Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27443 

before the performance test deadline 

unless the initial force majeure or a 

subsequent force majeure event delays 

the notice, and in such cases, the 

notification shall occur as soon as 

practicable. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event 

and a rationale for attributing the delay 

in testing beyond the regulatory 

deadline to the force majeure; describe 

the measures taken or to be taken to 

minimize the delay; and identify a date 

by which the owner or operator 

proposes to conduct the performance 

test. The performance test shall be 

conducted as soon as practicable after 

the force majeure occurs. 

(5) The decision as to whether or not 

to grant an extension to the performance 

test deadline is solely within the 

discretion of the Administrator. The 

Administrator will notify the owner or 

operator in writing of approval or 

disapproval of the request for an 

extension as soon as practicable. 

(6) Until an extension of the 

performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator under 

paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of 

this section, the owner or operator of the 

affected facility remains strictly subject 

to the requirements of this part. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 8. Section 63.2 is amended by adding, 

in alphabetical order, a definition for 

‘‘Force majeure’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Force majeure means, for purposes of 

§ 63.7, an event that will be or has been 

caused by circumstances beyond the 

control of the affected facility, its 

contractors, or any entity controlled by 

the affected facility that prevents the 

owner or operator from complying with 

the regulatory requirement to conduct 

performance tests within the specified 

timeframe despite the affected facility’s 

best efforts to fulfill the obligation. 

Examples of such events are acts of 

nature, acts of war or terrorism, or 

equipment failure or safety hazard 

beyond the control of the affected 

facility. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 63.7 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text and 

(a)(2)(ix) and by adding paragraph (a)(4) 

to read as follows: 

§ 63.7 Performance testing requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, if required to do 

performance testing by a relevant 

standard, and unless a waiver of 

performance testing is obtained under 

this section or the conditions of 

paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section 

apply, the owner or operator of the 

affected source must perform such tests 

within 180 days of the compliance date 

for such source. 

* * * * * 

(ix) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section, when an emission 

standard promulgated under this part is 

more stringent than the standard 

proposed (see § 63.6(b)(3)), the owner or 

operator of a new or reconstructed 

source subject to that standard for 

which construction or reconstruction is 

commenced between the proposal and 

promulgation dates of the standard shall 

comply with performance testing 

requirements within 180 days after the 

standard’s effective date, or within 180 

days after startup of the source, 

whichever is later. If the promulgated 

standard is more stringent than the 

proposed standard, the owner or 

operator may choose to demonstrate 

compliance with either the proposed or 

the promulgated standard. If the owner 

or operator chooses to comply with the 

proposed standard initially, the owner 

or operator shall conduct a second 

performance test within 3 years and 180 

days after the effective date of the 

standard, or after startup of the source, 

whichever is later, to demonstrate 

compliance with the promulgated 

standard. 

* * * * * 

(4) If a force majeure is about to occur, 

occurs, or has occurred for which the 

affected owner or operator intends to 

assert a claim of force majeure: 

(i) The owner or operator shall notify 

the Administrator, in writing as soon as 

practicable following the date the owner 

or operator first knew, or through due 

diligence should have known that the 

event may cause or caused a delay in 

testing beyond the regulatory deadline 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of 

this section, or elsewhere in this part, 

but the notification must occur before 

the performance test deadline unless the 

initial force majeure or a subsequent 

force majeure event delays the notice, 

and in such cases, the notification shall 

occur as soon as practicable. 

(ii) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator a written 

description of the force majeure event 

and a rationale for attributing the delay 

in testing beyond the regulatory 

deadline to the force majeure; describe 

the measures taken or to be taken to 

minimize the delay; and identify a date 

by which the owner or operator 

proposes to conduct the performance 

test. The performance test shall be 

conducted as soon as practicable after 

the force majeure occurs. 

