Notices. Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Working Group Activities

5,922 words·~27 min read·/register/2005/12/12/05-23916

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA-2000-7257; Notice No. 35] Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC); Working Group Activity Update AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

(RSAC)Working Group Activities. SUMMARY: The FRA is updating its announcement of RSAC's Working Group activities to reflect its current status. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Butera or Lydia Leeds, RSAC Coordinator, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,

(202)493-6212/6213 or Grady Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,

(202)493-6302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice serves to update FRA's last announcement of working group activities and status reports of April 12, 2005, (70 FR 19145). The 27th full Committee meeting was held October 11, 2005. Since its first meeting in April of 1996, the RSAC has accepted twenty tasks. Status for each of the tasks is provided below: Open Tasks *Task 96-4* —Reviewing the appropriateness of the agency's current policy regarding the applicability of existing and proposed regulations to tourist, excursion, scenic, and historic railroads. This Task was accepted on April 2, 1996, and a Working Group was established. The Working Group monitored the steam locomotive regulation task. Planned future activities involve the review of other regulations for possible adaptation to the safety needs of tourist and historic railroads. Contact: Grady Cothen,

(202)493-6302. *Task 97-1* —Developing crashworthiness specifications to promote the integrity of the locomotive cab in accidents resulting from collisions. This Task was accepted on June 24, 1997. On April 14, 2004, the RSAC reached consensus on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM is a new standard to increase the crashworthiness of conventional wide- and narrow-nose locomotives and codifies requirements for monocoque locomotives. On November 2, 2004, FRA published an NPRM in the **Federal Register** (69 FR 63990) proposing to establish comprehensive, minimum standards for locomotive crashworthiness. In that NPRM, FRA established a January 3, 2005, deadline for submission of written comments. FRA received a request to extend the comment period to give interested parties additional time to review, analyze, and submit comments on the NPRM. After considering the request, FRA extended the comment period until February 3, 2005. The Working Group met to review the public comments on June 27-28, 2005, and reached consensus on July 1, 2005. The Working Group's recommendations were adopted by the full Committee, by mail ballot, on August 5, 2005. The final rule is in review and clearance. Contact: Charles Bielitz,

(202)493-6314 or John Punwani

(202)493-6369. *Task 97-2* —Evaluating the extent to which environmental, sanitary, and other working conditions in locomotive cabs affect the crew's health and the safe operation of locomotives, proposing standards where appropriate. This Task was accepted June 24, 1997. (Sanitation) (Completed) (Noise exposure) On June 27, 2003, the full RSAC gave consensus by ballot on the NPRM. The NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on June 23, 2004. The comment period ended September 21, 2004. Task Force and Working Group meetings were held March 1, and March 2 and 3, 2005, respectively, to review the public comments and recommend a final rule. The Working Group reached agreement on all issues, and its report was presented to the full Committee on May 18, 2005. FRA is preparing the final rule, which will then undergo review and clearance within the Executive Branch. (Cab Temperature) (Completed) Note: Additional related topics such as vibration may be considered by the Working Group in the future. Contact: Jeffrey Horn,

(202)493-6283. *Task 97-4* and *Task 97-5* —Defining Positive Train Control

(PTC)functionalities, describing available technologies, evaluating costs and benefits of potential systems, and considering implementation opportunities and challenges, including demonstration and deployment. *Task 97-6* —Revising various regulations to address the safety implications of processor-based signal and train control technologies, including communications-based operating systems. These three Tasks were accepted on September 30, 1997, and assigned to a single Working Group. (Report to the Administrator) A Data and Implementation Task Force, formed to address issues such as assessment of costs and benefits and technical readiness, completed a report on the future of PTC systems. The report was accepted as RSAC's Report to the Administrator at the September 8, 1999, meeting. The FRA enclosed the report with a letter to Congress signed May 17, 2000. (Regulatory development) The Standards Task Force, formed to develop PTC standards, assisted in developing draft recommendations for performance-based standards for processor-based signal and train control systems. The NPRM was approved by consensus at the full RSAC meeting held on September 14, 2000. The NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 10, 2001. A meeting of the Working Group was held December 4-6, 2001, in San Antonio, Texas, to formulate recommendations for resolution of issues raised in the public comments. Agreement was reached on most issues raised in the comments. A meeting was held May 14-15, 2002, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, at which the Working Group approved creation of teams to further explore the “base case” issue. Briefing of the full RSAC on the “base case” issue was completed on May 29, 2002, and consultations continued within the working group. The full Working Group met October 22-23, 2002, and again March 4-6, 2003. Resolution of the remaining issues was considered by the Working Group at the July 8-9, 2003, meeting. The Working Group achieved consensus on recommendations for resolution of a portion of the issues in the proceeding. The full Committee considered the Working Group recommendations by mail ballots scheduled for return on August 14, 2003; however, a majority of the members voting did not concur. The final rule was published in the **Federal Register** on March 7, 2005, (70 FR 11051). The RSAC PTC Working Group met on July 14-15, 2005, to discuss implementation guidance and receive a task force report on roadway worker terminals. Contact: Grady Cothen,

