Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0001-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-12-12T05:00Z

1
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
112
[
OPA­
2005­
0001];
FRL­[
]

Oil
Pollution
Prevention;
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
Plan
Requirements
­
Amendments
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
or
the
Agency)
is
today
proposing
to
amend
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
(
SPCC)
Plan
requirements
to
reduce
the
regulatory
burden
for
certain
facilities
by:
providing
an
option
that
would
allow
the
owner/
operator
of
facilities
that
store
less
than
10,000
gallons
of
oil,
as
well
as
meet
other
qualifying
criteria,
to
self­
certify
their
SPCC
Plan,
in
lieu
of
review
and
certification
by
a
Professional
Engineer;
providing
reduced
secondary
containment
requirements
(
without
making
individual
impracticability
determinations)
for
facilities
that
have
certain
types
of
oilfilled
equipment;
providing
an
exemption
for
certain
vehicle
bulk
fuel
tanks
and
any
ancillary
on­
board
oil­
filled
operational
equipment;
and
exempting
airport
mobile
refuelers
from
the
specifically
sized
bulk
storage
container
secondary
containment
requirements.
In
addition,
the
Agency
also
proposes
to
remove
and
reserve
certain
SPCC
requirements
for
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils;
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
Plan
amendment;
and
proposes
a
separate
extension
of
the
compliance
dates
for
farms.
In
proposing
these
changes,
EPA
is
significantly
reducing
the
burden
imposed
on
the
regulated
community
in
complying
with
the
SPCC
requirements,
while
still
providing
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
insert
30
days
after
FR
publication].
2
ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.
OPA­
2005­
0001
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

I.
Federal
Rulemaking
Portal:
http://
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

II.
Agency
Web
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
EDOCKET,
EPA's
electronic
public
comment
system,
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

III.
Mail:
The
mailing
address
of
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking
is
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),

Docket
ID
No.
OPA­
2005­
0001,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460.

The
docket
number
for
the
proposed
rule
is
OPA­
2005­
0001.
The
docket
is
located
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
and
is
available
for
inspection
by
appointment
only,
between
the
hours
of
8:
30
a.
m.
and
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
You
may
make
an
appointment
to
view
the
docket
by
calling
202­
566­
0276.

IV.
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.
OPA­
2005­
0001.
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.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
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
EDOCKET
or
regulations.
gov.
The
EPA
EDOCKET
and
the
Federal
regulations.
gov
websites
are
"
anonymous
access"
systems,

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
3
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
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available
(
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
a
statute).
Certain
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
either
electronically
in
EDOCKET
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
E.
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.
4
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
proposed
rule
would
amend
the
requirements
for
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
(
SPCC)
Plans
in
40
CFR
part
112.
First,
the
proposal
would
provide
an
alternative
option
for
the
owner/
operator
of
a
facility
that
meets
specific
qualifying
criteria
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
a
"
qualified"
facility)
to
self­
certify
that
his/
her
SPCC
Plan
complies
with
40
CFR
part
112,
in
lieu
of
the
requirement
for
a
Professional
Engineer's
(
PE)
review
and
certification.
Second,
the
proposal
would
provide
an
alternative
option
for
the
owner/
operator
of
a
facility
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
meets
specific
qualifying
criteria
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
"
qualified"
oil­
filled
equipment)
to
prepare
a
contingency
plan
and
commit
resources
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
for
oil­
filled
equipment
without
being
required
to
make
an
individual
impracticability
determination.
Third,

the
proposal
would
provide
an
exemption
for
motive
power
containers
which
include
on­
board
oil
containers
storing
fuel
to
power
motor
vehicles
and/
or
ancillary
containers
mounted
on
motor
vehicles
used
to
facilitate
the
operation
of
on­
board
equipment.
Fourth,
the
proposal
would
exempt
airport
mobile
refuelers
from
bulk
storage
container
secondary
containment
requirements.
Fifth,
the
proposal
removes
and
reserves
certain
SPCC
requirements
for
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.
Finally,
the
proposal
extends
the
compliance
dates
for
Plan
amendment
for
all
facilities
and
proposes
a
separate
extension
of
the
compliance
dates
for
farms.
The
contents
of
this
preamble
are:

I.
General
Information
II.
Entities
Potentially
Affected
by
This
Proposed
Rule
III.
Statutory
Authority
and
Delegation
of
Authority
IV.
Background
V.
Today's
Action
A.
Qualified
Facilities
5
1.
Eligibility
Criteria
a.
Total
Facility
Oil
Storage
Capacity
Threshold
b.
Reportable
Discharge
History
2.
Proposed
Requirements
for
Qualified
Facilities
a.
Self­
Certification
and
Plan
Amendments
b.
Environmental
Equivalence
and
Impracticability
Determinations
c.
SPCC
Plan
Exceptions
3.
Alternative
Options
Considered
a.
Administrative
Options
b.
Multi­
tiered
Structure
c.
One­
time
Notification
B.
Qualified
Oil­
filled
Operational
Equipment
1.
Eligibility
Criteria
a.
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
Storage
Capacity
b.
Reportable
Discharge
History
c.
Oil­
filled
Manufacturing
Flow­
Through
Process
Equipment
Exclusion
2.
Proposed
Requirements
for
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
a.
Contingency
Plans
In
Lieu
of
Secondary
Containment
b.
Inspections
and
Monitoring
Program
3.
Alternative
Options
Considered
a.
Multi­
tiered
Structure
b.
Administrative
Options
4.
Overlap
with
Qualified
Facilities
a.
Qualified
Facilities
with
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
b.
Qualified
Facilities
with
No
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
6
c.
Qualified
Facilities
with
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
and
other
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
C.
Motive
Power
1.
Definition
of
Motive
Power
2.
Proposed
Exemption
3.
Alternative
Options
Considered
a.
Equipment­
based
Motive
Power
Exemption
b.
Threshold­
based
Motive
Power
Exemption
c.
Exclusion
from
Storage
Capacity
Calculation
D.
Airport
Mobile
Refuelers
1.
Definition
of
Airport
Mobile
Refueler
2.
Proposed
Amended
Requirements
E.
Animal
Fats
and
Vegetable
Oils
VI.
Compliance
Dates
A.
Proposed
Extension
of
Compliance
Dates
for
All
Facilities
B.
Proposed
Extension
of
Compliance
Dates
for
Farms
1.
Eligibility
Criteria
2.
Proposed
Compliance
Date
Extension
for
Farms
VII.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866
 
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132­­
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175 
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
7
G.
Executive
Order
13045 
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211 
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
I.
General
Information
To
reduce
regulatory
burden
for
qualified
facilities
and
to
address
several
concerns
involving
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
motive
power
containers,
airport
mobile
refuelers,

and
provisions
specific
to
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils,
EPA
proposes
to
amend
the
SPCC
Plan
requirements
in
40
CFR
part
112.
The
Agency
also
proposes
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
Plan
amendment
and
proposes
a
separate
extension
of
the
compliance
dates
for
farms.
Specifically:

C
EPA
proposes
an
alternative
option
for
the
owner/
operator
of
a
qualified
facility
to
selfcertify
his/
her
SPCC
Plan,
prepared
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
112,
in
lieu
of
review
and
certification
by
a
Professional
Engineer
(
PE).
A
qualified
facility
is
a
facility
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements
that
(
1)
has
a
maximum
total
facility
oil
storage
capacity
of
10,000
gallons
or
less;
and
(
2)
had
no
reportable
oil
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
during
the
ten
years
prior
to
self­
certification
or,
if
the
facility
has
been
in
operation
for
less
than
ten
years,
since
becoming
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements.
Under
this
proposed
approach,
facility
owners/
operators
of
qualified
facilities
choosing
to
self­
certify
their
SPCC
Plans
may
not
deviate
from
any
requirement
of
the
SPCC
rule
under
§
112.7(
a)(
2)
(
with
two
exceptions)
and
may
not
make
impracticability
determinations
in
their
SPCC
Plans
as
8
described
under
§
112.7(
d).
The
two
exceptions
are
that
facility
owners/
operators
of
qualified
facilities
choosing
to
self­
certify
their
SPCC
Plans
would
have
flexibility
with
respect
to
security
requirements
and
container
integrity
testing.

