its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
and implement the amended Plan (or, in the case of facilities becoming
operational after August 16, 2002, prepare and implement a Plan that
complies with the newly amended requirements). Today's rule extends
these deadlines by eighteen months from the dates promulgated in the
July 2002 SPCC rule amendments.
How Can I Get Copies of The Background Materials Supporting Today's
Final Rule or Other Related Information?
1. EPA has established an official public docket for this proposed
rule under Docket ID No. OPA-2002-0001. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this final rule
and other information
[[Page 18891]]
related to this final rule. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
official public docket is the collection of materials that is available
for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center located at 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., EPA West Building, Room B-102, Washington, DC
20004.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.
You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to access
the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to
access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the
docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI, and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified above.
II. Entities Affected by This Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry category NAICS code
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop and Animal Production.......... 111-112
Crude Petorleum and Natural Gas 211111
Extraction.
Coal Mining, Non-Metallic Mineral 2121/2123/213114/213116
Mining and Quarrying.
Electric Power Generation, 2211
Transmission, and Distribution.
Heavy Construction.................. 234
Petroleum and Coal Products 324
Manufacturing.
Other Manufacturing................. 31-33
Petroleum Bulk Stations and 42271
Terminals.
Automotive Rental and Leasing....... 5321
Heating Oil Dealers................. 454311
Transportation (including 482-486/488112-48819/4883/48849/492-493/71393
Pipelines), Warehousing, and
Marinas.
Elementary and Secondary Schools, 6111-6113
Colleges.
Hospitals/Nursing and Residential 622-623
Care Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The list of potentially affected entities in the above table may
not be exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a guide for readers regarding
those entities that EPA is aware potentially could be affected by this
action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in
the table. 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
33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18,
1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351
IV. Background
On July 17, 2002, at 67 FR 47042, EPA published final amendments to
the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule. The rule
was effective August 16, 2002. The rule included dates in 112.3(a) and
(b) by which a facility would have time to amend its SPCC Plan to
conform with newly promulgated requirements and to implement its
amended Plan (note that for facilities becoming operational after
August 16, 2002, the rule contained dates for the preparation and
implementation of a Plan in compliance with the amended rule).
On January 9, 2003, EPA published both an interim final rule and a
proposed rule. The interim final rule immediately extended the dates in
40 CFR 112.3(a) and (b) by sixty days. The proposed rule proposed
extending the dates in those sections by one year.
V. Today's Action
EPA is extending by eighteen months the compliance dates in Sec.
112.3(a) and (b). Thus, an onshore or offshore facility that: (1) Was
in operation on or before August 16, 2002 must maintain its Plan, but
must amend it, if necessary to ensure compliance, on or before August
17, 2004, and must implement the amended Plan as soon as possible, but
not later than February 18, 2005; (2) becomes operational after August
16, 2002 through February 18, 2005, and could reasonably be expected to
have a discharge as described in 40 CFR 112.1(b), must prepare a Plan
on or before February 18, 2005, and fully implement it as soon as
possible, but not later than February 18, 2005; and (3) becomes
operational after February 18, 2005, and could reasonably be expected
to have a discharge as described in 40 CFR 112.1(b), must prepare and
implement a Plan before it begins operations. Today's rule is
immediately effective; EPA is invoking the exception to the 30-day
notice requirement in the Administrative Procedure Act because the
purpose of the rulemaking is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1)).
A. Comments 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This section, and section B below, contain a summary of the
comments received on the proposal, and the Agency's responses to
such comments. For more detailed and additional information, see the
response-to-comment document available in the docket for today's
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Time. The vast majority of commenters \2\ supported an
extension of time for compliance with the SPCC Plan amendments to allow
the regulated community to undertake the various activities required to
update (or prepare) their Plans, although one commenter believed that
no additional time, other than the 60 days that EPA already provided,
was needed. However, there was a broad range of times suggested by the
commenters. Commenters supported the extension of compliance deadlines
in a range from one to five years or ``until all deficiencies are
corrected.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Commenters represented oil industry and electrical utility
interests, as well as a number of other industrial commenters. In
addition, a substantial number of Professional Engineers (PEs)
submitted comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18892]]
Commenters who recommended extending the compliance deadlines
echoed the Agency's view at the time of proposal that an extension is
appropriate to address concerns that there is a shortage of PEs in some
areas, to allow PEs (or their agents) to make visits to sometimes
remote facilities, and for PEs to obtain the training necessary to
certify Plans under the new amendments. In addition, many of these
commenters agreed with EPA that an extension of the compliance
deadlines in the rule would prevent a flood of individual extension
requests going to the Regions pursuant to 40 CFR 112.3(f). However,
commenters also identified a number of other reasons, such as the need
to plan their budgets for capital expenditures and delays they would
encounter at facilities affected by winter weather.