(202)493-6302. *Task 03-01* —Passenger Safety. This Task was accepted on May 20, 2003, and a Working Group was established. Prior to embarking on substantive discussions of a specific task, the Working Group set forth in writing a specific description of the task. The Working Group will report any planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. At the first meeting held September 9-10, 2003, a consolidated list of issues was completed. At the second meeting held November 6-7, 2003, five task groups were established: Crashworthiness/glazing; emergency preparedness; mechanical-general issues; mechanical-safety appliances; and track/vehicle interaction. The task groups met and reported on activities for Working Group consideration at the third meeting held May 11-12, 2004, and a fourth meeting was held October 26-27, 2004. Initial recommendations on mechanical issues (revisions to 49 CFR part 238) were approved by the full Committee on January 26, 2005. At the Working Group meeting of March 9-10, 2005, the Working Group received and approved the consensus report of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force related to emergency egress and rescue access. These recommendations were presented to and approved by the full Committee on May 18, 2005. An NPRM is now under development. The Working Group met on September 7-8, 2005, and additional, supplementary recommendations were presented to and accepted by the full RSAC on October 11, 2005. Contact: Charles Bielitz,

(202)493-6314. *Task 05-01* —Review of Roadway Worker Protection issues. This Task was accepted on January 26, 2005, to review 49 CFR 214, subpart C, Roadway Worker Protection, and related sections of Subpart A; recommend consideration of specific actions to advance the on-track safety of railroad employees and contractors engaged in maintenance-of-way activities throughout the general system of railroad transportation, including clarification of existing requirements. A Working Group has been established and will report to the RSAC any specific actions identified as appropriate. The first meeting of the Working Group was held on April 12-14, 2005. The Working Group will report planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled Committee meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The Working Group met on June 22-24, 2005, August 8-11, 2005, September 20-22, 2005, and November 8-9, 2005. The next Working Group meeting is scheduled for January 10-11, 2006. Contact: Christopher Schulte,

(202)493-6251. *Task 05-02* —Reduce Human Factor-Caused Train Accident/Incidents. This Task was accepted on May 18, 2005, to reduce the number of human factor-caused train accidents/incidents and related employee injuries. A Working Group has been established. The Working Group will report any planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The Working Group met on July 12-13, 2005, August 31—September 1, 2005, September 28-29, 2005, October 25-26, 2005, November 16-17, 2005, and December 6-7, 2005. The Working Group is expected to submit initial recommendations in February of 2006. *Contact:* Douglas Taylor,

(202)493-6255. Completed Tasks *Task 96-1* —(Completed) Revising the Freight Power Brake Regulations. *Task 96-2* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR part 213). *Task 96-3* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the Radio Standards and Procedures (49 CFR part 220). *Task 96-5* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to Steam Locomotive Inspection Standards (49 CFR part 230). *Task 96-6* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to miscellaneous aspects of the regulations addressing Locomotive Engineer Certification (49 CFR part 240). *Task 96-7* —(Completed) Developing Roadway Maintenance Machines (On-Track Equipment) Safety Standards. *Task 96-8* —(Completed) This Planning Task evaluated the need for action responsive to recommendations contained in a report to Congress entitled, *Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working Conditions.* *Task 97-3* —(Completed) Developing event recorder data survivability standards. *Task 97-7* —(Completed) Determining damages qualifying an event as a reportable train accident. *Task 00-1* —(Completed—task withdrawn) Determining the need to amend regulations protecting persons who work on, under, or between rolling equipment and persons applying, removing or inspecting rear end marking devices (Blue Signal Protection). *Task 01-1* —(Completed) Developing conformity of FRA's regulations for accident/incident reporting (49 CFR part 225) to revised regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Labor, and to make appropriate revisions to the *FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports* (Reporting Guide). Please refer to the notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 1996, (61 FR 9740) for more information about the RSAC. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2005. Michael Logue, Deputy Associate Administrator, for Safety Compliance and Program Implementation. [FR Doc. E5-7200 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 5, 2005. The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 11, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Departmental Office

