2. Proposed Compliance Date Extension for Farms With today's action, EPA proposes to extend the compliance dates for the owner or operator of a farm, as now proposed to be defined in § 112.2, that has a total storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less, to amend and implement the farm's SPCC Plan. The Agency proposes to extend the farm compliance dates until EPA completes information collection and analysis to determine if differentiated SPCC requirements may be appropriate for farms. If the Agency determines that differentiated requirements for farms are warranted, the Agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register proposing new compliance dates for eligible farms.

During this extension, EPA would gather information to better understand the unique concerns of the farm sector to determine if differentiated SPCC requirements may be appropriate. EPA believes that an extension is appropriate because of the large and uncertain scope of the agricultural community, the complexity of the issues, the fact that many farms are small, and the time needed to determine how the SPCC requirements should apply, if at all.

Since some farms may also qualify to prepare self certified SPCC Plans as proposed in today's action, EPA will also need to determine the extent to which that option may be appropriate for the owners and operators of farms. EPA seeks comment on whether this extension is warranted, or if a specific time period would be more appropriate. 67 VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866   Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,

the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this action has been judged as a " significant regulatory action" because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Such issues include proposed measures that would relieve affected facility owners and operators of regulatory mandates and could change the manner in which they comply with remaining mandates. Therefore, this action was submitted to OMB for review and the Agency has prepared a regulatory analysis in 68 support of today's action, titled, " Regulatory Analysis of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Proposed Rule" ( August 2005). Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record. EPA requests comments from the public on the costs and benefits of any of the possible regulatory changes discussed in this proposed rulemaking, as well as on appropriate methodologies for assessing them.

1. Summary of Regulatory Analysis The regulatory analysis developed in support of today's action considers changes in regulatory compliance costs for affected facility owners and operators, changes in paperwork burden, and impacts on small businesses. In addition, EPA examined qualitatively the potential impacts of the regulatory options on oil discharge risk. EPA intends to continue to update its estimates and assumptions for use in the analysis supporting the final rule.

a. General Approach This analysis develops benefit and cost estimates for the proposed actions in the three major components of the proposed rule:

° Qualified facilities with smaller storage capacities;

° Oil filled operational equipment;

° Motive power. 69 The analysis them assesses the impacts of the alternative regulatory options that EPA considered. EPA, however, does not have sufficient information to analyze cost savings associated with changes to requirements for airport mobile refuelers, or the impact on farms of a delayed compliance date.

For each of the components, the benefits consist of reductions in social costs accruing from reductions in compliance costs. The main steps used to estimate the compliance cost impacts of the SPCC Proposed Rule are as follows:

° Develop the baseline universe of SPCC regulated facilities and unit cost of compliance estimates for the analysis;

° Estimate the number of facilities affected by each of the proposed options;

° Estimate unit compliance costs for all elements of the proposed options;

° Estimate compliance cost savings to potentially affected facilities; and ° Annualize compliance cost savings over a ten year period and discount the estimates to the current year.

EPA also considered the potential impacts of the proposed rule and alternative options on the risk of oil discharges, which could lead to harmful environmental, human health, and welfare consequences. Because of the lack of data on regulated entities and their likely response to the regulatory options, the magnitude of such risks is highly uncertain. Therefore,

EPA examined the general nature of the proposed and alternative changes to assess possible effects on risk.

b. Baseline for the Analysis 70 The impacts of the proposed regulation depend on the assumed baseline of industry behavior in the absence of a new rulemaking. EPA developed a baseline for the regulatory analysis to assess the change in regulatory compliance costs associated with each of the proposed options, mutually exclusive of each other. The baseline provides the benchmark from which changes in regulatory behavior, caused by the proposed options, are measured.

EPA is aware of industry concerns regarding potential non compliance among certain facility sizes or sectors, although no reliable empirical evidence exists to assess the scope and magnitude of such non compliance. EPA explicitly considered whether to incorporate noncompliance in its regulatory analysis of the 2002 revised rule: " It is possible that some facilities have misinterpreted the existing regulation and are not currently in full compliance with existing requirements, but there is no practical way to measure the level of non compliance. Moreover,

... the costs of coming into compliance with the clarified requirements are not properly attributed to this final regulation."

This rule does not impact any facilities that are not already required to meet the standards of the SPCC rule. The costs of SPCC requirements were already imposed on the regulated community by prior rulemaking in 1973 and 2002. For the benefit cost analysis, therefore,

EPA is treating these costs as liabilities the regulated entities currently have   whether or not they have actually made the capital expenditures to comply. In this analytical construct, these firms are simply delaying the expenditures for the costs they already carry. Therefore, EPA used as its baseline the requirements under 40 CFR part 112 (" SPCC rule"), as amended in 2002 ( 67 FR 47042). EPA does recognize, however, that there is probably significant noncompliance with SPCC requirements at present. 71 c. Description of SPCC Regulated Universe This section describes the universe of facilities subject to current and proposed SPCC regulations. Calculating the number of regulated entities is not straightforward. The SPCC rule does not include a notification requirement and, with certain exceptions, owners and operators do not submit their SPCC Plans to EPA. The Agency has invested considerable resources into estimating the number of entities affected by the SPCC rule.

EPA updated its previous estimates of the number of regulated facilities in 12 industry sectors. In addition, EPA used data from the 2002 Economic Census, the Census of Agriculture, and a variety of other governmental and non governmental sources to estimate the number of regulated facilities in a large set of industrial and commercial sectors. Data were also adjusted to account for changes in industry size, and to account for exemptions promulgated in the 2002 SPCC rule. Full documentation of the estimates appears in the Regulatory Analysis document accompanying this proposal.

In total, EPA estimates that 511,797 facilities are currently regulated under the SPCC rule.

Oil production facilities ( 34 percent), farms ( 30 percent), electric utility plants ( 10 percent), and other commercial facilities ( 10 percent) account for most of the SPCC regulated facilities.

