[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63812-63820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31574]



[[Page 63811]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 112



Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation Related 
Onshore and Offshore Facilities; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 63812]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[FRL-5930-1]
RIN 2050-AC62


Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation Related 
Onshore and Offshore Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) 
proposes to revise the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure 
(SPCC) Plan requirements, found at 40 CFR part 112, to reduce its 
information collection burden. Proposed revisions would: give facility 
owners or operators flexibility to use alternative formats for SPCC 
Plans; allow the use of certain records maintained pursuant to usual 
and customary business practices, or pursuant to the National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, to be used in lieu of 
records mandated by the SPCC requirements; reduce the information 
required to be submitted after certain spill events; and extend the 
period in which SPCC Plans must be reviewed and evaluated. EPA also 
proposes to amend the Facility Response Plan (FRP) requirements, found 
at 40 CFR 112.20, for two purposes. First, EPA proposes to provide a 
method to calculate storage capacity when certain facilities have tanks 
which contain mixtures of process water/waste water with 10% or less of 
oil. This calculation is for the sole purpose of determining whether a 
facility has sufficient capacity to subject it to the requirement in 
Sec. 112.20 to prepare an FRP. Second, EPA proposes to amend the FRP 
requirements to clarify that the Integrated Contingency Plan format may 
be acceptable for an FRP. EPA believes that none of the proposed 
changes will have an adverse impact on public health or the 
environment. This is so because the proposal would maintain the same 
standards of environmental protection that the rule now affords while 
reducing its information collection burden.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in 
triplicate, by U.S. mail, to the Superfund Docket, at 401 M St., S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20460 (mail code 5203G). The docket is physically 
located at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway 1, Arlington, 
Virginia 22202, Suite 105. Comments physically delivered to EPA by any 
means other than U.S. mail should go to the Arlington address. The 
docket number for the proposed rule is #SPCC-7. Comments may also be 
sent electronically to EPA at ``[email protected].'' 
Files should be sent in ascii format. The record supporting this 
rulemaking is contained in the Superfund Docket and is available for 
inspection, by appointment only, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Appointments to 
review the docket can be made by calling 703-603-9232. As provided in 
40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hugo Paul Fleischman, Oil Program 
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at 703-603-8769; or the 
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346 (in the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area, 703-412-9810). The Telecommunications Device for the 
Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 800-553-7672 (in the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area, 703-412-3323).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this preamble are as 
follows:

I. Introduction
II. Request for Comment and Discussion of Proposed Revisions
III. Summary of Supporting Analyses

I. Introduction

A. Regulated Entities

    Entities Potentially Regulated by this Proposal Include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                           NAICS codes          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum and Coal Products              NAICS 324.                     
 Manufacturing.                                                         
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals..  NAICS 42271.                   
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas          NAICS 2111111.                 
 Extraction.                                                            
Transportation (including Pipelines),    NAICS 482-486/488112-48819/4883/
 Warehousing, and Marinas.                48849/492-493/71393.          
Electric Power Generation,               NAICS 2211.                    
 Transmission, and Distribution.                                        
Other Manufacturing....................  NAICS 31-33.                   
Gasoline Stations/Automotive Rental and  NAICS 4471/5321.               
 Leasing.                                                               
Heating Oil Dealers....................  NAICS 454311.                  
Coal Mining, Non-Metallic Mineral        NAICS 2121/2123/213114/213116. 
 Mining and Quarrying.                                                  
Heavy Construction.....................  NAICS 234.                     
Elementary and Secondary Schools,        NAICS 6111-6113.               
 Colleges.                                                              
Hospitals/Nursing and Residential Care   NAICS 622-623.                 
 Facilities.                                                            
Crop and Animal Production.............  NAICS 111-112.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. It lists the types of entities of which EPA is now aware that 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility could be regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the criteria in Secs. 112.1 and 112.20 of title 40 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Statutory Authority

    Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) 
requires the President to issue regulations establishing procedures, 
methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent discharges of oil 
from vessels and facilities and to contain such discharges. 33 U.S.C. 
1321(j)(1)(C). The President has delegated the authority to regulate 
non-transportation-related onshore facilities under section 
311(j)(1)(C) of the Act to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA or the Agency). Executive Order (E.O.) 12777, section 2(b)(1), 56 
FR 54757 (October 22, 1991), superseding Executive Order 11735, 38 FR 
21243. By this same E.O., the President has delegated similar authority 
over transportation-related onshore facilities, deepwater ports, and 
vessels to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),

[[Page 63813]]

and authority over other offshore facilities, including associated 
pipelines, to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). A Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOI, and DOT effective February 3, 
1994, has redelegated the responsibility to regulate certain offshore 
facilities located in and along the Great Lakes, rivers, coastal 
wetlands, and the Gulf Coast barrier islands from DOI to EPA. (E.O. 
12777 Sec. 2(I) regarding authority to redelegate.) The MOU is included 
as Appendix B to 40 CFR part 112. An MOU between the Secretary of 
Transportation and the EPA Administrator, dated November 24, 1971 (36 
FR 24080), established the definitions of non-transportation-related 
facilities and transportation-related facilities. The definitions from 
the 1971 MOU are included as Appendix A to 40 CFR part 112.