(iii) The decision as to whether or not 

to grant an extension to the performance 

test deadline is solely within the 

discretion of the Administrator. The 

Administrator will notify the owner or 

operator in writing of approval or 

disapproval of the request for an 

extension as soon as practicable. 

(iv) Until an extension of the 

performance test deadline has been 

approved by the Administrator under 

paragraphs (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii), and 

(a)(4)(iii) of this section, the owner or 

operator of the affected facility remains 

strictly subject to the requirements of 

this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 63.91 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g)(1)(i)(O) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.91 Criteria for straight delegation and 

criteria common to all approval options. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(O) Section 63.7(a)(4), Extension of 

Performance Test Deadline 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–9407 Filed 5–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 112 

[EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–00949; [FRL–8315–1] 

RIN 2050–AG36 

Oil Pollution Prevention; NonTransportation Related Onshore and 

Offshore Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is today extending the dates by 

which facilities must prepare or amend 

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and 

implement those Plans. This action 

allows the Agency time to promulgate 

further revisions to the SPCC rule before 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
27444 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1The compliance date for farms is the date that 

establishes SPCC requirements specifically for 

farms or otherwise establishes dates by which farms 

must comply with the provisions of the rule. 

owners and operators are required to 

prepare or amend, and implement their 

SPCC Plans. EPA expects to propose 

further revisions to the SPCC rule later 

this year. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is 

effective May 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this 

final rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OPA–2006–0949, contains the 

information related to this rulemaking, 

including the response to comment 

document. All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, e.g., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only 

in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number of the Public Reading Room is 

202–566–1744, and the telephone 

number to make an appointment to view 

the docket is 202–566–0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact the 

Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP and Oil 

Information Center at (800) 424–9346 or 

TDD (800) 553–7672 (hearing impaired). 

In the Washington, DC metropolitan 

area, call (703) 412–9810 or TDD (703) 

412–3323. For more detailed 

information on specific aspects of this 

rule, contact either Vanessa Rodriguez 

at (202) 564–7913 

(rodriguez.vannessa@epa.gov) or Mark 

W. Howard at (202) 564–1964 

(howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, 20460–0002, Mail 

Code 5104A. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority 

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; 

E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351. 

II. Background 

On July 17, 2002, the Agency 

published a final rule that amended the 

SPCC regulations (see 67 FR 47042). The 

rule became effective on August 16, 

2002. The final rule included 

compliance dates in § 112.3 for 

preparing amending, and implementing 

SPCC Plans. The original compliance 

dates were extended on January 9, 2003 

(see 68 FR 1348), again on April 17, 

2003 (see 68 FR 18890), a third time on 

August 11, 2004 (see 69 FR 48794), and 

a fourth time on February 17, 2006 (see 

71 FR 77266).1

Under the current provisions in 

§ 112.3(a)(1), the owner or operator of a 

facility (other than a farm) that was in 

operation on or before August 16, 2002 

must make any necessary amendments 

to its SPCC Plan and fully implement it 

by October 31, 2007, while the owner or 

operator of a facility (other than a farm) 

that came into operation after August 

16, 2002, but before October 31, 2007, 

must prepare and fully implement an 

SPCC Plan on or before October 31, 

2007. Under the current provision in 

§ 112.3(b)(1), the owner or operator of a 

facility (other than a farm) that becomes 

operational after October 31, 2007 must 

prepare and implement an SPCC Plan 

before beginning operations. In 

addition, § 112.3(c) requires onshore 

and offshore mobile facilities to prepare 

or amend and implement their SPCC 

Plans on or before October 31, 2007. 

On December 26, 2006, EPA finalized 

a set of SPCC rule amendments that 

address certain targeted areas of the 

SPCC requirements based on issues and 

concerns raised by the regulated 

community (71 FR 77266). As 

highlighted in the EPA Regulatory 

Agenda and the 2005 OMB report on 

‘‘Regulatory Reform of the U.S. 