Following is a table that summarizes the estimated number of regulated facilities, by size category: 72 Category Aggregate Capacity Number of Facilities I 1,321 to 10,000 gallons 261,000 II 10,000 to 42,000 gallons 182,228 III 42,000 to 1 million gallons 71,251 IV 1 million gallons or greater 7,163 2. Qualified Facilities Today EPA is proposing to provide an option for qualified facilities to eliminate the requirement for PE certification, and to provide flexibility with respect to security measures and integrity testing for these facilities. This proposed option would provide the greatest relief to owners and operators of new facilities that are preparing their first SPCC Plan, as well as cost savings for owners and operators of existing facilities that make substantive changes to their Plans in the future.

a. Universe of Affected Facilities As noted above, EPA estimates that approximately 261,000 facilities with storage capacities below 10,000 gallons are subject to SPCC. As with all of the regulatory options considered in developing today's proposed rule, facilities would have the choice of complying with the existing SPCC rule ( as amended in 2002) or taking advantage of the proposed change. EPA assumes that facilities would likely choose an alternative requirement if ( a) they met the criteria, and ( b) it was less costly or otherwise offered greater benefits than the existing requirement. As with the other options being considered today, EPA does not know how many facilities would meet the criteria and choose to avail themselves of the ` Qualified Facility'

options. Therefore, EPA examined the impact of the ` Qualified Facility" options under three 3 The number of tanks per facility was calculated using state oil tank databases.

73 scenarios: 25 percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent of category 1 facilities would likely meet ` Qualified Facility' status and decide to implement this approach. EPA estimated that the 65,324 facilities would choose to take advantage of this option under the 25 percent scenario;

130,646 facilities under the 50 percent scenario, and 195,970 facilities under the 75 percent scenario.

b. Compliance Cost Savings The main assumptions affecting all regulatory options were based on updated assumptions from the analyses conducted for the 2002 final rule. For example, EPA revised the cost estimate for obtaining Professional Engineer ( PE) certification of a new SPCC Plan. The estimate increased from $ 1,120 to $ 2,000 for a PE to certify a new Plan and from $ 560 to $ 750 for a PE to certify a technical change to an existing Plan. The estimates are based on findings from discussions with several engineering firms.

The unit cost of integrity testing was estimated based on interviews with several tank inspectors. EPA calculated the total cost of integrity testing per facility by multiplying for a single tank by the number of tanks per facility. 3 EPA multiplied burden hour estimates by the hourly wage rates for specific labor categories to determine the per facility costs associated with the proposed rule's paperwork requirements. 4 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, June 2004.

74 The labor wage rates for private industry were derived from the December 2004 U. S.

Department of Labor's Employment Cost Indexes and Levels. 4 EPA estimates that this option could reduce compliance costs by $ 15.2 million and $ 12.6 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. To arrive at these estimates, EPA assumed that 50 percent of facilities under 10,000 gallons would qualify for this option. EPA assumed that the proposed flexibility for integrity testing would reduce the unit cost of testing by 50 percent. If 25 percent of facilities under 10,000 gallons qualified for this option, compliance costs would decrease by $ 7.62 million and $ 6.29 million per year,

discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. If 75 percent of facilities under 10,000 gallons qualified for this option, compliance costs would reduce by $ 22.9 million and $ 18.9 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

3. Oil Filled Operational Equipment Today EPA is proposing to allow owners and operators of facilities featuring certain kinds of oil filled operational equipment to prepare an oil spill contingency plan and a written commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials in lieu of providing secondary containment without making an individual impracticability determination. The option is limited to equipment holding 1,320 gallons or less of oil.

a. Universe of Affected Facilities 75 EPA assumed that existing facilities regulated by the SPCC rule with qualified oil filled operational equipment would already have secondary containment or a contingency plan with an impracticability statement. In such cases, facilities would not benefit from this option.

Information submitted by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) as well as comments on the NODA suggest that as much as 75 percent of oil filled operational equipment are co located with non qualified equipment that would be included in the planning and design for secondary containment. In these situations, even new facilities would not benefit from the ' Oil Filled Operational Equipment' option.

However, other new facilities would likely take advantage of the increased flexibility to use a contingency plan. EPA estimates that 25 percent of new facilities would have qualified equipment that is not co located with non qualified equipment, and would incur lower costs by choosing a contingency plan ( without an impracticability determination) over secondary containment.

EPA acknowledges that some fraction of new facilities would, in the baseline scenario,

decide to prepare a contingency plan and provide an impracticability determination, rather than pursue secondary containment. In these cases, the proposed option's cost savings would be lower, since owners and operators would only be avoiding an impracticability determination rather than secondary containment. EPA does not know what fraction of facilities fall into this situation, and has decided not to incorporate the scenario in the analysis. As a result, EPA's analysis will likely overestimate the cost savings from the proposed option. Any overestimate would be offset by the omission of oil filled operational equipment outside of electrical equipment at utilities. 76 The ' Oil Filled Operational Equipment' options could address such items as hydraulic systems, lubricating systems ( including lubricating systems for pumps, compressors and other rotating equipment), gear boxes, machining coolant systems, heat transfer systems,

transformers, other electrical equipment, and other systems containing oil to enable operation.

Due to data and time limitations, EPA focused its economic analysis on the electric utility sector, which will likely underestimate the total cost savings from the proposed ' Oil Filled Operational Equipment' option and the alternatives.

Specifically, EPA used data from a survey of utility companies conducted by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG). The survey yielded data on 19 USWAG members.

Each respondent reported the number of pieces of oil filled operational equipment for the following capacity tiers: under 1,320 gallons; 1,320 through 20,000 gallons; and greater than 20,000 gallons. EPA believes that these data represent the best available information at this time.