C. Background of this Rulemaking

    Part 112 of 40 CFR outlines requirements for both prevention of and 
response to oil spills. The prevention aspect of the rule requires 
preparation and implementation of the Spill Prevention, Control, and 
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. It was originally promulgated on December 
11, 1973 (38 FR 34164), under the authority of section 311(j)(1)(C) of 
the Act. The regulation established spill prevention procedures, 
methods, and equipment requirements for non-transportation-related 
onshore and offshore facilities with aboveground oil storage capacity 
greater than 1,320 gallons (or greater than 660 gallons in a single 
container), or buried underground oil storage capacity greater than 
42,000 gallons. Regulated facilities are also limited to those that, 
because of their location, could reasonably be expected to discharge 
oil in harmful quantities into the navigable waters of the United 
States or adjoining shorelines.
    The SPCC requirements have been amended a number of times. On 
August 29, 1974, the regulation was amended to set out the Agency's 
policies on civil penalties for violation of section 311 requirements. 
39 FR 31602. On March 26, 1976, the rule was again amended, primarily 
to clarify the criteria for determining whether or not a facility is 
subject to regulation. 41 FR 12567. Other revisions made in the March 
26, 1976, rule clarified that the SPCC Plan must be in written form and 
specified the procedures for development of SPCC Plans for mobile 
facilities.
    Implementation of the regulation since the 1976 revision indicated 
the need for other changes, primarily to clarify and simplify the rule. 
Therefore, on May 20, 1980, the Agency proposed further revisions to 
the SPCC rule. 45 FR 33814. The 1980 proposal was never finalized 
because the Agency believed these proposed changes needed additional 
justification. However, continuing experience with administering the 
program provided that justification and demonstrated a need for 
clarifications to 40 CFR 112.7. Accordingly, on October 22, 1991, the 
Agency proposed certain changes to 40 CFR 112.7 similar to those 
proposed in 1980. 56 FR 54612.
    The October 1991 proposed revisions involved changes in the 
applicability of the regulation and the required procedures for the 
completion of SPCC Plans, as well as the addition of a facility 
notification provision. The proposed rule also reflected changes in the 
jurisdiction of section 311 of the Act made by amendments to the Act in 
1977 and 1978. To date, the proposal has not been finalized.
    On November 4, 1992 (57 FR 52705), the Agency promulgated a 
revision to the civil penalty provisions for violations occurring prior 
to the enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). On March 11, 
1996, EPA rescinded that penalty provision because it no longer 
accurately reflected the penalties provided for under section 311(b) of 
the Act, as amended by OPA. 61 FR 9646.
    On February 17, 1993, the Agency again proposed further 
clarifications of and technical changes to the SPCC rule, and facility 
response plan requirements to implement OPA. 58 FR 8824. The proposed 
changes to the SPCC prevention requirements included clarifications of 
certain requirements, contingency plans for facilities without 
secondary containment, prevention training, and methods of determining 
whether a tank would be subject to brittle fracture. The facility 
response plan requirements of the 1993 proposal were promulgated on 
July 1, 1994, (59 FR 47384) and codified at 40 CFR 112.20-21. To date, 
the prevention requirements in the 1993 proposal have not been 
finalized.
    In 1996, EPA concluded a survey of SPCC facilities. EPA used the 
results of that survey to help develop this proposed rule. The survey 
results are part of the administrative record for this rulemaking.
    The purpose of this proposal is to reduce the information 
collection burden now imposed by the prevention requirements in the 
SPCC rule and the response requirements in the FRP rule without 
creating an adverse impact on public health or the environment. It 
supplements the 1991 and 1993 proposals. The earlier proposals remain 
pending, except for the withdrawal in this notice of the proposed 1991 
definition of ``SPCC Plan.'' A revised definition of that term is being 
reproposed today. EPA will, after considering public comments, 
promulgate a rule finalizing this proposal. In that rule, EPA will also 
finalize the 1991 and 1993 proposals. EPA is not seeking additional 
comments on either the 1991 or 1993 proposals.

II. Request for Comment and Discussion of Proposed Revisions

A. Request for Comment

    EPA proposes to reduce the information collection burden of the 
SPCC rule through program changes. In connection with these proposed 
changes, EPA requests public comment on new standards, technologies, or 
approaches that have been developed since the enactment of OPA which 
would reduce the burden of other SPCC rule requirements, without 
compromising environmental protection. EPA requests comments on these 
possible measures in order to discover additional ways to reduce the 
information collection burden of the rule. Conversely, EPA also seeks 
comments on measures not now required that would enhance the 
environmental protection the SPCC rule provides. Both of these requests 
for public comments are for the purpose of securing information to 
develop possible future rules or policies, and are not for the purpose 
of developing a final rule implementing this proposed rule. Lastly, for 
purposes of developing a final rule, EPA is considering whether any 
change is justified in the level of storage capacity which subjects a 
facility to the requirement to prepare an SPCC Plan. Currently, a 
facility with a total aboveground storage capacity of 1,320 gallons or 
less of oil, but that has a single container with a capacity in excess 
of 660 gallons of oil is subject to SPCC requirements. EPA is 
considering eliminating the provision in the current rule that requires 
a facility having a container with a storage capacity in excess of 660 
gallons to prepare an SPCC Plan, as long as the total capacity of the 
facility remained at 1,320 gallons or less. The effect of such a change 
would be to raise the threshold for regulation to an aggregate 
aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons, thereby 
eliminating the need for facilities with less than that capacity to 
prepare an SPCC Plan. EPA invites public comment on this issue and 
supporting data where available.