Manufacturing Sector,’’ EPA is 

considering further amendments to 

address other areas where regulatory 

reform may be appropriate. For these 

additional areas, the Agency expects to 

issue a proposed rule later this year. 

Areas where regulatory reform may be 

appropriate include, but are not limited 

to, oil and natural gas exploration and 

production facilities, farms, and 

qualified facilities. Because the Agency 

was concerned that it would not be able 

to propose and promulgate such 

regulatory amendments before the 

current October 31, 2007 compliance 

date, EPA believed it appropriate to 

provide a further extension of the 

compliance date, and thus, proposed an 

extension to the compliance dates on 

December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77357). This 

notice finalizes that proposal. 

III. Extension of Compliance Dates 

This rule extends the dates in 

§ 112.3(a), (b), and (c) by which a 

facility must prepare or amend and 

implement its SPCC Plan. As a result of 

the revisions in § 112.3(a)(1), an owner 

or operator of a facility (other than a 

farm) that was in operation on or before 

August 16, 2002 must make any 

necessary amendments to his SPCC 

Plan, and implement that Plan, on or 

before July 1, 2009. This will allow the 

owner or operator time to prepare or 

amend and implement the SPCC Plan in 

accordance with the July 2002 (67 FR 

47042, July 17, 2002) and December 

2006 (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006) 

amendments, and any subsequent 

modifications to the SPCC requirements 

that are promulgated based on 

amendments that the EPA intends to 

propose later this year. EPA expects to 

promulgate such a final rule by the 

summer of 2008. The facility owner/ 

operator must continue to maintain his 

existing SPCC Plan until he amends and 

fully implements the Plan to comply 

with the revised requirements. 

Similarly, an owner or operator of a 

facility (other than a farm) that came 

into operation after August 16, 2002 

through July 1, 2009 must prepare and 

implement an SPCC Plan on or before 

July 1, 2009. 

Under the revised § 112.3(b)(1), the 

owner or operator of a facility regulated 

under the SPCC rule that becomes 

operational after July 1, 2009 must 

prepare and implement an SPCC Plan 

before beginning operations. 

This rule similarly extends the 

compliance dates in § 112.3(c) for 

mobile facilities. Under this rule, an 

owner or operator of a mobile facility 

must prepare or amend and implement 

an SPCC Plan on or before July 1, 2009, 

or before beginning operations if 

operations begin after July 1, 2009. 

The Agency believes that such an 

extension of the compliance dates is 

appropriate for several reasons. First, 

this extension will allow those 

potentially affected in the regulated 

community an opportunity to make 

changes to their facilities and to their 

SPCC Plans necessary to comply with 

any revised requirements promulgated 

based on the amendments expected to 

be proposed later this year, and 

finalized thereafter, rather than with the 

existing requirements. 

Further, the Agency believes that this 

extension of the compliance dates will 

also provide the owner or operator of a 

facility the time to fully understand the 

regulatory amendments offered by 

revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule 

promulgated on December 26, 2006 (71 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27445 

2As stated in the rule, a facility owner or operator 

must maintain its existing Plans. A facility owner 

or operator who wants to take advantage of the 2002 

and 2006 regulatory changes may do so, but he will 

need to modify his existing Plan accordingly. 

FR 77266) and amendments expected to 

be promulgated by the summer of 2008.2

In addition, the Agency intends to 

issue revisions to the SPCC Guidance 

for Regional Inspectors, to address both 

the December 2006 revisions and the 

revisions expected to be proposed later 

this year. The guidance document is 

designed to facilitate an understanding 

of the rule’s applicability, to help clarify 

the role of the inspector in the review 

and evaluation of the performancebased SPCC requirements, and to 

provide a consistent national policy on 

SPCC-related issues. The guidance is 

available to both the owners and 

operators of facilities that may be 

subject to the requirements of the SPCC 

rule and to the general public on the 

Agency’s Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/oilspill. The Agency 

believes that this extension will provide 

the regulated community the 

opportunity to take advantage of the 

material presented in the revised 

guidance before preparing or amending 

their SPCC Plans. 