Respondents also reported their annual electricity sales, which EPA used to estimate the relationship between electricity sales and facilities with oil filled operational equipment. EPA generated a national estimate of the number of facilities that would benefit from the proposed requirements using the number of electricity generating substations estimated based on the amount of electricity sold in the United States. EPA estimated that the total number of pieces of oil filled electrical equipment is 412,000. However, this underestimates the universe of affected pieces of equipment, since it does not include oil filled operational equipment, nor equipment from other industries.

b. Compliance Cost Savings 5 The estimate ranges from $ 200 to $ 11,000 depending on the type of secondary containment and tank size. See Appendix A of the U. S. Navy's SPCC Guidance Document, Environmental Department of the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, 2003.

77 EPA estimates the one time cost of implementing secondary containment requirements at new electrical substations at approximately $ 1,500 per stand alone piece of equipment with oil capacity under 1,320 gallons. The unit cost of providing secondary containment was estimated based on an interview with a specialized engineering firm that provides secondary containment to electrical substations and subsequent comments provided by electric utilities.

The cost of providing secondary containment was derived from an SPCC guidance document prepared by the U. S. Navy. 5 EPA plans to continue research into the cost of secondary containment and may revise its assumptions for the final rule.

EPA estimates that this component of the proposal could reduce compliance costs by $ 2.05 million and $ 1.68 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

EPA calculated cost savings based on the assumption that at new facilities these units would save the difference between the cost of secondary containment and the cost of preparing a contingency plan. The Agency recognizes, however, that some units are colocated with larger units ( not eligible for this exemption), and therefore could not save the cost of secondary containment. At some facilities, PE certified SPCC plans have made a determination that secondary containment is impracticable, and have implemented environmentally equivalent measures. These units would also not see significant cost savings from this component of the current rule. The cost savings estimate presented here, therefore,

undercounts the number of units of oil filled operational equipment ( as noted in section 3 a),

but overestimates the cost savings for those units that have been counted. 78 4. Motive Power It is not EPA's intent to regulate bulk oil storage containers in vehicles used solely to fuel the propulsion of those motor vehicles, or the associated oil filled operational equipment used to assist in the operation of those vehicles. Although EPA has no empirical data on the amount of such storage at facilities regulated by the SPCC rule, EPA does not expect that many facility owners and operators have included motive power in their oil storage capacity calculations and SPCC Plans. For those who have considered motive power storage, EPA assumes that the volume that would be exempt under the proposed rule would not represent a large fraction of the facility's aggregate capacity.

a. Universe of Affected Facilities To identify industries that are potentially affected by motive power exemptions, EPA started with information from industry comments to the 2002 SPCC rule. Commenters from the crop production, forestry/ logging, and utilities industries indicated they had motive power equipment. EPA identified additional industry groups by examining industries targeted by the major motive power equipment manufacturers. Caterpillar, Deere & Company, Kubota Corporation, Joy Global Inc., CNH Global NV, and Terex Corporation are some of the largest motive power equipment manufacturers. Each company lists the industries targeted by their products. EPA used these listings as the basis for classifying industries likely to have motive power equipment.

EPA has no empirical data on the number of facilities with motive power equipment with oil storage of 55 gallons or greater. To estimate the number of facilities affected by the ` Motive 79 Power' proposed rule, EPA examined three scenarios: 10 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent of the facilities in sectors with motive power may be affected by the proposed regulatory option. EPA estimated that 2,765 facilities have ` motive power' oil storage under the 10

percent scenario; 6,913 facilities under the 25 percent scenario; and 13,826 facilities under the 50 percent scenario.

b. Compliance Cost Savings EPA assumed that 10 percent of the facilities in industries identified as having motive power storage might take advantage of the proposed exemption. Other facilities could also have motive power storage, however EPA expects that they have not considered such storage as part of their compliance with the SPCC rule. Because EPA expects most facilities with motive power storage to meet the SPCC rule's oil storage thresholds, regardless of motive power, EPA assumes that the cost savings from the proposed exemption will be modest, with the possibility of saving small amounts of compliance costs, principally for secondary containment for these motive power containers. EPA estimates that the proposed option will reduce compliance costs by $ 0.72 million and $ 0.60 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The main benefit of the proposed option would be to provide greater clarity of EPA's regulatory intent.

EPA also examined two other scenarios: 25 percent and 50 percent of facilities in industries identified as having motive power storage might take advantage of the proposed exemption. Under the 25 percent scenario, compliance costs would be reduced by $ 1.81 million and $ 1.49 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. Under the 50 percent scenario, compliance costs would be reduced by $ 3.62 million and $ 2.98 million, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. 80 5. Projected Impacts on Human Health, Welfare, and the Environment The main benefit of the proposed rule is lower compliance costs for certain types of facilities and equipment. EPA expects these reduced expenditures to translate to net social benefits. These benefits may be partially offset by potential increases in risk of oil discharges,

due to less stringent requirements compared to the existing SPCC rule.

However, EPA has designed the proposed rule to minimize increases in environmental risk.

For example, EPA is providing an option to avoid Professional Engineer certification for qualified facilities that have no history of reportable discharges. Any decision to apply environmental equivalence or pursue an impracticability claim would still require PE certification, except for security and integrity testing. For the other relief offered in the proposal, most facilities will have general secondary containment that would help prevent discharges as described in § 112.1( b). In summary, although the magnitude of any increase in risk under each of the proposed options is unclear, EPA does not believe that these changes in spill risk are significant.

To the extent that lower compliance costs encourage greater overall compliance, the proposed rule may prevent discharges from currently non compliant facilities that would occur in its absence.

