[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18890-18894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9480]


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

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 
([email protected]); or Mark W. Howard at 703-603-8715 
([email protected]), 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.

0
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

0
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]

0
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