IV. Response to Comments 

The Agency received 28 submissions 

on the proposed rule (71 FR 77357, 

December 26, 2006). The discussion 

below summarizes and responds to the 

major comments received. A more 

complete response to comments 

document can be found in the docket for 

this rulemaking, EPA–HQ–OPA–2006–

0949. 

The majority of commenters 

(nineteen) supported the proposed 

extension of the compliance date and 

generally agreed that the extension 

would allow the Agency time to 

promulgate further regulatory revisions. 

Many commenters also noted that the 

proposed extension would allow the 

industries potentially affected by those 

revisions an opportunity to make the 

necessary changes to their facilities and 

to their SPCC Plans to comply with the 

revised requirements expected to be 

proposed in 2007 and later finalized. 

A second group of commenters (nine) 

supported the proposed extension, but 

suggested alternate schedules, arguing 

that EPA’s proposed compliance date 

was premature given the Agency’s 

intent to propose further changes to the 

SPCC rule in 2007. Several schedules 

were suggested: 

• Tie the compliance dates to 

promulgation of the rule finalizing the 

amendments to be proposed in 2007 or, 

in the event that EPA decides not to go 

forward with further modifications to 

the rule, 12 months after publication of 

a notice in the Federal Register 

terminating that rulemaking. 

• Provide an extension of 18 months 

from the promulgation of the final 

amendments to the SPCC rule, thereby 

providing adequate time for a regulated 

facility to implement the amendments 

(i.e., review amendments, develop and/ 

or modify existing Plans, and comply 

with any final changes to the rule or 

guidance). 

• Set the date for preparing and 

amending the SPCC Plans to one year 

following publication of the final 

amendments, maintaining the six-month 

separation between the dates for 

amending and implementing Plans. 

• Set a Plan preparation compliance 

date of July 1, 2009, and an 

implementation compliance date of 

January 1, 2010, thereby allowing a 

facility owner or operator adequate time 

after Plan amendment to make changes 

at his facility, properly train employees 

on the amended Plan requirements, and 

allow for full implementation of the 

amended Plan requirements. 

The Agency disagrees with those 

commenters who suggested an alternate 

schedule to either set uncertain 

compliance dates in § 112.3 or to further 

extend the time period for the 

compliance dates. While the Agency 

recognizes that a regulated facility 

owner or operator needs adequate time 

after EPA takes final action on the 

proposed amendments to the SPCC Plan 

requirements to amend or prepare an 

SPCC Plan and to implement it, we also 

believe that one year is a reasonable 

period of time to allow for preparing, 

amending, and implementing an SPCC 

Plan following final Agency action on 

the proposed amendments to the SPCC 

rule. The Agency intends to develop 

and publish Federal Register notices 

proposing and then taking final action 

on further amendments to the SPCC 

regulatory requirements as soon as 

possible. At this time, based on the 

information at hand, the Agency 

believes that extending the compliance 

dates in § 112.3 until July 1, 2009 will 

allow owners and operators an adequate 

interval to comply with the SPCC rule. 

The Agency also disagrees with 

commenters who requested a revised 

date for implementing amended SPCC 

Plans to include a six-month period 

after the July 1, 2009 date for Plan 

amendment. For the reasons discussed 

above, the Agency believes that the July 

1, 2009 date for both Plan amendment 

and implementation is more than 

adequate. The effect of the Agency’s 

decision to eliminate the gap between 

Plan preparation or amendment and 

implementation was to provide 

additional time for the owner or 

operator to prepare or amend the SPCC 

Plan. The Agency believes that this 

approach, which allows an owner or 

operator flexibility in scheduling Plan 

development or amendment, makes 

sense given that an owner or operator is 

not required to submit his SPCC Plans 

to the Agency. It also simplifies the 

burden for an owner or operator of an 

SPCC facility by establishing a single 

compliance date, while providing 

additional time for Plan development. 