C
EPA
proposes
that
owners
and
operators
of
facilities
where
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
is
located
have
the
alternative
of
preparing
an
oil
spill
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment
and
materials
in
lieu
of
providing
secondary
containment
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
without
having
to
make
an
individual
impracticability
determination
as
required
in
§
112.7(
d).
Today's
proposal
would
eliminate
the
current
requirement
for
an
individual
impracticability
determination
for
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
meets
the
following
qualifying
criteria:
1)
the
individual
oil­
filled
equipment
has
a
maximum
oil
storage
capacity
of
1,320
gallons;
2)
it
is
not
oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
through
process
equipment;
3)
it
is
located
at
a
facility
that
had
no
reportable
discharges
of
oil
from
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)

during
the
ten
years
prior
to
the
Plan
certification
date
or,
if
the
facility
has
been
in
operation
for
less
than
ten
years,
since
becoming
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements;
and
4)
it
is
located
at
a
facility
which
has
established
and
documented
an
inspection
and
monitoring
program
for
this
equipment
to
detect
equipment
failure
and/
or
a
discharge.

C
EPA
proposes
to
exempt
from
the
SPCC
rule
certain
motive
power
containers.
Motive
power
containers
are
on­
board
bulk
oil
storage
containers
used
solely
to
power
the
motor
vehicle
(
i.
e.,
fuel
tanks),
or
ancillary
on­
board
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
used
solely
to
facilitate
its
operation
(
i.
e.,
hydraulic
and
lubrication
operational
oil­
filled
containers).
This
exemption
would
not
apply
to
transfers
of
fuel
or
other
oil
into
motive
power
containers
at
an
otherwise
regulated
facility.
This
exemption
would
not
apply
to
a
bulk
storage
container
9
mounted
on
a
vehicle
for
any
purpose
other
than
powering
the
vehicle
itself,
for
example,
a
tanker
truck
or
refueler.
Additionally,
this
exemption
would
not
apply
to
oil
drilling
or
workover
equipment.

C
EPA
proposes
to
exempt
airport
mobile
refuelers
from
the
specifically
sized
secondary
containment
requirements
for
bulk
storage
containers
under
§
§
112.8(
c)(
2)
and
(
11)
of
the
SPCC
rule.
Airport
mobile
refuelers
are
vehicles
found
at
airports
that
have
onboard
bulk
storage
containers
designed
for,
or
used
to,
store
and
transport
fuel
for
transfer
into
or
from
an
aircraft
or
ground
service
equipment.
The
oil­
containing
cargo
tanks
on
such
vehicles
would
still
be
considered
bulk
storage
containers;
the
remaining
provisions
of
§
112.8(
c)
and
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
of
§
112.7(
c)
would
still
apply
to
these
airport
mobile
refuelers
and
the
transfers
associated
with
this
equipment.

C
The
Agency
proposes
to
amend
the
requirements
for
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils
in
Subpart
C
of
Part
112
by
removing
section
112.13
(
requirements
for
onshore
oil
production
facilities),
section
112.14
(
requirements
for
onshore
oil
drilling
and
workover
facilities),
and
section
112.15
(
requirements
for
offshore
oil
drilling,
production,
or
workover
facilities)

because
these
sections
do
not
apply
to
facilities
that
handle,
store,
or
transport
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.

C
EPA
proposes
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
farms,
while
the
Agency
considers
whether
the
unique
nature
of
this
sector
warrants
differentiated
requirements
under
the
SPCC
rule
and
provides
a
six­
month
extension
for
Plan
amendment
for
all
facilities.

II.
Entities
Potentially
Affected
by
This
Proposed
Rule
10
Industry
Category
NAICS
Code
Crop
and
Animal
Production
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111­
112
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas
Extraction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
211
Coal
Mining,
Non­
Metallic
Mineral
Mining
and
Quarrying
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2121/
2123/
213114/
213116
Electric
Power
Generation,
Transmission,
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2211
Heavy
Construction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
234
Petroleum
and
Coal
Products
Manufacturing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
324
Other
Manufacturing
(
including
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oil
manufacturing)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31­
33
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42271
Automotive
Rental
and
Leasing
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5321
Gasoline
Service
Stations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
447
Fuel
Oil
Dealers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4543
Waste
Management
and
Remediation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
562
Other
Commercial
Facilities
(
including
Retail
Stores,
Apartment
Buildings,
Wholesalers
and
Janitorial
Services)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44­
45,
51­
55,
56172
Transportation
(
including
Pipelines
and
Airports),
Warehousing,
and
Marinas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
482­
486/
488112­
48819/
4883/

48849/
492­
493/
71393
Elementary
and
Secondary
Schools,
Colleges
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
611
Federal,
State,
Local
Government
and
Military
Installations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
92
Hospitals/
Nursing
and
Residential
Care
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
621­
623
The
list
of
potentially
affected
entities
in
the
above
table
may
not
be
exhaustive.
The
Agency's
aim
is
to
provide
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
those
entities
that
potentially
could
be
affected
by
this
action.
However,
this
action
may
affect
other
entities
not
listed
in
this
table.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
section
entitled
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.
11
III.
Statutory
Authority
and
Delegation
of
Authority
Section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA
or
the
Act),
33
U.
S.
C.
1321(
j)(
1)(
C),

requires
the
President
to
issue
regulations
establishing
procedures,
methods,
equipment,
and
other
requirements
to
prevent
discharges
of
oil
from
vessels
and
facilities
and
to
contain
such
discharges.
The
President
delegated
the
authority
to
regulate
non­
transportation­
related
onshore
facilities
to
the
EPA
in
Executive
Order
11548
(
35
FR
11677,
July
22,
1970),
which
has
been
replaced
by
Executive
Order
12777
(
56
FR
54757,
October
22,
1991).
A
Memorandum
of
Understanding
(
MOU)
between
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT)

and
EPA
(
36
FR
24080,
November
24,
1971)
established
the
definitions
of
transportation­
and
non­
transportation­
related
facilities.
An
MOU
among
EPA,
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Interior
(
DOI),
and
DOT,
effective
February
3,
1994,
has
redelegated
the
responsibility
to
regulate
certain
offshore
facilities
from
DOI
to
EPA.

IV.
Background
On
July
17,
2002,
EPA
published
a
final
rule
amending
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
(
40
CFR
part
112)
promulgated
under
the
authority
of
section
311(
j)
of
the
CWA.

This
revised
rule
included
requirements
for
SPCC
Plans
and
for
Facility
Response
Plans
(
FRPs).
It
also
included
new
subparts
outlining
the
requirements
for
various
classes
of
oil;

revised
the
applicability
of
the
regulation;
amended
the
requirements
for
completing
SPCC
Plans;
and
made
other
modifications
(
67
FR
47042).
The
revised
rule
became
effective
on
August
16,
2002.
After
publication
of
this
rule,
several
members
of
the
regulated
community
filed
legal
challenges
to
certain
aspects
of
the
rule.
Most
of
the
issues
raised
in
the
litigation
1PLACEHOLDER
FOR
OGC:
Footnote
that
identifies
the
remaining
issue
in
litigation
and
current
status
12
have
been
settled,
following
which
EPA
published
clarifications
in
the
Federal
Register
to
several
aspects
of
the
revised
rule
(
69
FR
29728,
May
25,
2004).
1
EPA
has
extended
the
dates
for
revising
and
implementing
revised
SPCC
Plans
in
40
CFR
sections
112.3(
a)
and
(
b)
a
number
of
times,
and
has
extended
the
compliance
date
for
40
CFR
section
112.3(
c)
(
see
69
FR
48794
(
August
11,
2004)
for
further
discussion
on
the
extensions).
This
action
was
taken
by
EPA
in
order
to
provide
the
regulated
community
with
sufficient
time
to
comply
with
the
2002
revised
rule
and
to
allow
the
regulated
community
time
to
understand
the
2004
clarifications
and
be
able
to
incorporate
them
in
their
updated
SPCC
Plans.
The
current
deadline
for
the
preparation
and
certification
of
revised
SPCC
Plans
for
facilities
maintaining
their
current
SPCC
Plan
is
February
17,
2006.
Plans
must
be
implemented
by
August
18,
2006.