However, as noted above, a great number of these commenters argued
for longer time extensions than the one year proposed to address the
issues cited above. In addition, others argued for longer time frames,
often citing reasons that are more specific to their individual
facilities or industries. For example, many commenters, mostly electric
utilities and cooperatives, suggested time extensions of between two
and four years. These commenters stated that such additional time is
needed because, among other things, much of their electrical equipment
is located on property owned by others and that ``delineating of
responsibilities for Plan purposes will have the effect of slowing down
the overall compliance deadlines.''
Rule requirements during any extension period. Several commenters
noted that although EPA extended the compliance deadlines in the rule,
it did not delay the effective date of the rule itself. These
commenters stated that they understood ``this to mean that to the
extent the July 2002 rule imposes new more stringent compliance
obligations than did the old SPCC rule, the deadline for fulfillment of
those obligations is extended under the interim final and proposed
rule, to the same extent as the deadline for implementing amended
Plans.'' These commenters asked EPA to confirm this understanding in
the preamble to the final rule.
B. Response to Comments
Extension of Time in General: Nothing received in comments on the
proposed rule has persuaded the Agency that its view at the time of
proposal, that additional time for compliance is appropriate, was
incorrect. As noted above, the vast majority of commenters on the rule
supported a one-year or longer extension, and their comments contain
information that lends additional support for such an extension.
However, as noted above, one commenter, a PE, did express the view
that additional time for compliance with the amendments is unnecessary.
Specifically, this commenter wrote that the 60-day interim extension
that the Agency promulgated on January 9, 2003 was ``more than an
adequate time extension for the affected facilities to prepare
amendments to their SPCC Plans.'' The commenter based this position on
the following: (1) That the SPCC amendments were published in the
Federal Register seven months before the compliance date, (2) that the
final amendments reduced the number of facilities required to have
Plans, (3) the commenter's personal experience that the facilities with
which it deals are either finished with amending their Plans or in the
final stages of doing so, (4) that the SPCC amendments were
specifically written not to require a ``local PE'' and thus a shortage
was unlikely, and (5) the view that with the slowdown in the economy,
personnel resources should be available to carry out the activities
within the additional 60-day period.
The Agency was not persuaded by this comment. Specifically, the
fact that seven months were already provided by the rule, that the rule
as a whole reduced the number of facilities subject to the rule, and
that there is a slowdown in the economy, do not, without additional
information or analysis, overcome the evidence provided in the comments
(and the Agency's experience at the time of the proposal) that
additional time is necessary. In addition, although this PE's
individual experience does not suggest a difficulty meeting the
existing deadlines, the experience of a good number of other PEs (and
those who need to hire PEs) who commented on the rule does indicate the
need for extending the deadlines. With respect to the fact that the
rule does not itself require the use of a local PE, at least one
commenter did report complications, stating that ``individual state
engineering registration and licensing boards do not always allow out-
of-state PEs to practice in such a manner, thus limiting even further
the number of available PEs for plan certification.'' In any event,
even if a facility is permitted to use a non-local PE in areas with
local shortages, the Agency expects that doing so would likely extend
the PE certification process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The same commenter suggested that ``a possible alternate
action may be to have both the `SPCC Plan amendment due date'' and
the `fully implemented no later than date' as August 18, 2003.'' The
Agency rejected this approach for the reasons described here and
later in today's preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Time for 18 months. Although the comments made it very
clear to the Agency that an extension was warranted, no commenter made
a compelling case for any particular time frame. In other words, no
commenter provided a technical basis in support of the time frame it
was advancing. As discussed above, commenters provided a great number
of reasons for additional time, but very similar problems identified
were often accompanied by widely varying suggestions as to the length
of extension needed to address such problems.