[[Page 63814]]

B. Proposed Program Revisions

    Specific proposed revisions are discussed below.
40 CFR 112.2
    On October 22, 1991, EPA proposed a definition for ``SPCC Plan or 
Plan.'' 56 FR 54612, 54632. Today, EPA is withdrawing that proposal in 
favor of a revised definition. The proposed rule would describe an SPCC 
Plan, and would allow an Integrated Contingency Plan or a State plan 
that meets all the requirements of part 112 to be counted as an SPCC 
Plan, if it is sequentially cross-referenced from the requirement in 
Sec. 112.7 to the page(s) of the equivalent requirement in the other 
plan. The Regional Administrator may accept any other format if it: (1) 
meets all regulatory requirements in the SPCC rule; and, (2) is 
sequentially cross-referenced by SPCC rule provision to the page(s) of 
the equivalent requirement in the other plan. The proposed change would 
allow facilities new flexibility in formatting an SPCC Plan. A new 
facility developing an SPCC Plan would have the opportunity to use the 
most convenient acceptable format. Existing facilities could also elect 
to use one of the proposed alternative formats. EPA contemplates that 
at least two types of formats could be used in addition to the format 
prescribed in Sec. 112.7, and would amend the rule to include those 
formats as acceptable examples. The formats are discussed below.
    Integrated Contingency Plans or ICPs. One format that would be 
allowed is an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP) prepared in accordance 
with the notice published at 61 FR 28642, June 5, 1996. The intent of 
the ICP is to provide a mechanism for consolidating multiple plans that 
facilities may have prepared to comply with various regulations into 
one functional emergency response plan.
    The ICP was developed for facilities to integrate emergency 
response plan requirements. EPA does not contemplate that the use of an 
ICP or other format would reduce the information collection burden, but 
it would simplify compliance with multiple applicable statutes and 
rules.
    State Plans and Requirements. Approximately 20 States have oil 
spill prevention requirements pursuant to State law. Included in those 
requirements is often the responsibility to prepare an SPCC-like plan. 
The proposed rule would allow an owner or operator of a facility 
flexibility to prepare a State SPCC-like plan in lieu of a Federal SPCC 
Plan if the State plan meets all the regulatory requirements contained 
in part 112. Like ICPs, State plans would also have to be cross-
referenced sequentially from the Federal SPCC requirement in part 112 
to the plan page(s) containing the equivalent requirement. In cases 
where an owner or operator of a facility chooses to prepare a State 
plan containing only some of the elements required in the Federal plan, 
the State plan would have to: (1) contain elements that are equal to or 
more stringent than Federal SPCC requirements; (2) be sequentially 
cross-referenced by SPCC rule provision to the page(s) of the 
equivalent Plan provision; and, (3) be supplemented by elements that 
meet the remainder of the EPA requirements contained in part 112.
40 CFR 112.4(a)
    Section 112.4(a) requires that an owner or operator of a facility 
subject to the SPCC rule provide certain information to EPA after a 
discharge of 1,000 gallons of oil into or upon the navigable waters of 
the United States or adjoining shorelines in a single event, or when 
two reportable spills of any size occur within any twelve month period. 
Reportable spills are defined at 40 CFR 110.3. 61 FR 7419, February 28, 
1996. EPA proposes to reduce the information that an owner or operator 
must report pursuant to Sec. 112.4(a). The Agency proposes to require 
that the owner or operator would report: (1) the name of the facility; 
(2) the name(s) of the owner or operator of the facility; (3) the 
location of the facility; (4) a description of the facility, including 
maps, flow diagrams, and topographical charts; (5) the cause of the 
spill(s), including a failure analysis of system or subsystem in which 
the failure occurred; (6) corrective actions and/or countermeasures 
taken, including an adequate description of equipment repairs and/or 
replacements; (7) additional preventive measures taken or contemplated 
to minimize the possibility of recurrence; and, (8) such other 
information as the Regional Administrator may reasonably require 
pertinent to the Plan or spill event. EPA would eliminate from the rule 
the need to always submit: (1) the date and year of initial facility 
operation; (2) maximum storage or handling capacity of the facility and 
normal daily throughput; and, (3) a complete copy of the SPCC Plan with 
any amendments. EPA believes that the information that would be 
eliminated from a post-spill report is not always necessary in order to 
accurately assess the spill or to require appropriate corrective 
action. The Regional Administrator would still retain discretion to 
require information that is specified by the current rule in a post-
spill report, or any other information as he/she finds necessary. The 
reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 110 would still apply to any 
discharge of oil to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines that is 
``harmful'' as specified in Sec. 110.3.
40 CFR 112.5(b)
    An owner or operator of a facility subject to the SPCC regulations 
must review and evaluate a facility's SPCC plan at least once every 
three years from the date the facility becomes subject to 40 CFR part 
112. EPA is proposing to extend the period in which an owner or 
operator must conduct this review and evaluation from at least once 
every three years to at least once every five years. EPA is proposing 
this change because it believes that it would have the effect of 
reducing the record keeping burden, thus saving time and money for 
facilities, while causing no harm to the environment. A facility owner 
or operator would still have to amend an SPCC Plan whenever there is a 
change in facility design, construction, operation, or maintenance 
which materially affects the facility's potential for discharge of oil 
into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining 
shorelines. 40 CFR 112.5(a). Therefore, absent such changes, an SPCC 
plan should continue to provide adequate protection against discharges 
for a five year period.
    In its 1991 proposal to amend the SPCC rule, EPA solicited comments 
on whether owners or operators of facilities should have to affix a 
signed and dated statement to the SPCC Plan indicating that the 
triennial review has taken place and whether or not amendment of the 
Plan is required. EPA did not at that time propose a rule change. 56 FR 
54612, 54616, 54629, October 22, 1991. Today, EPA is implementing that 
request for comments with a proposed rule change that would provide 
that an owner or operator must certify completion of the review and 
evaluation. An owner or operator, for purposes of this certification, 
includes any person with authority to fully implement the Plan, e.g., a 
facility manager. The certification would entail little additional 
information collection burden as it would merely note completion of the 
review and evaluation process at least once every five years. See 5 CFR 
1320.7(j)(1). It would be maintained with the Plan at the facility, and 
would provide EPA with written proof that the owner or operator has 
complied with the rule.