6. Alternative Regulatory Options 81 EPA considered other options for addressing public comments to the NODAs published on September 20, 2004. Following are summaries of the changes in compliance costs estimated for each alternative option ( for qualified facilities and qualified oil filled operational equipment),

as well as EPA's rationale for rejecting the alternative option.

a. Qualified Facilities As an alternative option, EPA considered a notification requirement for qualified facilities that have been operating for less than ten years, along with eliminating the requirement for PE certification and providing integrity testing flexibility for all qualified facilities. EPA estimates that the alternative option could reduce compliance costs by $ 15.1 million and $ 12.5 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. To arrive at these figures, EPA assumed that 50 percent of facilities under 10,000 gallons would qualify for this option. EPA also assumed that the proposed flexibility for integrity testing would reduce the unit cost of testing by 50 percent. EPA assumed that the total burden of notification for a facility would be three hours: one hour of managerial time, one hour of technical time, and one hour of clerical time. If 25 percent of facilities under 10,000 gallons qualified for this option, compliance costs would decrease by $ 7.56 million and $ 6.24 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. If 75 percent of facilities under 10,000 gallons qualified for this option,

compliance costs would reduce by $ 22.7 million and $ 18.7 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. EPA decided not to pursue this option because it does not differ substantively from the proposed option; an additional notification burden was not considered necessary.

As an alternative option, EPA considered establishing three facility size tiers according to SBA's recommendations based on facility's total oil storage capacity ( Jack Faucett Associates, 82 2004). EPA estimates that this alternative option could reduce compliance costs by $ 30.1 million and $ 24.8 million per year, discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively. To arrive at these estimates, EPA assumed that all SPCC regulated facilities with oil storage capacity between 1,320 and 5,000 gallons would take advantage of the option, eliminating the cost of preparing and maintaining a written SPCC Plan. Additionally, EPA assumed that all SPCC regulated facilities with oil storage capacity between 5,001 and 10,000 gallons would take advantage of the option and eliminate the cost of PE certification.

The cost savings associated with the three tier plans, however, come at the expense of losses in environmental protection. Although EPA agrees that a reduction in burden may be appropriate for facilities handling smaller quantities of oils, smaller facilities still pose risks to the environment given the nature of the product. Therefore, some type of Plan or documentation is warranted even for these smaller facilities. The tiered option also raises significant implementation issues. For example, certain facilities would require compliance with the SPCC rule without a written SPCC Plan. EPA believes that a facility would not be able to properly implement oil spill prevention measures   including notification, equipment maintenance, inspection and training   without written documentation to inform the owner or operator of his/ her responsibilities. Additionally, EPA inspectors conducting on site visits would have no written Plan or documentation to assess the facility's effectiveness in implementing their spill prevention strategy. Even with model plans, owners or operators of larger facilities may not have the expertise to create their own SPCC Plan without input from a PE.

EPA also considered two administrative options to provide relief to qualified facilities: a compliance date extension and a suspension of all requirements. These options would not have an impact on compliance costs, but would only delay expenditures at affected facilities. 83 EPA decided against these options because owners or operators of qualified facilities would remain uncertain about the timing and type of future requirements that would apply to them.

The preferred option would set forth explicit requirements for qualified facilities that reduce compliance costs within the current compliance date schedule. The administrative options also would pose additional problems related to implementation and environmental protection.

b. Oil Filled Equipment EPA explored a three tiered structure option in response to comments on a NODA for oilfilled equipment ( 69 FR 56184, September 20, 2004). The option is based on a previous proposal put forth by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG). The option would allow a facility owner or operator to define each discrete unit of equipment as a facility. For facilities that meet the criteria for preparing an SPCC Plan without accounting for oil filled equipment, this option could actually increase overall compliance costs   given that each discrete unit of equipment with capacities greater than 1,320 gallons would require its own contingency plan or SPCC Plan and would need to meet all other requirements of 40 CFR part 112. Facilities that have significant oil storage in oil filled operational equipment might incur lower compliance costs under this option if enough pieces of equipment fell under 20,000 gallons to cause the remainder of the facility's oil storage capacity to come in under 1,320 gallons. Because of the lack of available data on oil filled operational equipment at individual facilities, and given the likelihood of compliance cost increases for many facilities, EPA did not quantitatively evaluate this option.

EPA also considered two administrative options to provide relief to oil filled operational operational equipment: a compliance date extension and a suspension of all requirements.

These options would not have an impact on compliance costs, but would only delay 84 expenditures at affected facilities. EPA decided against these options because facility owners or operators would remain uncertain about the timing and type of requirements that eventually would apply to them. Since many facilities have operational equipment, delaying changes to these requirements could lead to a significant number of facilities needing to modify their existing Plans more than once to accommodate future rule changes. A suspension would increase the risk of discharge at qualified facilities during the interim period, if they delay compliance with the SPCC rule.

7. Key Limitations of the Analysis One of the main limitations of the regulatory analysis is EPA's lack of data on facilities regulated under the SPCC rule. As mentioned earlier, the rule does not include ( and never included) a notification requirement and, with certain exceptions, regulated entities do not need to submit their SPCC Plans to EPA. Without conducting a statistically valid survey, EPA is limited to data already collected by state or federal agencies or by proprietary sources. Such data are collected for diverse purposes and are not necessarily ideal for evaluating regulatory options, because they often omit portions of the regulated universe or lack sufficient detail to ascertain the impacts of changes in certain requirements. The type of information collected also varies among the different sources. Data provided by industry organizations or individual businesses are often anecdotal or based on surveys that are not statistically valid, and cannot be reliably extrapolated to a larger universe. As a result of this limitation of data on regulated facilities, EPA has had to rely on updated figures from 1996 for most industry sectors as well as federal and proprietary sources for a small number of other sectors. Because none of these sources give adequate detail to evaluate the potential impacts of individual regulatory 85 options, EPA has chosen to examine various scenarios for each option to bound the range of cost savings that could occur.

Approaches to compliance will depend on site specific circumstances. For example,

compliance costs vary not only on the volume of oil storage and handled, but also on the types of oil at a site, the number of tanks ( and their volume), and the locations of the tanks across a site. Given the wide range of industries and facility sizes affected by the SPCC rule   as well as geographical and climatic conditions   it is difficult to specify a realistic baseline against which regulatory changes can be measured. Therefore, it is also difficult to estimate the changes that could occur under various regulatory options.