On
September
20,
2004,
EPA
published
two
Notices
of
Data
Availability
(
NODAs).
The
first
NODA
made
available
and
solicited
comments
on
submissions
to
EPA
suggesting
more
focused
requirements
for
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule
that
handle
oil
below
a
certain
threshold
amount,
referred
to
as
"
certain
facilities"
(
69
FR
56182).
Streamlined
approaches
for
facilities
with
oil
capacities
below
a
certain
threshold
were
discussed
in
the
NODA
documents.

The
second
NODA
made
available
and
solicited
comments
whether
alternate
regulatory
requirements
would
be
appropriate
for
facilities
with
oil­
filled
and
process
equipment
(
69
FR
56184).
EPA
has
reviewed
the
public
comments
and
data
submitted
in
response
to
the
NODAs
in
developing
today's
proposal.
13
In
addition,
airport
mobile
refuelers
are
vehicles
that
are
used
on
an
airport
facility
to
refuel
aircraft
and
ground
service
equipment
(
such
as
belt
loaders,
tractors,
luggage
transport
vehicles,
deicing
equipment,
and
lifts)
used
at
airports.
The
onboard
oil
containers
on
airport
mobile
refuelers
that
are
used
to
transport
and
transfer
fuel
into
or
from
aircraft
and
ground
service
equipment
are
considered
mobile
or
portable
bulk
storage
containers
under
the
SPCC
rule
because
they
are
containers
used
to
store
oil
prior
to
further
distribution
and
use.
As
such,
they
are
subject
to
all
applicable
SPCC
rule
provisions,
including
the
secondary
containment
provisions
of
§
§
112.8(
c)(
2)
and
(
11).
These
provisions
require
a
secondary
means
of
containment,
such
as
a
dike
or
catchment
basin,
sufficient
to
contain
the
capacity
of
the
largest
single
compartment
or
container
with
sufficient
freeboard
to
contain
precipitation.

Regulated
community
members
in
the
aviation
sector
have
expressed
concern
that
requiring
such
sized
secondary
containment
for
airport
mobile
refuelers
is
not
practicable
for
safety
and
security
reasons.
(
Included
in
the
Docket
for
today's
proposal
are
the
letters
that
have
been
submitted
to
EPA
regarding
this
matter.)
Specifically,
it
has
been
argued
that
to
require
these
refuelers
to
park
in
specially
designed
secondary
containment
areas
located
within
an
airport's
aircraft
operations
area
could
create
a
safety
and
security
hazard
because
it
would
require
grouping
of
the
vehicles
or
place
impediments
in
the
operations
area.

Additionally,
requiring
mobile
refuelers
to
return
to
containment
areas
located
within
the
airport's
tank
farm
between
refueling
operations
may
increase
the
risk
of
accidents
(
and
therefore
accidental
oil
discharge),
as
the
vehicles
would
travel
with
increased
frequency
through
the
busy
aircraft
operations
area.
EPA
is
sympathetic
to
these
concerns
and
seeks
to
provide
relief
from
the
sized
bulk
storage
secondary
containment
requirements
for
airport
mobile
refuelers.
At
the
same
time,
these
refuelers
remain
subject
to
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
under
§
112.7(
c)
which
also
applies
to
the
transfers
of
oil
associated
with
airport
mobile
refuelers.
14
In
contrast
to
a
mobile
or
portable
bulk
storage
container
such
as
a
mobile
refueler,
a
"
motive
power
container"
is
an
integral
part
of
a
motor
vehicle
(
including
aircraft),
providing
fuel
for
propulsion
or
providing
some
other
operational
function,
such
as
lubrication
of
moving
parts
or
for
operation
of
on­
board
hydraulic
equipment.
Motive
power
containers
on
vehicles
used
solely
at
non­
transportation
related
facilities
fall
under
EPA
jurisdiction
and
are
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation.

While
the
concept
of
"
motive
power"
is
not
directly
addressed
in
the
SPCC
regulation,
such
vehicle
fuel
containers
fall
under
either
the
definition
of
"
bulk
storage
container"
in
§
112.2,
or
lubricant
containers
may
be
considered
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
Therefore,
motive
power
containers
which
store
oil
used
for
the
propulsion
of
a
vehicle
are
subject
to
all
the
requirements
under
§
112.8(
c)
if
they
have
a
capacity
of
55
gallons
or
more.
These
requirements
include
sized
secondary
containment,
integrity
testing
(
visual
plus
nondestructive
testing),
and
a
requirement
to
engineer
containers
to
avoid
discharges
(
such
as
an
overfill
alarm).
Additionally,
any
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
with
a
capacity
of
55
gallons
or
more
mounted
on
a
vehicle
would
have
to
comply
with
the
general
SPCC
containment
requirements
listed
in
40
CFR
part
112.7(
c).

EPA
recognizes
that,
in
most
cases,
the
requirements
of
§
112.8(
c),
including
sized
secondary
containment
and
general
containment
requirements
under
§
112.7(
c),
are
not
practicable
for
motive
power
containers.
It
has
never
been
EPA's
intent
to
regulate
bulk
oil
storage
containers
used
solely
to
fuel
the
propulsion
of
motor
vehicles,
or
the
associated
oilfilled
operational
equipment
used
to
assist
in
the
operation
of
vehicles.
Examples
of
motive
power
vehicles
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
buses,
recreational
vehicles,
sport
utility
vehicles,
construction
vehicles,
aircraft,
and
farm
equipment.
Examples
of
facilities
or
locations
that
may
be
covered
by
the
SPCC
requirements
solely
because
of
the
presence
of
15
motive
power
containers
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
heavy
equipment
dealers,
commercial
truck
dealers,
and
parking
lots.
Therefore,
EPA
is
exempting
such
motive
power
containers
from
the
SPCC
regulation.

Finally,
in
the
July
17,
2002
final
SPCC
rule,
the
Agency
promulgated
general
requirements
for
SPCC
Plans
for
all
facilities
and
all
types
of
oil
in
§
112.7.
In
response
to
the
Edible
Oil
Regulatory
Reform
Act
(
EORRA),
EPA
promulgated
separate
subparts
in
part
112
for
facilities
storing
or
using
various
classes
of
oil,
but
the
requirements
in
each
subpart
are
the
same.

EORRA
required
most
Federal
agencies
to
differentiate
between
and
establish
separate
classes
for
various
types
of
oil,
specifically,
between
animal
fats
and
oils
and
greases,
and
fish
and
marine
mammal
oils
and
oils
of
vegetable
origin,
including
oils
from
seeds,
nuts,
and
kernels;
and
other
oils
and
greases,
including
petroleum.
The
result
of
this
approach
was
that
the
new
Subpart
C
included
requirements
for
animal
fat
and
vegetable
oil
(
AFVO)
facilities
 

onshore
facilities
(
excluding
production
facilities)
(
§
112.12),
onshore
oil
production
facilities,

(
§
112.14)
onshore
oil
drilling
and
workover
facilities
(
§
112.13),
and
requirements
for
offshore
oil
drilling,
production,
or
workover
facilities
(
§
112.15).
While
the
Agency
recognized
that
some
of
these
requirements
are
not
applicable
to
facilities
that
handle,
store
or
transport
AFVO,
these
sections
were
promulgated
because
the
Agency
had
not
proposed
differentiated
SPCC
requirements
for
public
notice
and
comment.
As
a
result,
the
current
requirements
for
petroleum
oils
were
also
applied
to
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.
EPA
is
today
proposing
to
remove
those
sections
from
the
SPCC
requirements
that
are
not
applicable
or
appropriate
to
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.