[[Page 63815]]

40 CFR 112.7 Introduction
    EPA is proposing to amend the introduction to Sec. 112.7 so that 
its language conforms to the newly proposed definition of an SPCC Plan 
in Sec. 112.2. See the above discussion. The change to the introduction 
would merely track language in proposed Sec. 112.2 to allow facilities 
flexibility to use certain alternative formats in lieu of the format 
prescribed in the SPCC rule, such as the ICP format, certain State 
formats, or other formats acceptable to the Regional Administrator.
40 CFR 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D)
    EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D), which applies 
to bulk storage tanks (onshore), excluding production facilities. 
Section 112.7(e)(2)(iii) authorizes the drainage of rainwater from the 
diked area into a storm drain or an effluent discharge that empties 
into an open water course, lake, or pond, and bypasses the in-plant 
treatment system if four conditions are met. 40 CFR 
112.7(e)(2)(iii)(A)-(D). The change would allow the use of records 
recording stormwater bypass events which are required to be kept under 
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 
the NPDES regulations, ``bypass'' is defined to mean the ``intentional 
diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.'' 
40 CFR 122.41(m)(1)(I).
    The NPDES regulations set forth conditions that all NPDES permits 
must contain. 40 CFR 122.21. One of these NPDES ``standard conditions'' 
allows for excusable bypasses under certain conditions. 40 CFR 
122.41(m)(2), (3), and (4). One of the conditions is that the permittee 
must provide notice of the bypass event. 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3). Under 40 
CFR 122.41(j)(2), the permittee must maintain records of all such 
bypass events for at least three years from the date of the report. 
These permit conditions for notification and record keeping serve the 
same objective as the SPCC rule requirement in 
Sec. 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D), and the documentation is therefore acceptable 
to satisfy the SPCC requirement. Furthermore, the proposed change would 
reduce the information collection burden imposed by the SPCC rule. 
Owners or operators would no longer be required to maintain duplicate 
records of the same event pursuant to different regulatory programs.
    This proposed change would also affect the information collection 
burden imposed by Sec. 112.7(e)(5)(ii)(A). This section requires 
inspection of diked areas in onshore oil production facilities prior to 
drainage as provided in Sec. 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(B), (C), and (D). By the 
cross reference to the record keeping requirements in 
Sec. 112.7(e)(2)(iii)(D), the requirement to maintain adequate records 
of such events is included. Therefore, when those records of bypass 
event notification are maintained at onshore oil production facilities 
pursuant to NPDES permitting conditions as discussed above, duplicative 
record keeping under part 112 would be unnecessary.
40 CFR 112.7(e)(2)(vi)
    Section 112.7(e)(2)(vi) requires periodic integrity testing of 
aboveground tanks, taking into account tank design (floating roof, 
etc.), and using such techniques as hydrostatic testing, visual 
inspection, or a system of non-destructive shell thickness testing. It 
further requires maintenance of comparison records when appropriate. 
Tank supports and foundations should be included in these inspections. 
In addition, the rule requires that the outside of the tank should be 
frequently observed by operating personnel for signs of deterioration, 
leaks which might cause a spill, or accumulation of oil inside diked 
areas.
    EPA proposes to amend Sec. 112.7(e)(2)(vi) to provide that usual 
and customary business records would suffice to meet the record keeping 
requirements of the section. Among such usual and customary business 
records are those maintained pursuant to API Standards 653 and 2610.
    API Standard 653 concerns tank inspection, repair, alteration, and 
reconstruction. It is considered the predominant standard for 
aboveground tank inspection and its provisions are based on tank design 
principles found in API Standards 620 and 650. API Standard 653 calls 
for owners or operators of tanks and associated systems to maintain a 
complete record file consisting of construction, repair/alteration 
history, and inspection history records. Construction records include 
nameplate information, drawings, specifications, construction complete 
reports, and any results of material tests and analyses. Repair/
alteration history includes all data accumulated on a tank from the 
time of its construction with regard to repairs, alterations, 
replacements, and service changes. Inspection history includes all 
measurements taken, the condition of all parts inspected, and a record 
of all examinations and tests.
    API Standard 2610 concerns design, construction, operation, 
maintenance, and inspection of terminal and tank facilities. It 
incorporates the requirements of many different standards for tanks 
into one document. The Standard recommends that records should be kept 
of the activities conducted pursuant to the Standard. It recommends 
that periodic inspection and preventive maintenance should be conducted 
on all transfer systems to control leaks. Accurate inventory records 
may be maintained and periodically reconciled for indication of 
possible leakage from tanks and piping systems. It further calls on the 
operator to keep complete maintenance records for all equipment within 
a terminal.
40 CFR 112.7(e)(8)
    EPA proposes to amend Sec. 112.7(e)(8) to provide that usual and 
customary business records, such as records maintained pursuant to API 
Standards 653 and 2610, would suffice to meet the requirements of the 
section. The revision would have the effect of reducing the information 
collection burden of the SPCC rule. See the discussion concerning usual 
and customary business practices above.
    The section requires that inspections required by part 112 be in 
accordance with written procedures developed for the facility by the 
owner or operator. These written procedures and a record of 
inspections, signed by the appropriate supervisor or inspector, must be 
made a part of the SPCC Plan and maintained for a period of three 
years.
40 CFR 112.20(f)(4)
    The owner or operator of any non-transportation-related onshore 
facility that, because of its location could be expected to cause 
substantial harm to the environment by discharging oil in harmful 
quantities into or on the navigable waters of the United States or 
adjoining shorelines, is required to prepare and submit a facility 
response plan to EPA. To determine whether a facility could cause 
substantial harm, an owner or operator of a facility must review the 
criteria listed in Appendix C of the rule and base his/her 
determination on those criteria. A facility that transfers oil over 
water to or from vessels and that has a total oil capacity greater than 
or equal to 42,000 gallons would meet the substantial harm criteria and 
be required to prepare and submit a response plan as required by 
Sec. 112.20 to the appropriate Regional Administrator. Any other 
facility with a capacity of one million gallons or more would evaluate 
the criteria in 40 CFR 112.20(f)(1)(ii)(A)-(D) and work through the 
flowchart in Appendix C to determine whether it is a substantial harm 
facility.