Finally, many of the cost assumptions used in the regulatory analysis are based on interviews with a limited number of PEs. It is very difficult to simply assess " typical" costs when the costs of compliance are closely related to site specific factors. Ideally, future analyses could explicitly account for such variability in costs.

8. Conclusions Considered separately and applying a 7 percent discount rate, today's proposed regulatory changes could yield compliance costs savings of $ 6.3 million to $ 23.1 million for the ` Qualified Facility" option; at least $ 15.7 million for the ` Oil Filled Operational Equipment' option; and $ 0.6 million to $ 3 million for motive power exemption. EPA does not believe that these cost reductions would be offset by any significant losses in environmental protection. 86 B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request ( ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 0328.12.

EPA does not collect the information required by SPCC regulation on a routine basis.

SPCC Plans ordinarily need not be submitted to EPA, but must generally 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. While EPA may, from time to time,

request information under these regulations, such requests are not routine.

Although the facility is the primary data user, EPA also uses the data in certain situations.

EPA reviews SPCC Plans: ( 1) when it requests a facility to submit a Plan after certain oil discharges or to evaluate an extension request; and, ( 2) as part of EPA's inspection program.

State and local governments also use the data, which are not necessarily available elsewhere and can greatly assist local emergency preparedness efforts. Preparation of the information for affected facilities is required under section 311( j)( 1) of the Act as implemented by 40 CFR part 112.

In the absence of this proposed rulemaking, EPA estimates that 511,797 facilities would be subject to the SPCC rule in 2006 and have SPCC Plans. In addition, EPA estimates that approximately 4,520 new facilities would become subject to SPCC requirements annually. 87 EPA also estimates that, in the absence of this proposed rulemaking, the average annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information for existing and newly regulated facilities would range between 43,399 to 1,057,389 hours and 8,020 to 92,277 hours, respectively, depending on facility characteristics ( e. g., storage capacity and number of tanks).

Under today's proposed rulemaking, qualified facilities would no longer need a licensed Professional Engineer to certify their Plans. Facilities that store oil solely in onboard motive power containers would no longer be regulated, while other facilities with oil storage in addition to onboard motive power containers may incur lower compliance costs. Today's proposal would also allow greater use of contingency plans without requiring an impracticability determination as an alternative to secondary containment for certain oil filled operational equipment. It would also allow airport refueler trucks to fall under a facility's general secondary containment requirements, rather than require sized secondary containment.

Under the proposed rule, an estimated 368,327 regulated facilities would annually be subject to the SPCC information collection requirements of this rule during the information collection period. The net annualized capital and start up costs for the SPCC information collection portion of the rule would average $ 92 million and net annualized labor and operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $ 26 million for all of these facilities combined.

The information collection burden of the SPCC rule prior to this rulemaking averaged 1,589,252 hours per year. Under this proposed rule, the estimated annual average burden over the next three year ICR period would be 1,492,029 hours, resulting in a 6.1 percent average reduction. The annual burden would be hours. The estimated average annual public reporting for facilities already regulated by the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation would range 88 between 43,399 and 1,057,339 hours, while the burden for newly regulated facilities would range between 8,020 and 97,858 hours as a result of this proposal.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule,

which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number OPA 2005 0001. Submit any comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ` Addresses' section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [ Insert date of publication 89 in the FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [ Insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 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 proposed 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 that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, the Agency certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 90 number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives " which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities." 5 U. S. C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.

This proposed rule would reduce regulatory burden on qualified facilities and qualified oilfilled operational equipment. Qualified facilities would no longer need a licensed Professional Engineer to certify their Plans. Facilities that store oil solely in onboard motive power containers would no longer be regulated, while other facilities with oil storage in addition to onboard motive power containers may incur lower compliance costs. Today's proposal would also allow greater use of contingency plans without requiring an impracticability determination as an alternative to secondary containment for certain oil filled operational equipment. It would also allow airport refueler trucks to fall under a facility's general secondary containment requirements rather than require sized secondary containment. We have therefore concluded that today's proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

Overall, EPA estimates that today's proposal would reduce annual compliance costs by [ INSERT NUMBER]. Small facilities, in particular, would benefit. For example, EPA estimates that the proposed rule would lower compliance costs for [ INSERT NUMBER] facilities with less than 10,000 gallons of oil storage capacity. 91 After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4,

establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed,

section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 92 Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Today's proposed rule would reduce burden and costs on qualified facilities and qualified oil filled operational equipment by approximately [ INSERT NUMBER] per year.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As explained above, the effect of the proposed rule would be to reduce burden and costs for qualified regulated facilities, including certain small governments that are subject to the rule.

E. Executive Order 13132 Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications."

" Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 93 government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Under CWA section 311( o), States may impose additional requirements, including more stringent requirements, relating to the prevention of oil discharges to navigable waters. EPA encourages States to supplement the Federal SPCC program and recognizes that some States have more stringent requirements.

56 FR 54612 ( October 22, 1991). This proposed rule would not preempt State law or regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249)

entitled, " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments." Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001, and revokes Executive Order 13084 ( Tribal Consultation) as of that date.

Today's proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect communities of Indian tribal governments. Therefore, 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 94 environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5 501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211 Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,

or Use This proposed rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211,

" Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent 95 with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards such as materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, NTTAA does not apply. 96 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112 Airports, Animal fats and vegetable oils, Environmental protection, Farms, Fire prevention,

Flammable materials, Materials handling and storage, Oil pollution, Oil spill response,

Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tanks, Water pollution control, Water resources.

Dated: ____________________________

____________________________

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 112 as follows:

PART 112  OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION 1. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U. S. C. 2720; and E. O. 12777 ( October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

Subpart A [ Amended] 97 2. Amend § 112.1 by revising paragraph ( d)( 2)( ii) and adding paragraph ( d)( 7) to read as follows:

§ 112.1 General applicability.

* * * * *

( d) * * *

( 2) * * *

( ii) The aggregate aboveground storage capacity of the facility is 1,320 gallons or less of oil. For the purposes of this exemption, only containers with a capacity of 55 gallons or greater are counted. The aggregate aboveground storage capacity of a facility excludes the capacity of a container that is " permanently closed, " or a " motive power container" as defined in § 112.2.

* * * * *

( 7) Any " motive power container," as defined in § 112.2. The transfer of fuel or other oil into a motive power container at an otherwise regulated facility is not subject to this exemption.

* * * * *

3. Amend § 112.2 by adding definitions for " Airport mobile refueler", " Farm", " Motive power container", and " Oil filled operational equipment" in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 112.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Airport mobile refueler means a vehicle with an on board bulk storage container designed,

or used to store and transport fuel for transfer into or from aircraft or ground service equipment.

* * * * * 98 Farm means a tract of land devoted to the production of crops or raising of animals,

including fish, which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $ 1,000 or more of agricultural products during a year.

* * * * *

Motive power container means any on board bulk oil storage containers used solely to power the movement of a motor vehicle, or ancillary on board oil filled operational equipment used solely to facilitate its operation. An on board bulk storage container which is used to store or transfer oil for further distribution is not a motive power container. The definition of motive power equipment does not include oil drilling or workover equipment.

* * * * *

Oil filled operational equipment means equipment which includes an oil storage container ( or multiple containers) in which the oil is present solely to support the function of the apparatus or the device. Oil filled operational equipment is not considered a bulk storage container, and does not include manufacturing flow through process equipment.

* * * * *

4. Amend § 112.3 by revising paragraphs ( a) , ( b), ( d) introductory text, and adding paragraph ( g) to read as follows:

§ 112.3 Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan.

* * * * *

( a)( 1) If your onshore or offshore facility was in operation on or before August 16, 2002,

you must maintain your Plan, amend it if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, and implement the amended Plan no later than August 18, 2006. If your onshore or offshore facility becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through August 18, 2006, and could 99 reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in § 112.1( b), you must prepare and implement a Plan on or before August 18, 2006.

( 2) If your farm has a total oil storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less, the compliance dates described in paragraph ( a)( 1) of this section are delayed indefinitely. The Agency will announce the new compliance date in the Federal Register.

( b)( 1) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility that becomes operational after August 18, 2006, and could reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in § 112.1( b), you must prepare and implement a Plan before you begin operations.

( 2) If your farm has a total oil storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or less, the compliance dates described in paragraph ( b) ( 1) of this section are delayed indefinitely. The Agency will announce the new compliance date in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

( d) Except as provided in paragraph ( g) of this section, a licensed Professional Engineer must review and certify a Plan for it to be effective to satisfy the requirements of this part.

* * * * *

( g) Qualified Facilities. The owner or operator of a facility which meets the qualification criteria in paragraph ( g)( 1) of this section may choose to self certify the facility's SPCC Plan and any technical amendments to the Plan in lieu of certification by a licensed Professional Engineer.

( 1) Qualification Criteria. A facility is qualified for owner or operator self certification of its SPCC Plan if it meets the following criteria:

( i) The aggregate aboveground storage capacity of the facility, as determined according to § 112.1, is 10,000 gallons or less; and ( ii) The facility either: 100 ( A) has been in operation for at least ten years immediately prior to the date of selfcertification and in the ten year period immediately prior to self certification had no discharges as described in § 112.1( b); or ( B) is beginning operations or has been in operation for fewer than ten years without any discharges of oil as described in § 112.1( b).

( 2) Self Certification. If you are the owner or operator of a qualified facility and you choose to self certify your Plan or technical amendments to your Plan, you must certify in the Plan that:

( i) You are familiar with the requirements of this part;

( ii) You or your agent have visited and examined the facility;

( iii) The Plan has been prepared in accordance with accepted and sound industry practices and standards, and with the requirements of this part;

( iv) Procedures for required inspections and testing have been established;

( v) The Plan is being fully implemented;

( vi) The facility meets the qualification criteria set forth under § 112.3( g)( 1);

( vii) The Plan does not utilize the environmental equivalence and impracticability provisions under § § 112.7( a)( 2) and 112.7( d), except as described in paragraph ( g)( 3) of this section; and ( viii) The Plan and individual( s) responsible for implementing the Plan have the full approval of management and the facility has committed the necessary resources to fully implement the Plan.

( 3) Self Certified Plan Exceptions. Except as provided in this subparagraph, a selfcertified SPCC Plan must comply with § 112.7 and the applicable requirements in subparts B and C of this part:

( i) Environmental Equivalence. The Plan may not include alternate methods to the applicable requirements listed in § 112.7( a)( 2) in order to achieve equivalent environmental protection. 101 ( ii) Impracticability. The Plan may not include any impracticability determinations as described under § 112.7( d) .

( iii) Security ( excluding oil production facilities). The owner or operator must choose to either:

( A) Comply with the requirements under § 112.7( g) ; or ( B) Prepare a security plan that describes how the facility controls access to the oil handling, processing and storage areas; secures master flow and drain valves; prevents unauthorized access to starter controls on oil pumps; secures out of service and loading/ unloading connections of oil pipelines; addresses the appropriateness of security lighting to both prevent acts of vandalism and assist in the discovery of oil discharges during hours of darkness.