(DO)*OMB Number:* 1505-0080. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Post-Contract Award Information. *Description:* Information requested of contractors is specific to each contract and is required for Treasury to properly evaluate the progress made and/or management controls used by contractors providing supplies or services to the Government, and to determine contractors' compliance with the contracts, in order to protest the Government's interest. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 47,796 hours. *OMB Number:* 1505-0081. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Solicitation of Proposal Information for Award of Public Contracts. *Description:* Information requested of offerors is specific to each procurement solicitation and is requested for Treasury to properly evaluate the capabilities and experience of potential contractors who desire to provide the supplies or services to be acquired. Evaluation will be used to determine which proposals most benefit the Government. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 410,988 hours. *OMB Number:* 1505-0107. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Title:* Regulation Agency Protests. *Description:* Information is requested of contractors so that the Government will be able to evaluate protests effectively and provide prompt resolution of issues in dispute when contractors file protests. *Respondents:* Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 46 hours. *Clearance Officer:* Jean Carter,

(202)622-6760, Department of Treasury, Office of the Procurement Executive, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. *OMB Reviewer:* Alexander T. Hunt,

(202)395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Michael A. Robinson, Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E5-7198 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-25-P 70 237 Monday, December 12, 2005 Corrections !!!Lois Davis!!! DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Logistics Agency Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records Correction In notice document 05-23127 beginning on page 70795 in the issue of Wednesday, November 23, 2005, make the following correction: On page 70795, in the third column, under the signature block, insert the system identifying number **“S500.55”** , above **SYSTEM NAME** . [FR Doc. C5-23127 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D 70 237 Monday, December 12, 2005 Proposed Rules Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 112 Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore Facilities; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 112 [EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003; FRL-8007-1] RIN 2050-AG28 Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore Facilities AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to extend the dates by which facilities must prepare or amend Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC Plans), and implement those Plans. This action would allow the Agency time to promulgate revisions to the July 17, 2002 final SPCC rule before owners and operators are required to meet requirements of that rule related to preparing or amending, and implementing SPCC Plans. The proposed revisions to the 2002 final SPCC rule are published elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** . DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003, by one of the following methods: • *Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* The mailing address of the docket for this rulemaking is EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. • *Hand Delivery:* Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through *http://www.regulations.gov* . The *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of the comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. *Docket:* All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov index.* Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure 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 B102, 1303 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 for 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 proposed rule, contact either Vanessa Rodriguez at

(202)564-7913 ( *rodriguez.vanessa@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 amended on January 9, 2003 ( *see* 68 FR 1348), again on April 17, 2003 ( *see* 68 FR 18890) and a third time on August 11, 2004 ( *see* 69 FR 48794). Under the current provisions in § 112.3(a) and (b), a facility that was in operation on or before August 16, 2002 must make any necessary amendments to its SPCC Plan by February 17, 2006, and fully implement its SPCC Plan by August 18, 2006; a facility that came into operation after August 16, 2002 but before August 18, 2006, must prepare and fully implement an SPCC Plan on or before August 18, 2006. Thus, for facilities in operation on or before August 16, 2002, the regulations provide a six-month period between the compliance date for Plan amendment and the compliance date for Plan implementation. In addition, § 112.3(c) requires onshore and offshore mobile facilities to prepare or amend and implement SPCC Plans on or before August 18, 2006. III. Proposal To Extend the Compliance Dates This proposed rule would extend the dates in § 112.3(a) and