[[Page 63816]]

    EPA proposes to add a new paragraph to Sec. 112.20(f) to provide a 
method to calculate the oil storage capacity of aboveground tanks 
containing a mixture of process water/waste water with 10% or less of 
oil. EPA is proposing this change because it believes that the harm due 
to spills from tanks that contain 90% or more of process water/waste 
water is roughly proportional to their oil content. Discharges from 
tanks containing process water/waste water and 10% or less oil will 
cause less harm to the environment than tanks containing a greater 
proportion of oil. Facilities that are required to prepare and submit 
facility response plans must do so because of the substantial harm that 
discharges of oil from those facilities might cause. That substantial 
harm is predicated, at least in part, on a storage capacity 
determination. If there is a smaller percentage of oil in a tank, there 
will be less likelihood of great harm. Therefore, EPA believes that the 
entire capacity of process water/waste water tanks with 10% or less of 
oil should not be counted in the capacity necessary to subject a 
facility to the requirement to prepare a facility response plan. Only 
the oil portion of the storage capacity in process water/waste water of 
10% or less oil would be counted. EPA believes that an oil threshold 
capacity to determine substantial harm calculations of 10% or less in 
tanks containing process water/waste water is a reasonable one. It is 
reasonable because it exempts lower risk facilities, from which 
discharges would not reach substantial harm levels, from having to 
prepare facility response plans.
    The proposed rule change, however, would have no effect on the 
calculations necessary to determine whether to prepare an SPCC Plan. 
Calculation of capacity under the SPCC rule of tanks containing 
mixtures of process water/waste water and oil would continue to be done 
as it is now. No change is necessary in SPCC capacity calculations 
because SPCC Plans are designed for prevention purposes, not response. 
While harm might result from discharges from these SPCC facilities, it 
would not reach the substantial harm level. Finally, this proposed 
change would not apply to the oil capacity determination for 
substantial harm saline process water/waste water from oil drilling, 
production, or workover facilities because discharges from such 
facilities have a greater likelihood of causing environmental damage 
than facilities that do not handle saline water.
    Pursuant to the proposed rule, a facility owner or operator would 
determine the percentage of oil in the process or waste water in a 
tank. If the percentage of oil varies over a period of time, the owner 
or operator would use the highest percentage of oil for purposes of the 
capacity calculation. If the capacity of oil is 10% or less, the owner 
or operator would multiply the percentage of oil by the capacity of the 
tank or container. If appropriate, the owner or operator would then add 
the volume of oil calculated to the total capacity of any other oil 
storage tank or container with 100% oil or mixtures of oil and process 
or waste water above the 10% amount to determine its total capacity for 
the substantial harm determination of Sec. 112.20(f).
40 CFR 112.20(h)
    EPA proposes to amend Sec. 112.20(h) to clarify that an Integrated 
Contingency Plan (ICP) prepared in accordance with the notice published 
at 61 FR 28642, June 5, 1996 is an acceptable format for a facility 
response plan. The ICP was developed for facilities to integrate 
emergency response plan requirements. The intent of the ICP is to 
provide a mechanism for consolidating multiple plans that facilities 
may have prepared to comply with various regulations into one 
functional emergency response plan. Like the proposed requirements for 
SPCC Plans, the FRP rule already provides for cross-referencing. 
Similarly, an owner or operator who uses the ICP format must meet all 
of the regulatory requirements of the FRP rule for that format to be an 
acceptable substitute for the present FRP format.
    EPA does not contemplate that the use of an ICP or other format 
would reduce the information collection burden of the FRP rule, but it 
would simplify compliance with multiple applicable statutes and rules.
Appendix C
    EPA also proposes to amend Appendix C to this part to reflect 
changes proposed in Sec. 112.20(f)(4). EPA also proposes to amend 
section 2.1 of Appendix C to state the correct capacity that subjects a 
facility to FRP requirements if it transfers oil over water to or from 
a vessel. That capacity in section 2.1 of Appendix C should read 
``greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons * * *'' as specified in 
Sec. 112.20(f)(1)(I).

III. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the E.O. The E.O. 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 
E.O. 12866.
    Pursuant to the terms of E.O. 12866, it has been determined that 
this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it 
raises novel legal or policy issues. Such issues include proposed 
measures which would relieve some facilities of regulatory mandates and 
could change the manner in which facilities comply with remaining 
mandates. Therefore, this action was submitted to OMB for review. 
Changes made in responses to the OMB suggestions or recommendations 
will be documented in the public record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires that a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed for all rules that are 
likely to have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not 
have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because it would impose few if any new burdens, and overall 
would substantially reduce existing burdens on small businesses. 
Therefore, I certify that this proposed rule is not expected to have a 
significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Thus, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is necessary.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB as required by the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Information Collection Request (ICR) 
documents

[[Page 63817]]

have been prepared by EPA (EPA ICR no. EPA 0328.06 and 1630.04) and 
copies may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; 
Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling 202-260-2740. These ICRs are also 
available for viewing or downloading at EPA's ICR Internet site at 
http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    EPA does not collect the information required by the Oil Pollution 
Prevention regulation (i.e., the SPCC Plan) on a routine basis. SPCC 
Plans ordinarily need not be submitted to EPA, but must be maintained 
at the facility. Preparation, implementation, and maintenance of an 
SPCC Plan by the facility helps prevent oil discharges, and mitigates 
the environmental damage caused by such discharges. Therefore, the 
primary user of the data is the facility.
    Although the facility is the primary data user, EPA also uses the 
data in certain situations. EPA primarily uses SPCC Plan data to ensure 
that facilities comply with the regulation. This includes design and 
operation specifications, and inspection requirements. EPA reviews SPCC 
Plans: (1) When facilities submit the Plans because of certain oil 
discharges, and (2) as part of EPA's inspection program. Note however, 
that the proposed rule would eliminate the necessity to submit the 
entire Plan after certain discharges, and merely retain the requirement 
that it be maintained at the facility. State and local governments also 
use the data, which are not necessarily available elsewhere and can 
greatly assist local emergency preparedness planning efforts. 
Preparation of the information for affected facilities is required 
pursuant to section 311(j)(1) of the Act as implemented by 40 CFR part 
112.
    Through this rulemaking, EPA proposes to reduce the reporting and 
record keeping burden for facilities regulated under the SPCC 
regulation by: (1) expanding the format of an acceptable SPCC plan to 
include plans prepared to meet State or other Federal standards (i.e., 
State plans, Integrated Contingency Plans, etc.); (2) extending the 
period of time that a facility must review its Plan from at least once 
every three years to at least once every five years; and (3) reducing 
the reporting requirements in the event of certain reportable oil 
spills and the record keeping requirements relating to certain 
discharges of rainwater from a diked area. In addition to the program 
changes outlined above, EPA is also proposing to decrease the 
information collection burden calculated for the SPCC rule so that the 
information collection burden incurred by persons in the normal course 
of their business activities would no longer be attributed to the part 
112 burden.
    To quantify the effect of these proposed changes on reducing burden 
to the regulated community, EPA relied, in part, on data gathered 
through the 1995 SPCC survey. EPA developed a series of analyses using 
the survey data including the paper EPA produced in 1996 entitled 
``Effectiveness of EPA's SPCC Program on Spill Risk.'' The results of 
the analysis show that compliance with several specific SPCC provisions 
appears to reduce both the number and the amount of oil that migrates 
outside of a facility's boundaries. Facility practices such as tank 
leak detection, spill overfill protection, pipe external protection, 
and secondary containment, also appear to reduce the number and 
magnitude of oil spills. The results also indicate that a facility's 
compliance with even one SPCC measure may serve as a general indicator 
of a facility owner's/operator's awareness of the importance of other 
spill prevention and control measures.
    The net annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this 
collection of information, as proposed, for newly regulated facilities 
is estimated to range from 37.1 to 53.5 hours, with an average burden 
of 39.2 hours, including time for reviewing instructions and gathering 
the data needed. The net annual public reporting and record keeping 
burden for facilities already regulated by the Oil Pollution Prevention 
regulation is estimated to range from 3.7 to 9.5 hours, with an average 
burden of 4.0 hours. These average annual burden estimates take into 
account the varied frequencies of response for individual facilities 
according to characteristics specific to those facilities, including 
frequency of oil discharges and facility modification. Under the 
proposed rule, an estimated 446,498 existing and newly regulated 
facilities are subject to the information collection requirements of 
this proposed rule during the first year of the information collection 
period. The net annualized capital and start-up costs average $0.3 
million, and net annualized labor and operation and maintenance costs 
are $49.8 million.
    The present information collection burden of the SPCC rule averages 
2,557,194 hours per year for the information collection period. Through 
this rulemaking EPA proposes to reduce that burden by approximately 
864,471 hours. This proposed reduction would result in an average 
annual burden of 1,692,723 hours.
    In addition to the modifications the Agency is proposing to make to 
the SPCC rule, the Agency is also proposing to modify the information 
collection requirements of the Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulation 
as part of this rulemaking effort. The FRP rule (40 CFR 112.20-112.21) 
requires that owners and operators of facilities that could cause 
``substantial harm'' to the environment by discharging oil into 
navigable waters or adjoining shorelines prepare plans for responding, 
to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge of oil, to 
substantial threat of such a discharge, and, as appropriate, to 
discharges smaller than worst case discharges. Each FRP is submitted to 
the Agency, which in turn, reviews and approves plans from facilities 
identified as having the potential to cause ``significant and 
substantial harm'' to the environment from oil discharges. Other low-
risk, regulated facilities are not required to prepare FRPs but are 
required to document their determination that they do not meet the 
``substantial harm'' criteria.
    Through this rulemaking, EPA proposes to reduce the reporting and 
record keeping burden for facilities regulated under the FRP rule by 
adding a paragraph to Sec. 112.20(f) to provide a method to calculate 
the oil storage capacity of aboveground tanks containing a mixture of 
process water/waste water with 10 percent or less of oil. EPA also 
proposes to amend Sec. 112.20(h) to clarify that an Integrated 
Contingency Plan prepared in accordance with the notice published at 61 
FR 28642, June 5, 1996, is an acceptable format for an FRP; and to 
amend section 2.1 of Appendix C to state the correct capacity that 
subjects a facility to FRP requirements if it transfers oil over water 
or to or from a vessel.
    The Agency anticipates that only the first proposed change will 
have an appreciable impact on the burden to the regulated community. 
The Agency expects that the number of facilities subject to the 
requirements to develop an FRP and maintain the plan on a year-to-year 
basis will slightly decrease as a result of the proposed process water/
waste water calculation. In the current ICR, EPA estimated that 5,400 
facilities would be required to develop and submit FRPs and 4,482 of 
these facilities were large facilities (i.e., facilities with storage 
capacity greater than one million gallons). Of these 4,482 facilities, 
EPA estimated that approximately 250 facilities in the industrial 
manufacturing category would be excluded from the FRP requirements as a 
result of the proposal. Although these facilities have

[[Page 63818]]

already incurred costs to develop an FRP, the facilities would no 
longer incur costs associated with maintaining the Plan or retaining 
outside response contractors in the event of an oil spill. The Agency 
has previously estimated that it requires approximately 118 hours for 
facility personnel in a large, consumption facility to comply with the 
annual, subsequent-year reporting and record keeping requirements of 
the FRP rule after adjusting for compliance with other Federal and 
State regulations. The present information collection burden of the FRP 
rule averages 376,599 hours a year. Through this rulemaking EPA 
proposes to reduce that burden by approximately 24,190 hours. This 
proposed reduction would result in an annual average burden of 352,409 
hours.
    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 are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and the supporting 
analyses used to develop burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for further minimizing respondent burden, including the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the Information 
Collection Request to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St., S.W.; 
Washington, D.C. 20460 or E-mail [email protected]; and to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management 
and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 2, 1997, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 2, 
1998. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

D. Differentiation Between Classes of Oils

    Pursuant to Public Law 104-55, 33 U.S.C. 2720, enacted November 20, 
1995, most Federal agencies (including EPA) must, in the issuance or 
enforcement of any regulation or the establishment of any 
interpretation or guideline relating to the transportation, storage, 
discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a fat, oil, or grease, 
consider differentiating between and establishing separate classes for 
animal fats and oils and greases, fish and marine mammal oils, and oils 
of vegetable origin (as opposed to petroleum and other oils and 
greases). EPA has considered whether differentiation between and 
establishment of separate classes of oils is appropriate for this 
proposed rule and concluded that it is not. This conclusion is based on 
the fact that the EPA proposal would reduce the information collection 
burden for all classes of facilities. Achievement of that goal does not 
require differentiation among classes of oils.

E. Unfunded Mandates

    Pursuant to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (the 
Act) of 1995, enacted March 22,1995, Federal agencies must prepare a 
statement to accompany any rule in which the estimated costs of State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector, will be $100 million or more in any one year. Section 205 of 
the Act requires agencies to select the most cost-effective and least-
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and that 
is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 of the Act 
requires an agency to establish a plan for informing and advising any 
small government that may be significantly impacted by the rule. Small 
governments would not be significantly impacted by this proposed rule, 
therefore, it is not necessary to establish a plan pursuant to section 
203. In fact, the proposed rule would reduce the information collection 
burden on small governments that have facilities which are subject to 
the SPCC rule.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not include a 
Federal mandate that would result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more either to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector in any one year. This determination is based on 
the fact that the proposed rule would impose no new mandates, and would 
reduce costs to the private sector, while imposing no new costs on 
State, local, or tribal governments. Thus today's proposal is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Act.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under Sec. 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus 
standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so 
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices, 
etc.) which are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard 
bodies. In those cases where the Act applies and where available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are not used by 
EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide Congress, through the 
Office of Management and Budget, an explanation of the reasons for not 
using such standards.
    Without necessarily deciding whether the Act applies here, EPA 
invites comment on the potential use of voluntary consensus standards 
in this rulemaking. In particular, as noted above, EPA proposes to 
amend 40 CFR 112.7(e)(2)(vi) and (e)(8) to provide that the records 
maintained pursuant to usual and customary business practices would 
suffice to meet the recordkeeping requirements of the sections. While 
not specifically referenced in the proposed regulation, usual and 
customary business records would include those maintained pursuant to 
American Petroleum Institute (API) Standards 653 and 2610. The Agency 
proposes this flexible approach to be consistent with the goal of 
reducing the recordkeeping requirements of this regulation. EPA invites 
public comment on the Agency's proposal as well as identification and 
information about other standards, and in particular, voluntary 
consensus standards, which the Agency should consider.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

    Environmental protection, Fire prevention, Flammable materials, 
Materials handling and storage, Oil pollution, Oil spill prevention, 
Oil spill response, Petroleum, Reporting and

[[Page 63819]]

record keeping requirements, Tanks, Water pollution control, Water 
resources.

    Dated: November 24, 1997.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 112 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 1321 and 1361; E.O. 12777 (October 18, 
1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

    2. Section 112.2 is amended by adding the definition ``Spill 
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan; SPCC Plan; or Plan'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 112.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan; SPCC Plan; or 
Plan means the document required by Sec. 112.3 that details the 
equipment, manpower, procedures, and steps to prevent, control, and 
provide adequate countermeasures to an oil spill. The Plan is a written 
description of the facility's compliance with the procedures in this 
part. It is prepared in writing and in accordance with the format 
specified in Sec. 112.7, or in the format of a plan prepared pursuant 
to State law, or in another format acceptable to the Regional 
Administrator. If an owner or operator of a facility chooses to prepare 
a plan using either the Integrated Contingency Plan format or a State 
format or any other format acceptable to the Regional Administrator, 
such plan must meet all of the requirements in Sec. 112.7, and be 
sequentially cross-referenced from the requirement in Sec. 112.7 to the 
page(s) of the equivalent requirement in the other plan.
* * * * *
    3. Section 112.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(a)(8) to read as follows:


Sec. 112.4  Amendment of SPCC Plans by Regional Administrator.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Name of the facility;
    (2) Name(s) of the owner or operator of the facility;
    (3) Location of the facility;
    (4) Corrective action and/or countermeasures taken, including an 
adequate description of equipment repairs and/or replacements;
    (5) Description of the facility, including maps, flow diagrams, and 
topographical maps;
    (6) The cause(s) of such spill(s), including a failure analysis of 
system or subsystem in which the failure occurred;
    (7) Additional preventive measures taken or contemplated to 
minimize the possibility of recurrence; and
    (8) Such other information as the Regional Administrator may 
reasonably require pertinent to the Plan or spill event.
* * * * *
    4. Section 112.5 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 112.5  Amendment of Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure 
Plans by owners or operators.

* * * * *
    (b) Notwithstanding compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, 
owners and operators of facilities subject to Sec. 112.3(a), (b), or 
(c) shall certify completion of a review and evaluation of the SPCC 
Plan at least once every five years from the date such facility becomes 
subject to this part. * * *
* * * * *
    5. Section 112.7 is amended by revising the last sentence of the 
introductory text; and by revising paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(D), and the 
last sentence of paragraphs (e)(2)(vi), and (e)(8) to read as follows:


Sec. 112.7  Guidelines for the preparation and implementation of a 
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan.

* * * The complete SPCC Plan shall follow the sequence outlined below, 
unless it is in another format acceptable to the Regional 
Administrator, such as one described in Sec. 112.2, and include a 
discussion of the facility's conformance with the appropriate 
guidelines listed:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (D) Adequate records are kept of such events, such as records 
required pursuant to permits issued in accordance with 
Secs. 122.41(j)(2) and 122.41(m)(3) of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (vi) * * * Records of inspections maintained pursuant to usual and 
customary business practices will suffice for purposes of this 
paragraph.
* * * * *
    (8) * * * Records of inspections maintained pursuant to usual and 
customary business practices will suffice for purposes of this 
paragraph.
* * * * *
    6. Section 112.20 is amended by adding paragraph (f)(4) and by 
revising the first sentence of paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 112.20  Facility response plans.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) To determine the capacity of a facility storing process water/
waste water with oil concentrations of 10% or less, for purposes of 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section (except for saline 
process water/waste water from an oil drilling, production, or workover 
facility), the following calculations shall be used:
    (i) Determine the percentage of oil in the process water/waste 
water of a tank or container. If the percentage of oil varies over a 
period of time, the highest percentage shall be used;
    (ii) If the percentage of oil is 10% or less, multiply the 
percentage of oil by the capacity of the tank or container;
    (iii) If appropriate, add the amount calculated in paragraphs 
(f)(4)(i) and (4)(ii) of this section to the total capacity of any 
other oil tank or storage container containing 100% oil or mixtures of 
oil and process water/waste water above 10%;
    (iv)(A) A facility that transfers oil over water to or from vessels 
and has a storage capacity of oil greater than or equal to 42,000 
gallons will be considered a facility that could cause substantial harm 
to the environment by discharging oil to the navigable waters or 
adjoining shorelines.
    (B) A facility with a capacity of 1 million gallons or greater 
shall continue through the criteria in appendix C of this part to 
determine whether the facility could cause substantial harm to the 
environment by discharging oil to the navigable waters or adjoining 
shorelines.; and
    (v) A facility that has completed the calculations required by this 
paragraph and does not meet the substantial harm threshold will not 
have to prepare and submit a response plan unless directed to do so by 
the Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
    (h) A response plan shall follow the format of the model facility-
specific response plan included in Appendix F to this part, unless an 
equivalent response plan has been prepared to meet State or other 
Federal requirements. * * *
* * * * *
    7. Appendix C to part 112 is amended by revising section 2.0 and 
the first sentence of section 2.1 to read as follows:

[[Page 63820]]

Appendix C to Part 112--Substantial Harm Criteria

* * * * *

2.0  Description of Screening Criteria for the Substantial Harm 
Flowchart

    A facility that has the potential to cause substantial harm to 
the environment in the event of a discharge must prepare and submit 
a facility-specific response plan to EPA in accordance with appendix 
F to this part. To determine the capacity of a facility storing 
process water/waste water with oil concentrations of 10% or less 
(except for saline process water/waste water from an oil drilling, 
production, or workover facility), the respondent shall use the 
method prescribed in Sec. 112.20(f)(4). A description of the 
screening criteria for the substantial harm flowchart is provided 
below:

2.1  Non-Transportation-Related Facilities With a Total Oil Storage 
Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 42,000 Gallons Where Operations 
Include Over-Water Transfers of Oil.

    A non-transportation-related facility with a total oil storage 
capacity greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons that transfers oil 
over water to or from vessels must submit a response plan to EPA. * 
* *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-31574 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P