( iv) Bulk Storage Container Inspections. In lieu of the requirements in § § 112.8( c)( 6) and 112.12( c)( 6), an owner/ operator must test/ inspect each aboveground container for integrity on a regular schedule and whenever material repairs are made. The owner or operator must determine, in accordance with industry standards, the appropriate inspector/ testing personnel qualifications, the frequency and type of testing/ inspections which take into account container size, configuration, and design ( such as containers that are: equipped with a floating roof,

shop built, field erected, skid mounted, elevated, equipped with a liner, double walled, or partially buried). Examples of these integrity tests include, but are not limited to: visual inspection, hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions testing, or other systems of non destructive testing. You must keep comparison records and you must also inspect the container's supports and foundations. In addition, you must frequently inspect the outside of the container for signs of deterioration, discharges, or accumulation of oil inside diked areas. Records of inspections and tests kept under usual and customary business practices satisfy the recordkeeping requirements of this paragraph. 102 5. Amend § 112.5 by revising paragraph ( c) to read as follows:

§ 112.5 Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan by owners or operators.

* * * * *

( c) Except as provided in § 112.3( g), have a Professional Engineer certify any technical amendments to your Plan in accordance with § 112.3( d).

6. Amend § 112.7 by revising paragraphs ( a)( 2), ( c) introductory text and ( d) introductory text, and adding paragraph ( k) to read as follows:

§ 112.7 General requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans.

* * * * *

( a) * * *

( 2) Comply with all applicable requirements listed in this part. Except as provided in § 112.3( g), your Plan may deviate from the requirements in paragraphs ( g), ( h)( 2) and ( 3), and ( i) of this section and the requirements in subparts B and C of this part, except the secondary containment requirements in paragraphs ( c) and ( h)( 1) of this section, and § § 112.8( c)( 2),

112.8( c)( 11), 112.9( c)( 2), 112.10( c), 112.12( c)( 2), and 112.12( c)( 11), where applicable to a specific facility, if you provide equivalent environmental protection by some other means of spill prevention, control, or countermeasure. Where your Plan does not conform to the applicable requirements in paragraphs ( g), ( h)( 2) and ( 3), and ( i) of this section, or the requirements of subparts B and C of this part, except the secondary containment requirements in paragraph ( c)

and ( h)( 1) of this section, and § § 112.8( c)( 2), 112.8( c)( 11), 112.9( c)( 2), 112.10( c), 112.12( c)( 2),

and 112.12( c)( 11), you must state the reasons for nonconformance in your Plan and describe in detail alternate methods and how you will achieve equivalent environmental protection. If the Regional Administrator determines that the measures described in your Plan do not 103 provide equivalent environmental protection, he may require that you amend your Plan,

following the procedures in § 112.4( d) and ( e).

* * * * *

( c) Provide appropriate containment and/ or diversionary structures or equipment to prevent a discharge as described in § 112.1( b), except as provided in paragraph ( k) of this section for qualified oil filled operational equipment. The entire containment system, including walls and floor, must be capable of containing oil and must be constructed so that any discharge from a primary containment system, such as a tank or pipe, will not escape the containment system before cleanup occurs. At a minimum, you must use one of the following prevention systems or its equivalent:

* * * * *

( d) Provided your Plan is certified by a licensed Professional Engineer under § 112.3( d), if you determine that the installation of any of the structures or pieces of equipment listed in paragraphs ( c) and ( h)( 1) of this section, and § § 112.8( c)( 2), 112.8( c)( 11), 112.9( c)( 2),

112.10( c), 112.12( c)( 2) and 112.12( c)( 11) to prevent a discharge as described in § 112.1( b)

from any onshore or offshore facility is not practicable, you must clearly explain in your Plan why such measures are not practicable; for bulk storage containers, conduct both periodic integrity testing of the containers and periodic integrity and leak testing of the valves and piping; and, unless you have submitted a response plan under § 112.20, provide in your Plan the following:

* * * * *

( k) The requirements of paragraph ( c) of this section do not apply to any oil filled operational equipment with an individual oil storage capacity of 1,320 gallons or less if:

( 1) The facility where the oil filled operational equipment is located either: 104 ( i) Has been in operation for at least ten years immediately prior to the date of Plan certification and in the ten year period immediately prior to the Plan certification date had no discharges of oil from oil filled operational equipment as described in § 112.1( b), or ( ii) Is beginning operations or has been in operation for fewer than ten years without any discharges of oil from oil filled operational equipment as described in § 112.1( b);

( 2) The owner or operator has established and documented the facility procedures for inspections or a monitoring program to detect equipment failure and/ or a discharge; and ( 3) The owner or operator has either submitted a response plan under § 112.20, or the facility Plan provides an oil spill contingency plan following the provisions of part 109 of this chapter and a written commitment of resources as described in paragraphs ( d)( 1) and ( d)( 2) of this section.

Subpart B  [ Amended]

7. Amend § 112.8 by revising paragraphs ( c)( 2) and ( c)( 11) to read as follows:

§ 112.8 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan requirements for onshore facilities ( excluding production facilities).

* * * * *

( c) * * *

( 2) Construct all bulk storage tank installations ( except airport mobile refuelers) so that you provide a secondary means of containment for the entire capacity of the largest single container and sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation. You must ensure that diked areas are sufficiently impervious to contain discharged oil. Dikes, containment curbs, and pits are commonly employed for this purpose. You may also use an alternative system consisting of a drainage trench enclosure that must be arranged so that any discharge will terminate and be safely confined in a facility catchment basin or holding pond. 105 * * * * *

( 11) Position or locate mobile or portable oil storage containers to prevent a discharge as described in § 112.1( b). Except in the cases of airport mobile refuelers, you must furnish a secondary means of containment, such as a dike or catchment basin, sufficient to contain the capacity of the largest single compartment or container with sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation.

* * * * *

Subpart C  [ Amended]

8. Amend § 112.12 by revising the section heading to read as follows:

§ 112.12 Specific Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan requirements.