One commenter opposed a 

compliance date extension for this 

regulation, arguing that it was not 

effectively addressing the problems with 

the regulation, and that the best way to 

do this would be by completing a 

complete re-write of the rule. First, the 

Agency disagrees with the commenter 

that the SPCC regulation needs to be rewritten. Rather, the Agency believes that 

it is in the best interest of the regulated 

community to address areas of 

confusion that arose after promulgation 

of the 2002 amendments, and that 

promulgating a proposal intended to 

clarify and tailor requirements, 

particularly for small businesses, and 

making revisions to the SPCC Guidance 

for Regional Inspectors available to the 

regulated community will ultimately 

result in a more effective and complete 

implementation of the SPCC regulation 

and in enhanced environmental 

protection. The Agency also believes 

that the regulated community needs the 

additional time allowed by the 

extension in order to better take 

advantage of the guidance and any 

further amendments that are 

promulgated and that the benefits of this 

extension outweigh the concerns raised 

by the opposing commenter. 

Furthermore, a facility owner or 

operator subject to the SPCC rule 

continues to be required to ensure that 

operations are conducted in a manner 

that safeguards human health and the 

environment by preventing oil 

discharges to navigable waters and 

adjoining shorelines and by effectively 

responding in the event of an accidental 

discharge. 

V. Applicability to Farms 

In the December 2006 final rule 

amendments, EPA finalized an 

extension of the compliance dates for 

the owner or operator of a farm (71 FR 

77266), as defined in § 112.2, to prepare 

or amend and implement the farm’s 

SPCC Plan until the effective date of a 

rule that establishes SPCC requirements 

specifically for farms or otherwise 

establishes dates by which farms must 

comply with the provisions of the SPCC 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
27446 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

rule. The Agency has been conducting 

additional information collection and 

analyses to determine if differentiated 

SPCC requirements may be appropriate 

for farms. Specifically, the Agency has 

been working with the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, as well as the farming 

community, to collect data that would 

more accurately characterize oil storage 

and handling at these facilities. These 

efforts will allow the Agency to better 

focus on priorities where substantial 

environmental improvements can be 

obtained. The Agency will propose the 

new compliance dates for farms in a 

separate Federal Register notice. 

Today’s rule does not affect this 

extended compliance date for farms. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action has 

been determined to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ This final rule would 

extend the compliance dates in § 112.3, 

but would have no other substantive 

effect. However, because of its 

interconnection with the related SPCC 

rule amendments finalized on December 

26, 2006 (71 FR 77266) which was a 

significant action under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866, and because of 

the upcoming proposal to further amend 

the SPCC requirements, this action was 

submitted to OMB for review. 

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 

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. 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 oil 

exploration 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-forprofit enterprise that is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

the Agency concludes that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on the small entities 

subject to the rule. 

This rule would defer the regulatory 

burden for small entities by extending 

the compliance dates in § 112.3. After 

considering the economic impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives, and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective 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 a 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. EPA 

also has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. As was explained 

above, the effect of this action would be 

to reduce burden and costs for owners 

and operators of all 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. 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 government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Under CWA 

section 311(o), States may impose 

additional requirements, including more 

stringent requirements, relating to the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 27447 

prevention of oil discharges to navigable 

waters. EPA recognizes that some States 

have more stringent requirements (56 

FR 54612, (October 22, 1991). This rule 

would not preempt State law or 

regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Today’s rule 

would not significantly or uniquely 

affect communities of Indian Tribal 

governments. Thus Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and 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 my 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. 

This final rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not have reason to believe 

the environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

H. Executive Order 13211—Actions 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards, such as materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. The 

NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This rule does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, NTTAA does not 

apply. 