The Agency has settled on an 18-month extension, which is six
months greater than the one-year extension originally proposed. EPA
believes this time frame better addresses concerns identified at
proposal than the proposed one-year extension, and should address many
of the other concerns raised in comments suggesting one year or longer
time frames. For example, in addition to reducing the immediate demands
on PEs, it provides an additional warm season to address sites affected
by winter weather, and will provide additional time for facilities to
budget for necessary capital expenditures. (In seeking an extension
greater than a year, several commenters noted that many companies
budget a year or more into the future for capital expenditures and thus
need additional planning time to accommodate expenditures associated
with complying with the amendments.) In situations where the extension
does not provide enough relief for an individual facility, that
facility may seek an extension pursuant to Sec. 112.3(f), where
applicable.\4\ It is EPA's belief, however, that the 18-month extension
will provide enough relief to prevent the Agency from again being faced
with the prospect of an overwhelming number of requests for individual
extensions under 40 CFR 112.3(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, depending on site-specific circumstances, the
commenters who may have trouble complying because their equipment
subject to the amended rule is located on property owned by others
may be able to obtain an individual extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule requirements during any extension period. The commenter
requesting clarification of rule requirements during the extension
period discussed above was correct that EPA did not extend the
effective date of the July 2002 rule itself. Instead, the
[[Page 18893]]
Agency only extended the deadlines in 40 CFR 112.3(a) and (b) for
amending and implementing (and in some cases, preparing) Plans to come
into compliance with new requirements. Thus, the commenter is correct
that to the extent that the July 2002 imposes new or more stringent
compliance obligations than did the old SPCC rule, that the deadlines
in 40 CFR 112.3(a) and (b) for fulfillment of those obligations is
extended under this final rule.
On the other hand, a provision that provides regulatory relief in
the revised rule is not affected by the compliance deadline extensions
because such provisions are not addressed by 40 CFR 112.3(a) or (b);
these are not provisions for which it would be ``necessary'' to amend
existing Plans ``to ensure compliance with'' the July 2002 amendments.
VI. 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, it has been determined
that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it
would extend for eighteen the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3(a) and
(b). It would have no other substantive effect.
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 (R.F.A.) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq. 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, which constitute a large
percentage of the facilities affected by this rule, 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 which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
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.
Sections 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 will temporarily reduce regulatory burden on all
facilities by extending for eighteen months the compliance dates in
Sec. 112.3(a) and (b). Further, the rule will reduce costs for both
existing and new facilities.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because it
provides temporary relief from otherwise applicable compliance
deadlines.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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. Today's rule would reduce burden and costs on
all facilities.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As explained above, the effect of the rule would be to
reduce
[[Page 18894]]
burden and costs for regulated 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 rule does not have federalism implications.
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 because they are in the same position as
all other users or storers of oil. Therefore, we have not consulted
with a representative organization of tribal groups.
G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks
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, NTTA is
inapplicable.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act (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. EPA submitted a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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 April 17, 2003.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112
Environmental protection, Fire prevention, Flammable and
combustible materials, Materials handling and storage, Oil pollution,
Oil spill prevention, Oil spill response, Penalties, Petroleum, Piping,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tanks, Transfer operations,
Water pollution control, Water resources.
Dated: April 10, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
? For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 112
of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
? 1. The authority 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.
Subpart A--[Amended]
? 2. Section 112.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 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, on or before August
17, 2004, and must implement the amended Plan as soon as possible, but
not later than February 18, 2005. If your onshore or offshore facility
becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through February 18, 2005,
and could reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in
Sec. 112.1(b), you must prepare a Plan on or before February 18, 2005
, and fully implement it as soon as possible, but not later than
February 18, 2005.
(b) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
facility that becomes operational after February 18, 2005, 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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-9480 Filed 4-16-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090514070056im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}