(b)by which a facility must prepare or amend and implement its SPCC Plan. As a result of this proposed rule, a facility that was in operation on or before August 16, 2002 would have to make any necessary amendments to its SPCC Plan, and implement that Plan, on or before October 31, 2007. In addition, a facility that came into operation after August 16, 2002 would have to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan on or before October 31, 2007. This proposed rule would similarly extend the compliance dates in § 112.3(c) for mobile facilities. Under this proposal, a mobile facility must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan on or before October 31, 2007. The Agency believes the extension of the compliance dates proposed in this notice are warranted for several reasons. The Agency is proposing revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule elsewhere in today's **Federal Register** . Those revisions would provide significant regulatory relief to some facilities and to some types of oil-filled equipment. The Agency believes that the regulatory relief proposed in that **Federal Register** notice is important to ensure that the SPCC regulation remains protective of human health and the environment but, at the same time, is not overly burdensome to the regulated community. Since the Agency will not have time to promulgate the proposed regulatory relief before the current compliance dates for SPCC Plan preparation, amendment, and implementation, the Agency believes it is appropriate to extend those dates. This approach would allow facilities opportunity to make changes to their facilities and to their SPCC Plans necessary to comply with revised, less burdensome requirements, rather than with the existing requirements. Further, the Agency believes that this proposed extension of the compliance dates would provide facilities time necessary to fully understand the regulatory relief offered by revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule. This would allow facilities to take full advantage of any regulatory revisions the Agency might promulgate. Regarding modifications of the SPCC regulations, to the extent practicable, EPA will establish deadlines for compliance implementation that commence one year after promulgating the regulatory revisions. In addition, the Agency has issued the “SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors,” which is intended to assist regional inspectors in reviewing a facility's implementation of the SPCC rule. The 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 performance-based SPCC requirements, and to provide a consistent national policy on several SPCC-related issues. The guidance also 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 proposed extension would provide the regulated community opportunity to understand the material presented in that guidance before preparing or amending their SPCC Plans. Finally, the Agency is concerned that the effects of the recent hurricanes on many industry sectors might adversely impact their ability to meet the upcoming compliance dates if no extension is provided. It is important to note that we considered whether to maintain the six month interim period between the compliance dates for Plan amendment and implementation or to combine the two dates in order to allow an additional six months for Plan amendment. Since facilities are not required to submit SPCC Plans to the Agency at the time of Plan amendment, the Agency is proposing to combine the compliance dates for Plan amendment and implementation so that they both coincide on October 31, 2007 in order to allow facilities an additional six months to amend SPCC Plans in accordance with the requirements under §§ 112.3(a) through (c). The Agency is seeking comment on this proposal to have one date by which SPCC Plans must be amended and implemented in accordance with the 2002 amendments to the SPCC Rule, and on the extension of these dates to October 31, 2007 for all facilities. Any alternative approaches presented must include appropriate rationale and supporting data in order for the Agency to be able to consider them for final action. IV. 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 not a “significant regulatory action” because it 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 proposed elsewhere in this **Federal Register** notice (see discussion above in section III), which is a significant action under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this action was nonetheless 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. 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 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 relieve the regulatory burden for small entities by extending the compliance dates in § 112.3. 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 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. This proposed rule would reduce burden and costs for all facilities. EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As was explained above, the effect of the proposed rule would be to reduce burden and costs for 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 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 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 regulation 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, the Agency has not consulted with a representative organization of tribal groups. G. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risk Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1)Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866; and

(2)concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 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 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112 Environmental protection, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: December 2, 2005. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 CFR, chapter I, part 112 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 112—OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION 1. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 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), (b), and

(c)to read as follows: § 112.3 Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan.

(a)If your onshore or offshore facility was in operation on or before August 16, 2002, you must maintain your Plan, but must amend it, if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, by October 31, 2007, and implement the Plan no later than October 31, 2007. If your onshore or offshore facility becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through October 31, 2007, 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 October 31, 2007.

(b)If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility that becomes operational after October 31, 2007, 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 October 31, 2007. If your onshore or offshore mobile facility becomes operational after October 31, 2007, 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 is in a fixed (non-transportation) operating mode. [FR Doc. 05-23916 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 12

Traces to 12 documents

U.S. Code