J. The 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 will submit 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. 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 May 16, 2007. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112 

Environmental protection, Oil 

pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 10, 2007 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 112 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 112—OIL POLLUTION 

PREVENTION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 112 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 

2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351 

■ 2. Section 112.3 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(2), and (c) 

to read as follows: 

Subpart A—Applicability, Definitions, 

and General Requirements for All 

Facilities and All Types of Oils 

§ 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, but most amend it, if 

necessary to ensure compliance with 

this part, and implement the Plan no 

later than July 1, 2009. If your onshore 

or offshore facility becomes operational 

after August 16, 2002, through July 1, 

2009, and could reasonably be expected 

to have a discharge as described in 

§ 112.1(b), you must prepare and 

implement a Plan on or before July 1, 

2009. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) If you are the owner or operator 

of an onshore or offshore facility that 

becomes operational after July 1, 2009, 

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. 

* * * * * 

(c) If you are the owner or operator of 

an onshore or offshore mobile facility, 

such as an onshore drilling or workover 

rig, barge mounted offshore drilling or 

workover rig, or portable fueling facility, 

you must prepare, implement, and 

maintain a facility Plan as required by 

this section. You must maintain your 

Plan, but must amend and implement it, 

if necessary to ensure compliance with 

this part, on or before July 1, 2009. If 

your onshore or offshore mobile facility 

becomes operational after July 1, 2009, 

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. This provision does not 

require that you prepare a new Plan 

each time you move the facility to a new 

site. The Plan may be a general Plan. 

When you move the mobile or portable 

facility, you must locate and install it 

using the discharge prevention practices 

outlined in the Plan for the facility. The 

Plan is applicable only while the facility 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
27448 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 16, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

is in a fixed (non-transportation) 

operating mode. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 07–2404 Filed 5–15–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0121; FRL–7713–1] 

Pythium Oligandrum DV 74; Exemption 

from the Requirement of a Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of Pythium 

oligandrum DV 74 on food crops. 

Biopreparaty Co. Ltd. submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as 

amended by the Food Quality Protection 

Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of 

Pythium oligandrum DV 74. 

DATES: This regulation is effective May 

16, 2007. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

July 16, 2007, and must be filed in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA-HQOPP-2005-EPA-0121. To access the 

electronic docket, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, select ‘‘Advanced 

Search,’’ then ‘‘Docket Search.’’ Insert 

the docket ID number where indicated 

and select the ‘‘Submit’’ button. Follow 

the instructions on the regulations.gov 

web site to view the docket index or 

access available documents. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the docket index available in 

regulations.gov. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov,or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, 

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg., 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket telephone number 

is (703) 305-5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tessa Milofsky, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 

(703) 308-0455; e-mail address: 

milofsky.tessa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions. If 

you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document? 

In addition to accessing an electronic 

copy of this Federal Register document 

through the electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, 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 

also access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s pilot e-CFR site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. 

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing 

Request? 

Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as 

amended by the FQPA, any person may 

file an objection to any aspect of this 

regulation and may also request a 

hearing on those objections. The EPA 

procedural regulations which govern the 

submission of objections and requests 

for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. 

You must file your objection or request 

a hearing on this regulation in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA-HQOPP-2005-EPA-0121 in the subject line 

on the first page of your submission. All 

requests must be in writing, and must be 

mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk 

on or before July 16, 2007. 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing that does not 

contain any CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket that is described in 

ADDRESSES. Information not marked 

confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 

may be disclosed publicly by EPA 

without prior notice. Submit your 

copies, identified by docket ID number 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-EPA-0121, by one of 

the following methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs 

(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460-0001. 

• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public 

Docket (7502P), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One 

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. 

Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 

4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays). Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Docket telephone number is (703) 305- 

5805. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of May 25, 

2005 (70 FR 30105) (FRL–7713–1). EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide tolerance petition (PP 4F6877) 

by Biopreparaty, Co. Ltd. Tylisovska I, 

Prague 6, Czech Republic. The petition 

requested that 40 CFR part 180 be 

amended by establishing an exemption 

from the requirement Pythium 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES