1

COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT 

Oil Pollution Prevention; SPCC Plan Requirements –

Compliance Date Amendments

40 CFR Part 112

November 4, 2011

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Emergency Management
2

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of This Document

The purpose of this document is to provide responses to comments on the 2011 direct 

final rule and its concurrent proposed rule (40 CFR part 112) to revise the Oil Pollution 

Prevention and Response rule, also known as the Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (40 CFR part 112), promulgated under the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) or Clean Water Act (CWA).

Organization of This Comment and Response Document

To develop this document, EPA reviewed the submissions made to public docket 

number EPA-HQ-OPA-2011-0838. EPA organized the submission comments based on 

the topics they addressed in the direct final rule (76 FR 64245) and its concurrent 

proposed rule (76 FR 64296), which were published in the Federal Register on October 

18, 2011. Comments submitted to the public docket for this rulemaking appear in their 

entirety at http://www.regulations.gov, identified by Docket number “EPA-HQ-OPA-2011-

0838.”

EPA organized the comments into two categories, the extension and the applicability of 

the extension, and responds to each in turn. Several comment excerpts or summary of 

comments are provided, in addition to responses for each major issue. The Docket 

Number of the submission is listed in parentheses in the Comments section for each 

category addressed. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) assigns

Document Numbers to each submission based on the order they are received. Because 

of the expedited nature of this action, the Agency did not consider comments submitted 

electronically after the close of the comment period or received via regular mail 

postmarked after the close of the comment period. 

Comment excerpts included in this document are taken verbatim from the submissions 

received by FDMS. Comments that make similar statements are grouped and one 

response is provided for the group. 

The following table lists comments FDMS received by the close of the comment period 

for docket EPA-HQ-OPA-2011-0838. The table also lists the name and the organization 

that submitted each comment; late comments are not included1.

FDMS ID First Name Last Name Organization

0013 Brette D. Smith Environmental Compliance Associates, LLC

0014 -------------- -------------- Anonymous (secondary containment provider)

0015 -------------- -------------- Anonymous (engineer with nation-wide firm)

0016 Doug Gray One Resource Environmental

I. Extension of Compliance Date by 18 Months

 

1 Document Numbers 0001-0012 are assigned to the Federal Register Notices for the direct final and 

proposed rules, and supporting documents, included in the docket prior to FDMS posting the first public 

comment.
3

Issue: EPA proposed to extend the SPCC rule compliance date by which farms must 

prepare or amend their SPCC Plans and implement those Plans by 18 months to May 

10, 2013.

COMMENTS

Support Proposal

Support. There were no comments submitted during the comment period in support of 

the direct final rule and its concurrent proposed rule. (Note: The Agency did 

receive letters from the Secretary of Agriculture, Arkansas Agriculture 

Department, the Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and 

Commerce and the Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture 

before the Agency issued the direct final rule and parallel proposal that requested 

an extension of the compliance date by which farms must prepare or amend their 

SPCC Plans and implement them.)

Oppose Proposal

Do Not Extend the Compliance Date. Comments (0013, 0014, 0015) received on the 

direct final rule with a concurrent proposed rule disagreed with providing any 

extension. The commenters expressly requested that the 18 month extension for 

farms not be granted and cited one or more of the following concerns about the 

extension: 1) that repeated extensions (eight times) of compliance dates 

removes the urgency for farms to “do the right thing” from an environmental 

perspective (0013) or otherwise put off their SPCC obligations (0015); 2) 

interferes with the (commenters’) ability to communicate to potential clients 

(farmers) the need to come into compliance soon (0013); 3) there are many 

companies ready to assist farmers with their SPCC Plans (0014, 0015); and 4) 

there are millions of dollars available in grants for farmers to take advantage of in 

order to come into compliance with the SPCC regulations (0014). Two of the 

commenters (0014, 0015) suggested that greater outreach to farms regarding the 

SPCC Plan requirements is needed instead of the extension.

Alternative Approaches

Extend Compliance Date by Three or Four Months. One commenter (0016) agreed that 

an extension is necessary but does not agree with the time frame of 18 months. 

The commenter stated that a vast majority of farming clients have indicated that 

they are out of harvest and feel confident that they can finalize their SPCC Plans 

during the winter months. Therefore, a three to four month extension coupled 

with a concerted effort to inform farmers of their regulatory responsibilities would 

be of far greater benefit to the farming community. The commenter cited three 

primary concerns of the proposed extension: 1) it jeopardizes the resources that 

are currently available to help producers gain compliance; 2) there are solutions 

and professionals available including a “free of charge” online SPCC Plan 

creation tool, even though most farms do not need a professional engineer (PE) 

to certify their SPCC Plan and are able to prepare a self-certified SPCC Plan; 

and 3) a concerted effort must be made to inform and educate farmers about the 

SPCC rule and their responsibilities. One commenter cited a potential loss of 

jobs associated with the action and the inequity of EPA’s enforcement of the 
4

SPCC regulation on farmers as compared to other sectors, such as the oil and 

gas sector.

RESPONSE

While we recognize that there have been multiple extensions to the compliance date 

under 40 CFR 112.3 – Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure Plan, at this time, we are further extending the date for 

compliance for a narrow segment of industries that are covered by this regulation; i.e., 

farms. 

The Agency considered comments that opposed any extension to the compliance date 

and the comment that recognized a compliance date extension was appropriate, but 

suggested a shorter compliance date, as well as the letters from the Secretary of 

Agriculture, Arkansas Agriculture Department, the Commissioner of the Mississippi

Department of Agriculture and Commerce and the Commissioner of the Louisiana

Department of Agriculture previously received by the Agency, that specifically requested 

an additional 24 months for farms to implement their SPCC Plans and recover financially 

from the impacts of extreme weather, find qualified engineers, and install the proper 

equipment. The Agency proposed an 18 month extension determining that 24 months 

may be too long a period and decided 18 months should be adequate time for the farms. 

We still believe 18 months is the correct timeframe upon hearing from commenters that 

there are firms available to assist the farmers to come into compliance.

The Agency recognizes that farms, more than other industries, are directly impacted by 

extreme weather conditions, such as the devastating flooding and drought that was 

experienced this past year by a substantial portion of the continental U.S. Rather than 

requiring all impacted farms to submit a written request to the Regional Administrator of 

the EPA Regional Office for the state where the farm is located in accordance with 

paragraph (f) of 40 CFR 112.3, we determined that it is more efficient to extend the 

compliance date for the farm industry. We also want to emphasize that farms should not 

wait until May 10, 2013, to ready their SPCC Plans. Farms should take advantage of 

non-growing and non-harvesting seasons to focus on preparing and implementing their 

SPCC Plans.
5

II. Applicability of the Compliance Date Extension

Issue: Farms that are not in compliance with the SPCC regulations do not qualify for the 

extension.

COMMENTS

Clarification on Applicability of Extension: Three of the four comments (0014, 0015, 

0016) correctly explain that EPA’s action does not provide an extension for those

farms that were in operation on or before August 16, 2002, and which did not 

have a previously developed SPCC Plan. Such farms may be in noncompliance 

with the rule. A commenter (0014) also questioned the necessity of the current 

action, pointing out that “most farms are in noncompliance” and would not benefit 

from the extension. A second commenter (0016) also pointed out the 

misconception that all farmers (producers) will be eligible for the extension. The 

commenter (0016) stated that many farmers do not have SPCC Plans, thus, 

making them ineligible for the extension.

RESPONSE

The Agency agrees with commenters that said that only existing farms maintaining an 

SPCC plan or new farms coming into operation after August 16, 2002, are eligible for the 

extension provided by this action.