* * * * *

§ 112.13 [ Removed and Reserved]

9. Remove and reserve § 112.13 to read as follows:

§ 112.14 [ Removed and Reserved]

10. Remove and reserve § 112.14 to read as follows:

§ 112.15 [ Removed and Reserved]

11. Remove and reserve § 112.15 to read as follows:


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15296-15297]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0559]

Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual
San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1, will
be enforced from 11 a.m. on May 26, 2017 to 1 a.m. on May 27, 2017, or
as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Christina Ramirez, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot
safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and
arrival of the fireworks barge from the loading location to the display
location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 11 a.m. on
May 26, 2017 until 5 p.m. on May 26, 2017, the fireworks barge will be
loading pyrotechnics from Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks
barge will remain at the loading location until its transit to the
display location. From 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 26, 2017, the loaded
fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier
48 in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N., 122[deg]22'56'' W. (NAD
83) where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.
Upon the commencement of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to
begin at the conclusion of the baseball game, at approximately 10 p.m.
on May 26, 2017, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass
the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a
radius 700 feet near Pier 48 in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N.,
122[deg]22'56'' W. (NAD 83) for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks in
33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1. This safety zone will be in
effect from 11 a.m. on May 26, 2017 until 1 a.m. on May 27, 2017, or as
announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless

authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who
receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official
patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the
Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that
the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in
this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant
general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: March 9, 2017.
Anthony J. Ceraolo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port of San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2017-06082 Filed 3-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61655-61657]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-22]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1006; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-057-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-28-161
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-28-161 airplanes equipped with
Thielert Aircraft Engine GmbH (TAE) Engine Model TAE-125-01 installed
per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) No. SA03303AT. This proposed AD
would require installing a full authority digital engine control
(FADEC) backup battery, replacing the supplement pilot's operating
handbook and FAA approved airplane flight manual, and revising the
limitations section of the supplement airplane maintenance manual. This
proposed AD results from an incident where an airplane experienced an
in-flight engine shutdown caused by a momentary loss of electrical
power to the FADEC. We are proposing this AD to prevent interruption of
electrical power to the FADEC, which could result in an uncommanded
engine shutdown. This failure could lead to a loss of engine power.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 22,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines Service GmbH, Platanenstra[szlig]e 14, 09350
Lichtenstein, Deutschland; telephone: +49 (37204) 696-0; fax: +49
(37204) 696-1910; Internet: http://www.thielert.com/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don O. Young, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, ``FAA-
2010-1006; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-057-AD'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information you provide. We will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive concerning this
proposed AD.

Discussion

    In 2007, a Diamond DA42 airplane experienced a dual in-flight
engine shutdown. Our review of the incident determined the root cause
was an unsafe design feature that allowed momentary interruption of
electrical power to both engine FADECs. The interruption caused the
FADECs to reset, shutting down both engines with a consequent loss of
engine power. Piper Model PA-28-161 airplanes modified by STC No.
SA03303AT have a similar unsafe design feature that can allow the FADEC
to shut down or reset if the main battery is depleted and the
electrical charging system malfunctions.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in an uncommanded
engine shutdown. This failure could lead to a loss of engine power.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH Service Bulletin TM
TAE 651-0007, Revision 7, dated July 30, 2010.
    The service information describes procedures for installation of a
FADEC backup battery.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD
would require installation of a FADEC backup battery, replacement of
the supplement pilot's operating handbook and FAA approved airplane
flight manual, and revision of the limitations section of the
supplement airplane maintenance manual.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect zero airplanes in
the U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the proposed modification:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                Parts cost        Total cost per airplane      Total cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $780   $1,375........................  Not applicable.
 $595.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-1006; Directorate
Identifier 2009-CE-057-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by November 22, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model PA-28-161 airplanes, all serial
numbers, that are:
    (1) Equipped with Thielert Aircraft Engine GmbH (TAE) Engine
Model TAE-125-01 installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
No. SA03303AT; and
    (2) Certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 72: Engine.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from an incident where an airplane
experienced an in-flight engine shutdown caused by a momentary loss
of electrical power to the FADEC. We are issuing this AD to prevent
interruption of electrical power to the FADEC, which could result in
an uncommanded engine shutdown. This failure could lead to a loss of
engine power.

Compliance

    (f) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Modify the engine electrical      Within the next 100 hours time-in-    Follow Thielert Aircraft Engines
 system by installing a backup         service after the effective date of   GmbH Service Bulletin TM TAE 651-
 battery system and associated         this AD or within 30 days after the   0007, Revision 7, dated July 30,
 wiring and circuitry.                 effective date of this AD,            2010.
                                       whichever occurs first.
(2) Revise the airworthiness          Before further flight after doing     Incorporate Chapter 40-AMM-04-01
 limitations section to require        the modification required in          ``Airworthiness Limitations,
 repetitive replacement of the FADEC   paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.          Revision 1'', dated January 25,
 backup battery every 12 calendar                                            2010, of Thielert Aircraft Engines
 months. Thereafter, except as                                               GmbH Supplement Airplane
 provided in paragraph (g) of this                                           Maintenance Manual Piper PA28-161
 AD, no alternative replacement                                              TAE 125-01, Doc. No.: AMM-40-01 US-
 times may be approved for this                                              Version) Version: 1/1, into TAE
 part.                                                                       Airplane Maintenance Manual
                                                                             Supplement, Piper PA28/TAE 125-01,
                                                                             AMM-40-01 (US-Version), Rev. Issue
                                                                             1, dated February 3, 2006.
(3) Incorporate Thielert Aircraft     Before further flight after doing     Not applicable.
 Engines GmbH Supplement Pilot's       the modification required in
 Operating Handbook and FAA Approved   paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
 Airplane Flight Manual, TAE-No.: 40-
 0310-40042, issue 2, revision 0,
 dated June 1, 2010, into the
 pilot's operating handbook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Don O. Young, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 474-
5585; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Related Information

    (h) To get copies of the service information referenced in this
AD, contact Thielert Aircraft Engines Service GmbH,
Platanenstra[szlig]e 14, 09350 Lichtenstein, Deutschland; telephone:
+49 (37204) 696-0; fax: +49 (37204) 696-1910; Internet: http://
www.thielert.com/. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 30, 2010.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-25208 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P