V.
Today's
Action
A.
Qualified
Facilities
16
EPA
proposes
to
amend
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
(
40
CFR
part
112)
to
provide
an
option
to
allow
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
that
meets
the
qualifying
criteria
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
a
"
qualified"
facility)
to
self­
certify
the
facility's
SPCC
Plan
in
lieu
of
certification
by
a
licensed
professional
engineer
(
PE).
EPA
proposes
to
amend
§
112.3
to
describe
the
SPCC
eligibility
criteria
that
a
regulated
facility
must
meet
in
order
to
be
considered
a
qualified
facility.
A
qualified
facility
would
be
a
facility
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule
that
(
1)
has
a
total
facility
oil
storage
capacity
of
10,000
gallons
or
less;
and
(
2)
had
no
reportable
discharges
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
during
the
ten
years
prior
to
self­
certification
or
since
becoming
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements
if
less
than
ten
years.
Facilities
that
have
been
subject
to
SPCC
for
less
than
ten
years,
including
new
facilities,
would
need
to
demonstrate
no
reportable
discharges
only
for
the
period
of
time
they
have
been
subject
to
SPCC.
Self­
certified
Plans
would
not
be
allowed
to
include
"
environmentally
equivalent"

alternatives
to
required
Plan
elements
as
provided
in
§
112.7(
a)(
2)
or
to
claim
impracticability
with
respect
to
any
secondary
containment
requirements
as
provided
in
§
112.7(
d).
The
two
exceptions
for
which
the
owner
and
operator
can
still
make
environmentally
equivalent
arguments
are
with
respect
to
security
and
integrity
testing.
Since
this
proposed
action
would
be
an
alternative
option,
a
qualified
facility
could
choose
to
follow
the
current
SPCC
requirements
(
including
the
PE
certification)
to
take
advantage
of
the
flexibility
offered
by
PEcertified
impracticality
claims
and
environmentally
equivalent
measures.
Facilities
with
complex
operations
and
lower
capacities
may
find
that
the
current
rule
offers
a
more
costeffective
method
of
achieving
compliance.
17
1.
Eligibility
Criteria
a.
Total
Facility
Oil
Storage
Capacity
Threshold
EPA
proposes
to
limit
qualified
facilities
to
a
total
maximum
capacity
of
10,000
gallons
of
oil.
EPA
considered
many
different
factors
before
selecting
this
capacity.
EPA
found
that
10,000
gallons
has
been
used
as
a
threshold
in
several
other
rules
relating
to
oil
discharges.

This
threshold
quantity
is
used
in
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(
National
Contingency
Plan
or
NCP)
to
classify
oil
discharges
based
on
the
location
and
size
of
the
discharge
(
see
40
CFR
300.5).
The
NCP
refers
to
discharges
greater
than
10,000
gallons
to
inland
waters
as
"
major,"
while
other
thresholds
are
used
to
classify
"
minor"
and
"
medium"
discharges.
The
classes
are
provided
as
guidance
to
the
On­
Scene
Coordinator
(
OSC),
and
serve
as
criteria
for
the
actions
delineated
in
the
NCP.
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
the
NCP
quantitative
thresholds
are
only
provided
to
help
the
OSC
determine
response
action,
and
do
not
imply
associated
degrees
of
hazard
to
the
public
health
or
welfare,
or
environmental
damage.
The
NCP
size
classes
nevertheless
define
an
oil
discharge
to
inland
waters
exceeding
10,000
gallons
as
a
major
discharge.

A
discharge
of
10,000
gallons
or
more
is
also
one
of
the
factors
used
in
identifying
facilities
that
must
prepare
and
submit
a
Facility
Response
Plan
(
FRP)
under
§
112.20(
f)(
1).
The
FRP
rule
applies
to
facilities
that
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
cause
substantial
harm
to
the
environment
due
to
a
discharge
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.
and
adjoining
shorelines.

State
regulations
also
provide
support
for
the
use
of
a
10,000­
gallon
threshold.
A
number
of
states
differentiate
regulatory
requirements
based
on
a
facility's
total
storage
capacity,
with
some
states
specifying
a
10,000­
gallon
threshold.
For
example,
Maryland
requires
that
all
18
commercial
facilities
storing
more
than
10,000
gallons
of
oil
obtain
an
oil
operations
permit;

Minnesota
requires
facilities
storing
between
10,000
and
1,000,000
gallons
of
oil
to
prepare
a
prevention
and
response
plan;
and
Oregon
places
special
requirements
on
marine
facilities
storing
more
than
10,000
gallons
of
oil.
The
10,000­
gallon
threshold
is
also
frequently
used
in
setting
requirements
for
certain
storage
tanks.
For
example,
New
York
requires
a
"
secondary
containment
system"
around
all
aboveground
storage
tanks
(
ASTs)
with
a
storage
capacity
greater
than
or
equal
to
10,000
gallons,
and
Wisconsin
caps
the
size
of
ASTs
that
can
be
used
for
fueling
vehicles
at
10,000
gallons.

Finally,
10,000
gallons
is
a
common
storage
tank
size,
and
EPA
believes
that
setting
a
maximum
capacity
at
10,000
gallons
would
address
the
concerns
that
smaller
facilities
have
raised.
In
fact,
the
Small
Business
Administration
suggested
that
a
10,000­
gallon
threshold
is
a
reasonable
volume
to
address
the
concerns
of
facilities
with
relatively
smaller
volumes
of
oil.

The
alternative
thresholds
generally
concerned
different
sectors.
The
Agency
seeks
comments
on
whether
this
threshold
appropriately
addresses
the
concerns
of
facilities
with
relatively
smaller
volumes
of
oil,
while
maintaining
the
environmental
protection
intended
by
the
regulation.
If
commenters
suggest
alternative
volume
thresholds,
it
will
be
important
for
the
comments
to
also
include
a
justification
for
such
volume
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
adequately
consider
the
comments
submitted.
This
data
would
be
useful
in
final
rule
deliberations.

While
EPA
recognizes
that
a
discharge
of
less
than
10,000
gallons
can
be
harmful,

regardless
of
how
the
NCP
defines
"
major
discharge,"
EPA
believes
that
it
is
reasonable
to
allow
facilities
with
a
capacity
of
no
more
than
10,000
gallons
to
prepare
and
implement
a
Plan
that
complies
with
the
SPCC
rule
requirements
and
provides
adequate
protection
against
discharges
without
the
involvement
of
a
PE.
These
facilities
generally
have
less
complex
operations
and
petroleum
system
configurations,
and
smaller
oil
storage
capacities
than
other
19
types
of
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements.
Thus,
the
Agency
believes
that
an
owner
or
operator
at
these
facilities
should
be
able
to
comply
with
the
SPCC
rule
provisions
without
review
and
certification
of
the
SPCC
Plan
by
a
PE,
and
that
simplifying
the
rule
will
improve
compliance.

b.
Reportable
Discharge
History
EPA
proposes
that
a
qualified
facility
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements
must
have
no
reportable
oil
discharges
as
described
in
40
CFR
part
110
(
which
is
analogous
to
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b))
during
the
ten
years
prior
to
self­
certification
or
since
becoming
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements,
whichever
is
less.
Facilities
that
have
been
subject
to
SPCC
for
less
than
ten
years,
including
new
facilities,
would
need
to
demonstrate
no
discharges
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
only
for
the
period
they
have
been
subject
to
SPCC.

This
criterion
is
based
on
a
proposal
regarding
oil­
filled
electrical
equipment
submitted
by
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
USWAG),
as
described
in
the
documents
supplementing
the
September
20,
2004,
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
at
69
FR
56184.
In
its
proposal,

USWAG
recognized
that
facilities
that
pose
a
risk,
in
terms
of
oil
discharges
in
quantities
that
are
harmful
(
reportable
under
40
CFR
part
110),
should
not
be
granted
relief.
USWAG
specifically
proposed
a
10­
year
spill
history
as
a
potential
criterion
to
be
eligible
for
relief.
In
general,
NODA
commenters
expressed
strong
support
for
the
USWAG
proposal.
As
in
the
case
of
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
the
Agency
believes
that
a
clean
spill
history
is
a
suitable
criterion
for
demonstrating
eligibility
for
Plan
self­
certification,
while
still
effectively
maintaining
good
prevention
practices.

Part
110
defines
a
discharge
of
oil
in
such
quantities
that
may
be
harmful
to
the
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
of
the
United
States
as
a
discharge
of
oil
that
violates
20
applicable
water
quality
standards;
a
discharge
of
oil
that
causes
a
film
or
sheen
upon
the
surface
of
the
water
or
on
adjoining
shorelines;
or
a
discharge
of
oil
that
causes
a
sludge
or
emulsion
to
be
deposited
beneath
the
surface
of
the
water
or
adjoining
shorelines
(
40
CFR
110.3).
The
Agency
refers
to
such
discharges
in
section
§
112.1(
b)
of
the
rule.
Any
person
in
charge
of
a
facility
must
report
any
such
discharge
of
oil
from
the
facility
to
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)
at
1­
800­
424­
8802
immediately.
While
EPA
recognizes
that
past
release
history
does
not
necessarily
translate
into
a
predictor
of
future
performance,
the
Agency
believes
that
discharge
history
is
a
reasonable
indicator
of
a
facility's
need
to
plan
and
implement
discharge
prevention
and
control
measures.
Hence,
EPA
proposes
to
use
a
facility's
discharge
history
as
a
qualification
criterion
indicating
the
facility's
ability
to
effectively
develop
and
implement
its
SPCC
Plan.
By
establishing
a
good
oil
spill
prevention
history,
a
facility
qualifies
for
the
self­
certification
option
offered
in
this
proposal.

The
Agency
requests
comments
on
the
appropriateness
of
this
criterion
for
determining
the
qualification
of
a
facility
for
the
self­
certification
option,
and
whether
there
are
other
indicators
of
a
facility's
effective
implementation
of
the
oil
pollution
prevention
requirements
under
part
112
that
should
be
considered.
In
addition,
the
Agency
also
requests
comments
on
the
proposed
10­
year
period
for
which
facilities
would
be
required
to
have
had
no
reportable
discharges
in
order
to
meet
this
qualification.
The
Agency
requests
that
any
alternative
time
period
suggested
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
them
for
final
action.

2.
Proposed
Requirements
for
Qualified
Facilities
a.
Self­
Certification
and
Plan
Amendments
21
Some
in
the
regulated
community,
particularly
facilities
with
relatively
smaller
volumes
of
oil,
identified
the
cost
of
the
PE
certification
of
SPCC
Plans
as
one
of
its
major
concerns.
This
view
was
echoed
in
the
comments
submitted
in
response
to
the
NODAs.
The
Agency
has
reviewed
the
requirements
in
light
of
the
information
provided
and
today
proposes
to
allow
for
self­
certification
of
SPCC
Plans
by
owners
and
operators
of
qualified
facilities.
With
this
proposal,
the
Agency
is
responding
to
those
concerns.
The
elements
of
the
proposed
selfcertification
requirement
are
very
similar
in
scope
to
those
of
the
PE
certification:
Owners
and
operators
that
choose
to
self­
certify
their
Plans
must
certify
that
they
are
familiar
with
the
requirements
of
the
SPCC
rule;
they
have
visited
and
examined
the
facility;
the
Plan
has
been
prepared
in
accordance
with
accepted
and
sound
industry
practices
and
standards;

procedures
for
required
inspections
and
testing
have
been
established;
the
Plan
is
being
fully
implemented;
the
facility
meets
the
qualification
criteria
set
forth
under
§
112.3(
g)(
1);
the
Plan
does
not
utilize
the
environmental
equivalence
provision
under
§
112.7(
a)(
2);
the
Plan
contains
no
determinations
of
impracticability
under
§
112.7(
d);
and
the
Plan
and
the
individual(
s)

responsible
for
implementing
the
Plan
have
the
full
approval
of
management
and
the
facility
has
committed
the
necessary
resources
to
fully
implement
the
Plan.
The
self­
certification
provision
would
be
optional.
Under
today's
proposal,
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
qualified
facility
could
choose
to
comply
with
the
current
requirements
under
part
112
if
that
is
more
suitable
to
his/
her
particular
situation.

Qualified
facilities
that
would
choose
to
self­
certify
would
not
automatically
lose
eligibility
for
a
self­
certified
plan
and
be
required
to
obtain
PE
certification
in
the
event
of
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b);
however,
EPA
has
the
authority
to
require
SPCC
Plan
amendments
under
§
112.4.
Section
112.4(
a)
requires
a
facility
that
has
discharged
more
than
1,000
gallons
of
oil
in
a
single
discharge
as
described
in
40
CFR
Part
110,
or
that
has
discharged
more
than
42
gallons
of
oil
in
each
of
two
discharges
as
described
in
40
CFR
Part
110
in
any
12­
month
22
period
to
submit
information
to
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
(
RA)
within
60
days
of
the
date
of
the
discharge.
As
per
§
112.4(
d),
the
RA
may
require
the
facility
to
amend
its
SPCC
Plan
in
order
to
prevent
and
contain
discharges,
and
the
RA
could
require
a
facility
to
obtain
PEcertification
of
its
SPCC
Plan.
In
addition,
a
discharge
of
oil
under
40
CFR
part
110
that
does
not
trigger
the
reporting
requirements
of
§
112.4(
a)
must
still
be
reported
to
the
National
Response
Center.
Criminal
action
can
be
taken
against
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
if
discharges
are
not
reported.
EPA
also
receives
copies
of
the
NRC
reports
and
has
the
authority
under
§
112.1(
f)
to
require
a
facility
to
prepare
and
implement
an
SPCC
Plan
or
any
applicable
part
of
a
Plan.

As
is
the
case
with
a
PE­
certified
Plan,
under
today's
proposed
action,
the
RA
could
require
a
qualified
facility
to
amend
its
Plan
if
he
finds
that
it
does
not
meet
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
112
or
that
an
amendment
is
necessary
to
prevent
and
contain
discharges
from
that
facility.
The
RA
could
determine
that
the
facility
no
longer
qualifies
for
self­
certification
and
must
have
a
PE­
certified
Plan.
The
time
frame
for
this
review
and
amendment
process
is
described
in
§
112.4.
The
facility
may
choose
to
appeal
the
RA's
decision
to
require
a
Plan
amendment
under
§
112.4.
The
RA
also
has
authority
to
require
preparation
and
implementation
of
a
Plan
or
applicable
part
of
a
Plan
under
§
112.1(
f).

The
Agency
requests
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
using
the
existing
authorities
under
SPCC
regulations
rather
than
establishing
a
separate
process
that
would
automatically
require
a
facility
to
obtain
PE
review
and
certification
of
the
facility's
SPCC
Plan
in
the
event
of
a
reportable
discharge.
The
Agency
requests
that
any
alternative
approaches
presented
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
them
for
final
action.
23
Under
§
112.5
of
the
SPCC
rule,
an
owner
or
operator
must
review
and
amend
the
SPCC
Plan
following
any
change
in
facility
design,
construction,
operation
or
maintenance
that
materially
affects
its
potential
for
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b).
A
PE
must
then
certify
any
and
all
of
these
technical
amendments
to
the
SPCC
Plan,
as
currently
required
under
§
112.3(
d).
Under
today's
proposal,
technical
amendments
to
SPCC
Plans
of
qualified
facilities
would
not
be
required
to
be
certified
by
a
PE.
Instead,
an
owner
or
operator
would
be
allowed
to
self­
certify
technical
amendments
to
the
Plan
under
the
proposed
§
112.3(
g)(
2)

provision
and
facilities
with
PE
certified
Plans
which
qualify
for
self­
certification
would
be
allowed
to
choose
to
self­
certify
future
technical
amendments
rather
than
hire
a
professional
engineer
to
certify
the
technical
amendment.
Facilities
would
be
required
to
document
the
selfcertification
of
a
technical
amendment
in
the
SPCC
Plan
in
accordance
with
§
112.3(
g)(
2).

b.
Environmental
Equivalence
and
Impracticability
Determinations
The
existing
requirements
for
SPCC
Plans
under
§
112.7
allow
facility
owners
and
operators
the
flexibility
to
deviate
from
specific
rule
provisions
if
the
Plan
states
the
reason
for
nonconformance
and
if
equivalent
environmental
protection
is
provided
by
some
other
means
of
spill
prevention,
control
or
countermeasure.
These
"
environmentally
equivalent"
measures
must
be
described
in
the
SPCC
Plan,
including
how
the
equivalent
environmental
protection
will
be
achieved
based
on
good
engineering
practice.
Allowance
for
"
environmentally
equivalent"
deviations
is
provided
in
§
112.7(
a)(
2)
and
are
only
available
for
requirements
not
related
to
secondary
containment,
such
as
fencing
and
other
security
measures,
preventing
catastrophic
tank
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture,
integrity
testing,
and
liquid
level
alarms.
As
part
of
the
SPCC
Plan,
any
environmentally
equivalent
measures
are
also
required
to
be
certified
by
a
PE.
The
PE's
SPCC
Plan
certification
requirements
include
consideration
of
industry
standards
for
the
Plan,
which
would
include
equivalent
environmental
protection
measures.
24
The
SPCC
rule
also
provides
flexibility
for
owners/
operators
who
determine
that
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
in
§
112.7(
c)
or
any
of
the
applicable
additional
requirements
for
secondary
containment
in
subparts
B
and
C
are
impracticable.
Where
impracticability
is
demonstrated,
the
SPCC
rule
allows
facility
owners
and
operators
the
flexibility
to
instead
develop
a
contingency
plan
and
comply
with
additional
requirements
as
described
in
§
112.7(
d).
The
SPCC
Plan
must
explain
why
containment
measures
are
not
practicable,
provide
an
oil
spill
contingency
plan
that
follows
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
109
(
Criteria
for
State,
Local
and
Regional
Oil
Removal
Contingency
Plans),
and
provide
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment,
and
materials
required
to
expeditiously
control
and
remove
any
quantity
of
oil
discharged
that
may
be
harmful
as
described
in
40
CFR
part
110.
A
PE
must
certify
any
impracticability
claims,
as
well
as
the
contingency
plan
and
additional
measures
implemented
in
lieu
of
containment.
Because
of
the
expertise
that
a
PE
has
in
evaluating
whether
particular
measures
provide
equivalent
environmental
protection
and
in
knowing
how
to
effectively
implement
such
measures,
EPA
believes
that
the
flexibility
in
these
performance­
based
provisions
is
best
suited
to
SPCC
Plans
that
are
reviewed
and
certified
by
a
PE.

Today's
proposed
amendment
would
allow
qualified
facilities
to
opt
out
of
the
PE
certification,
but
would
not
allow
facilities
that
take
advantage
of
this
option
to
include
environmentally
equivalent
measures
in
their
SPCC
Plans
pursuant
to
§
112.7(
a)(
2),
except
in
two
areas
­
security
and
container
integrity
testing.
EPA
is
proposing
this
limitation
on
qualified
facilities
because
EPA
believes
that
in
general,
without
the
advantage
of
the
expertise
and
knowledge
that
a
PE
brings
to
the
development
of
an
SPCC
Plan,
deviations
based
on
environmental
equivalence
may
not
be
adequate.
As
discussed
below
in
section
V.
A.
2.
c.
of
the
preamble,
EPA
is
proposing
two
exceptions
to
this
proposed
limitation
on
the
use
of
"
environmental
equivalence"
by
proposing
flexibility
for
two
specific
Plan
requirements
that
25
EPA
believes
may
be
appropriate
for
at
least
some
owners
of
qualified
facilities,
without
employing
PE
expertise.
EPA
is
also
proposing
that
qualified
facilities
be
precluded
from
claiming
impracticability
and
using
contingency
planning
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment.

EPA
believes
that
a
PE's
knowledge
and
expertise
is
needed
for
appropriate
contingency
planning
and
other
measures
that
must
be
put
in
place
in
the
absence
of
secondary
containment.
Thus,
requiring
qualified
facilities
that
opt
out
of
PE
certification
to
adhere
to
the
current
set
of
requirements
would
maintain
the
same
standard
of
environmental
protection
provided
in
the
existing
rule.

Today's
proposal
would
not
preclude
a
qualified
facility
from
choosing
environmentally
equivalent
measures
or
from
demonstrating
impracticability
with
respect
to
secondary
containment
requirements,
although
the
qualified
facility
would
need
to
comply
with
the
current
SPCC
requirements
(
including
the
PE
certification)
in
order
to
utilize
the
flexibility
offered
by
PE­
developed
impracticability
claims
and
environmentally
equivalent
measures.
In
some
circumstances,
it
may
be
more
cost
effective
for
a
PE
to
prepare
an
SPCC
Plan
which
utilizes
environmentally
equivalent
measures
or
contingency
planning,
than
for
the
owner/
operator
to
comply
with
the
SPCC
provisions
as
outlined
in
the
rule.
Also,
facilities
with
unconventional
operations
which
qualify
for
this
alternative
may
find
that
the
current
rule
requirement
for
PE
certification
offers
a
more
cost­
effective
method
of
achieving
compliance
because
it
provides
additional
flexibility
through
performance
based
provisions.
The
Agency
requests
comments
on
the
appropriateness
of
restricting
the
use
of
impracticability
and
environmental
equivalency
claims
by
those
qualified
facilities
that
choose
the
option
of
self­
certification
in
order
to
ensure
an
adequate
level
of
environmental
protection.
Any
alternative
approach
presented
must
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
it
for
final
action.
26
c.
SPCC
Plan
Exceptions
As
previously
explained,
the
environmental
equivalence
provision
currently
in
the
regulation
allows
a
facility
to
have
flexibility
in
how
it
develops
and
implements
its
SPCC
Plan.
This
provision
was
established
to
allow
a
PE
to
make
site­
specific
determinations
for
a
facility's
SPCC
Plan
that
would
be
best
suited
to
each
individual
circumstance.
Today's
proposal
for
self­
certification
of
qualified
facilities
would
preclude
the
use
of
alternative
environmentally
equivalent
measures
for
qualified
facilities
that
elect
to
develop
their
SPCC
Plan
without
the
services
of
a
PE.
The
Agency's
concern
is
that
these
facilities
would
no
longer
have
a
trained
professional,
with
knowledge
to
make
equivalence
determinations,
reviewing
and
certifying
their
Plan.
However,
EPA
recognizes
that
some
of
the
prescriptive
provisions
in
the
current
regulatory
requirements
may
prove
difficult
for
some
qualified
facilities
to
meet.

While
the
Agency
still
believes
that
generally
allowing
use
of
environmentally
equivalent
measures
in
self­
certified
Plans
is
not
appropriate,
it
recognizes
that
some
degree
of
flexibility
is
needed
for
qualified
facilities
in
two
areas.
The
Agency
believes
that
it
can
allow
qualified
facilities
to
comply
with
a
streamlined
set
of
basic
security
measures
and
integrity
testing
requirements.
The
flexibility
in
these
proposed
exceptions
would
be
analogous
to
the
flexibility
provided
under
§
112.7(
a)(
2)
(
the
environmental
equivalence
provisions)
for
deviations
from
§
112.7(
g)
(
security)
and
§
112.8(
c)(
6)
(
integrity
testing)
that
would
not
be
available
for
these
facilities
under
today's
proposal.

EPA
recognizes
that
there
is
no
one
single
approach
to
ensure
proper
facility
security.
For
example,
the
security
requirements
of
fencing
and
lighting
may
not
always
be
appropriate
for
sites
such
as
a
national,
state
or
local
park
subject
to
SPCC,
where
the
site
layout
may
be
too
extensive
to
fence,
and
where
perhaps
the
lighting
of
a
solitary
field
tank
would
invite,
rather
27
than
detract,
would­
be
intruders.
Qualified
facilities,
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
under
§
112(
7)(
g)
of
this
part,
may
prepare
a
security
plan
that
describes
how
the
facility
controls
access
to
the
oil
handling,
processing
and
storage
areas;
secures
master
flow
and
drain
valves;
prevents
unauthorized
access
to
starter
controls
on
oil
pumps;
secures
out­
of­
service
and
loading/
unloading
connections
of
oil
pipelines;
prevents
acts
of
vandalism;
and
assists
in
the
discovery
of
oil
discharges.
(
Note
that
the
security
requirements
in
§
112.7(
g)
do
not
apply
to
production
facilities.)

Today's
proposal
would
allow
a
qualified
facility
to
develop
a
general
security
plan
that
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection
to
the
requirements
in
§
112.7(
g).
The
Agency
recognizes
that
these
security
provisions
can
be
approached
differently
by
the
variety
of
facilities
that
would
qualify
for
self­
certification
under
today's
proposal.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
is
an
option
and
a
qualified
facility
in
compliance
with
the
current
requirements
under
§
112(
7)(
g)
would
not
be
required
to
develop
a
security
plan
under
the
proposed
§
112(
3)(
g).

The
security
plan
would
be
required
to
address
how
the
owner
or
operator
will:

C
secure
all
oil­
filled
containers,
piping
and
equipment
from
unauthorized
access
or
acts
of
vandalism
which
could
result
in
a
discharge
of
oil;

C
secure
appurtenances
(
valve
and/
or
drains)
in
the
closed
position
to
prevent
the
flow
of
the
contents
of
the
container
which
could
result
in
a
discharge
of
oil;

C
secure
pump
controls
in
the
off
position
when
not
in
use
and
locate
facility
pump
controls
to
prevent
unauthorized
access;

C
secure
all
loading
or
unloading
transfer
connections
for
facility
piping;
and
C
address
whether
security
lighting
is
appropriate
to
both
ensuring
the
discovery
of
oil
discharges
during
hours
of
darkness,
and
deter
vandalism.
28
This
security
plan
would
be
required
to
be
documented
in
the
qualified
facility's
SPCC
Plan,
and
would
include
a
discussion
of
how
the
security
plan
will
be
implemented
and
the
required
training/
inspections/
maintenance
for
security
related
equipment
and
activities.
The
Agency
recognizes
the
unique
nature
of
many
of
the
facilities
that
would
qualify
for
Plan
selfcertification
and
as
such,
some
flexibility
is
appropriate
so
these
facilities
can
achieve
compliance
with
the
security
provisions
of
the
current
SPCC
rule.
The
application
of
the
SPCC
security
measures
is
often
determined
by
the
facility's
geographical/
spatial
factors
and
there
is
no
one
size
fits
all
answer
to
this
serious
compliance
requirement.
For
example
facilities,
such
as
farms
or
national
parks,
may
have
unique
characteristics
that
make
compliance
with
the
current
security
measures,
such
as
potentially
fencing
the
entire
facility
footprint,
inappropriate.

The
Agency
is
also
proposing
to
provide
flexibility
in
the
area
of
integrity
testing
for
qualified
facilities.
The
Agency
will
continue
to
rely
on
the
appropriate
use
of
industry
standards
by
owners
and
operators.
As
EPA
stated
in
its
May
2004
letter
to
the
Petroleum
Marketers
Association
of
America
[
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oilspill/
pdfs/
PMAA_
letter.
pdf],
the
Agency
recognizes
that
in
certain
sitespecific
circumstances,
visual
inspection
may
be
appropriate
for
compliance
with
integrity
testing
requirement.
The
Agency
expects
that
the
evaluation
of
the
appropriateness
of
inspections/
testing
in
meeting
the
current
rule's
and
today's
proposed
integrity
testing
requirements
will
be
based
on
inspection
standards
such
as
the
Steel
Tank
Institute
(
STI)

SP001,
American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)
Standard
653
and
API
Recommended
Practice
12­

R,
which
address
the
scope
of
the
inspector
qualifications
and
scope/
frequency
of
the
testing/
inspections.
Thus,
in
effect,
the
Agency
is
proposing
to
allow
owners
and
operators
of
qualified
facilities
to
consult
industry
standards
or
qualified
container
inspectors/
testing
personnel
to
determine
the
appropriate
qualifications
for
tank
inspectors/
testing
personnel
and
29
the
type/
frequency
of
integrity
testing
required
for
a
particular
container
size
and
configuration.

The
Agency
is
allowing
this
determination
to
be
made
without
the
need
to
develop
a
PEapproved
environmentally
equivalent
deviation,
as
is
currently
required
under
§
112.7(
a)(
2)
for
facilities
that
would
not
self­
certify
their
Plans.
The
Agency
believes
that
allowing
this
flexibility
for
qualified
facilities
would
increase
compliance
and
thus
environmental
protection.

At
this
time,
EPA
is
aware
that
a
number
of
industry
standards
are
changing.

Nevertheless,
the
Agency
believes
that
it
may
be
appropriate
to
allow
the
flexibility
of
alternative
integrity
testing
methods
for
these
qualified
facilities
to
be
consistent
with
relevant
industry
standards.
For
example,
visual
inspections
may
be
appropriate
for
the
lower
volume
shop­
built
containers
in
certain
configurations
that
are
likely
to
be
present
at
most
of
these
qualified
facilities.
In
the
absence
of
the
an
environmental
equivalency
provision
that
would
allow
an
alternative
integrity
testing
method
for
qualified
facilities,
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
perform
visual
inspections
plus
non­
destructive
testing
on
all
classes
of
containers,
regardless
of
size
and
configuration.
Qualified
facilities
would
have
to
bear
the
additional
cost
and
burden
of
conducting
non­
destructive
testing
that
may
not
be
necessary
under
industry
standards.
The
Agency
continues
to
strongly
recommend
that
facilities,

qualified
for
self­
certification
or
otherwise,
utilize
industry
standards
that
are
appropriate
to
their
particular
tank
configurations
in
developing
and
conducting
tank
inspection
and
testing
programs
and
when
determining
inspector/
testing
personnel
qualifications.

The
Agency
requests
comments
on
whether
the
proposed
requirements
for
security
and
integrity
testing
for
"
qualified
facilities"
provide
appropriate
flexibility,
while
maintaining
environmental
protection.
Any
alternative
approach
presented
must
include
an
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
it
for
final
action.
30
3.
Alternative
Options
Considered
EPA
considered
other
options
to
streamline
the
requirements
for
facilities
with
oil
capacity
below
a
certain
threshold.
These
options
included
1)
administrative
approaches
such
as
providing
another
extension
of
deadlines
or
a
suspension
of
all
SPCC
requirements;
and
2)
a
multi­
tiered
structure
of
requirements
based
on
a
facility's
total
regulated
storage
based
on
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
proposal
described
in
the
Certain
Facilities
NODA
published
last
year.
The
Agency
also
considered
an
alternative
to
the
option
proposed
today
that
would
include
a
one
time
notification
to
the
EPA
for
qualified
facilities
that,
because
of
the
time
they
have
been
in
operation
or
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements,
could
not
show
a
tenyear
clean
spill
history
as
a
qualifier.
All
of
these
options
would
apply
to
a
defined
set
of
"
qualified
facilities".

a.
Administrative
Options
Two
administrative
options
were
considered:
a
compliance
date
extension
and
a
suspension
of
all
requirements.
Both
options
would
apply
to
a
defined
universe
of
"
qualified"

SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
A
proposed
extension
would
provide
an
undetermined
future
date
for
compliance
with
the
rule.
As
in
past
extensions,
all
facilities
that
should
have
had
a
Plan
as
of
August
16,
2002
would
be
required
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
pre­
2002
SPCC
requirements
during
the
interim
period,
including
those
that
could
potentially
take
advantage
of
today's
qualified
facilities
proposal.
A
suspension
of
requirements
for
qualified
facilities
would
provide
relief
for
the
affected
universe
until
EPA
takes
further
action.
EPA
would
need
to
specify
which
SPCC
requirements
would
fall
under
the
suspension.
31
Both
of
these
administrative
options
would
allow
EPA
more
time
to
decide
how
to
regulate
qualified
facilities
without
delaying
compliance
for
the
entire
universe
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
However,
under
both
of
these
options,
owners
or
operators
of
qualified
facilities
would
remain
uncertain
about
the
timing
and
type
of
future
requirements
that
would
apply
to
them.
The
preferred
option
would
set
forth
explicit
requirements
for
qualified
facilities
that
reduce
compliance
costs
within
the
current
compliance
date
schedule.

The
administrative
options
also
would
pose
additional
problems
related
to
implementation
and
environmental
protection.
An
extension
would
not
explain
what
qualified
facilities
that
should
have
had
a
Plan
as
of
August
16,
2002,
but
currently
do
not
have
one,
must
do
to
"
maintain
a
Plan"
during
the
extension
period.
A
suspension
would
increase
environmental
risks
from
potential
discharges
at
qualified
facilities
during
the
interim
period,
if
they
delay
compliance
with
the
SPCC
rule.
A
similar
situation
would
occur
under
the
extension
option
for
facilities
that
begin
operation
after
August
16,
2002.
Consequently,
the
Agency
rejected
these
options.

b.
Multi­
tiered
Structure
A
multi­
tiered
structure
option
was
developed
in
response
to
comments
EPA
received
following
publication
of
the
NODA
for
facilities
that
handle
oil
below
a
certain
threshold
amount
(
69
FR
56182,
September
20,
2004)
and
is
based
on
a
previous
analysis
prepared
for
the
U.
S.

Small
Business
Administration
(
Jack
Faucett
Associates,
2004)
(
hereafter
"
SBA
proposal").

This
revised
regulatory
structure
would
not
only
relax
requirements
for
PE
certification,
but
also
requirements
for
preparing
an
SPCC
Plan
itself,
although
under
this
approach,
the
facility
would
still
be
responsible
for
complying
with
the
substantive
requirements
of
the
SPCC
rule.
It
includes
a
tiered
system
based
on
the
total
storage
capacity
of
a
facility,
as
follows:
32
°
Tier
I
would
include
facilities
that
handle
between
1,321
and
5,000
gallons
of
oil
(
total
storage
capacity).
These
facilities
would
not
need
a
written
SPCC
Plan
(
and
therefore
no
PE
certification
would
be
needed),
but
would
have
to
adhere
to
all
other
SPCC
requirements.

°
Tier
II
would
include
facilities
handling
between
5,001
and
10,000
gallons
of
oil
(
total
storage
capacity).
These
facilities
would
be
required
to
have
a
written
SPCC
Plan,
but
the
Plan
would
not
need
to
be
certified
by
a
PE,
and
a
PE
site
visit
would
not
be
required.
Standardized
plans
could
be
adopted
by
a
facility
conforming
to
standard
design
and
operating
procedures,
without
requiring
PE
certification.

°
Tier
III
would
include
the
remaining
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
(
total
storage
capacity
greater
than
10,000
gallons).
These
facilities
would
be
required
to
have
a
written
SPCC
Plan
certified
by
a
PE,
as
currently
required
by
the
2002
revised
SPCC
rule.

SBA
also
suggested
that
EPA
promulgate
an
interim
final
rule
that
excludes
small
facilities
with
storage
of
less
than
10,000
gallons
(
the
first
two
tiers
of
their
three­
tier
approach)
from
SPCC
plan
requirements,
pending
completion
of
the
full
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
for
small
facilities
to
develop
the
aforementioned
tiered
requirements.
In
order
to
provide
environmental
protection
in
the
interim
period,
SBA
recommended
that
EPA
require:
(
1)
regular
visual
inspections
of
containers,
(
2)
replacement
or
retirement
of
leaking
tanks,
and
(
3)

compliance
with
the
Part
109
contingency
plan
requirements
or
their
equivalent.
In
this
manner
(
according
to
SBA),
the
EPA
could
address
the
reality
of
the
extremely
low
SPCC
compliance
rate
among
small
facilities,
and
would
work
toward
creating
a
rule
that
small
facilities
would
be
likely
to
comply
with.
SBA
stated
that
such
a
move
would
enhance,
rather
than
detract
from,
environmental
protection.
33
This
approach
would
provide
different
levels
of
regulatory
relief
based
on
total
oil
storage
capacity
alone,
basing
degree
of
risk
on
the
surrogate
measure
facility
size.
Many
commenters
on
the
NODA
supported
this
approach,
which
would
reduce
compliance
costs
by
eliminating
the
PE
certification
requirement
for
facilities
under
10,000
gallons.
EPA
does
not
support
this
approach
because
it
poses
significant
implementation
problems.
In
particular,
the
Agency
believes
that
without
the
owner/
operator
developing
a
Plan
or
documentation
on
how
the
facility
will
comply
or
expects
to
comply
with
the
SPCC
requirements,
it
will
be
challenging
for
the
facility
to
both
meet
the
substantive
requirements
(
for
example,
spill
notification,

response
and
preparedness
planning,
equipment
maintenance,
inspection
and
training,

secondary
containment)
as
well
as
provide
documentation
to
the
regulators
that
the
facility
is
in
compliance.
Additionally,
EPA
inspectors
conducting
site
visits
would
have
no
written
Plan
or
documentation
to
assess
the
facility's
effectiveness
in
implementing
its
spill
prevention
strategy.
This
would
put
both
the
facility
and
EPA
in
a
difficult
position
and
one
that
we
believe
would
not
be
in
anyone's
interest.
While
this
option
was
supported
by
commenters
at
the
conceptual
level,
if
fully
explained
what
the
option
meant,
we
believe
that
many
of
these
commenters
would
have
raised
many
questions.
Nevertheless,
the
Agency
solicits
comment
on
this
approach.

c.
One­
time
Notification
The
Agency
recognizes
that
some
facilities
otherwise
qualifying
for
owner/
operator
selfcertification
will
have
been
in
existence
for
fewer
than
ten
years
and
will
consequently
be
unable
to
demonstrate
ten
years
without
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b).
Some
of
these
facilities
will
have
come
into
existence
after
August
16,
2002,
and
will
not
have
been
subject
to
SPCC
regulation
until
August
18,
2006;
some
will
be
new
facilities
beginning
operation
after
that
date.
EPA
agrees
with
the
USWAG
comments
that
a
compliant
discharge
34
history
of
ten
years
or
more
provides
a
higher
degree
of
assurance
of
continuing
compliance
than
a
history
of
ten
years
or
less.
This
is
particularly
true
when
comparing
ten­
year
compliant
facilities
to
otherwise
qualified
facilities
which
began
operations
after
August
16,
2002,
and
whose
owners
or
operators,
to
date,
have
not
been
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
SPCC
program,
as
well
as
startup
facilities
without
any
operating
history.
EPA
considered
whether
owners
or
operators
of
newer
facilities
that
do
not
have
10
years
of
compliance
and
operation
without
a
discharge
should
be
required
to
provide
a
one­
time
notification
to
the
Agency.
This
notification
would
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
within
30
days
of
self­
certifying
a
facility's
SPCC
Plan
and
would
include
the
following
information:
1)
name
of
the
facility
owner/
operator;

2)
mailing
address
of
the
facility
owner/
operator;
3)
type
of
business
conducted
at
the
facility
that
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
part;
4)
above­
ground
capacity
of
the
facility;
5)

location
of
the
facility
by
street
address
or,
if
there
is
no
street
address,
by
longitude
and
latitude;
and
6)
year
the
facility
began
operations.
These
notices
could
be
provided
by
either
regular
or
electronic
mail.
The
Agency
would
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
some
basic
SPCC
outreach
and
educational
support
to
these
owners
and
operators
who,
while
otherwise
demonstrating
the
prerequisites
for
self­
certification,
are
unable
to
demonstrate
10
years
without
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b).
This
one­
time
notification
requirement,
if
adopted,
would
modify
today's
proposed
qualified
facilities
option.

The
Agency
welcomes
comments
on
these
or
other
alternatives
that
could
serve
to
reduce
the
burden
to
smaller
oil
handling
facilities
in
particular,
while
at
the
same
time
maintaining
appropriate
levels
of
environmental
protection
by
preventing
discharges
of
oil.
Any
alternative
approach
presented
must
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
it
for
final
action.

B.
Qualified
Oil­
filled
Operational
Equipment
35
EPA
proposes
to
amend
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
(
40
CFR
part
112)
to
provide
an
optional
alternative
to
secondary
containment
for
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
meets
qualifying
criteria
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
"
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment").
The
proposal
would
allow
owners
and
operators
of
facilities
to
prepare
an
oil
spill
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment
and
materials
to
expeditiously
control
and
remove
any
oil
discharged
that
may
be
harmful,
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
for
the
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
without
having
to
make
an
individual
impracticability
determination
as
required
in
§
112.7(
d).

EPA
proposes
to
add
§
112.7(
k)
to
define
the
SPCC
eligibility
criteria
that
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
must
meet
in
order
to
be
considered
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
The
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
criteria
are:
1)
the
individual
oil­
filled
equipment
has
an
oil
storage
capacity
of
1,320
gallons
or
less;
2)
it
is
not
oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
through
process
equipment;
and
3)
it
is
located
at
a
facility
that
had
no
reportable
discharges
of
oil
from
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
in
the
ten
years
prior
to
the
SPCC
Plan
certification
date,
or
since
the
facility
became
subject
to
40
CFR
part
112
if
it
has
been
in
operation
for
less
than
ten
years.

This
proposed
action
would
provide
an
alternative
means
of
SPCC
compliance
for
this
equipment;
therefore,
a
facility
with
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
could
choose
to
follow
the
current
SPCC
requirements
to
provide
secondary
containment
in
accordance
with
§
112.7(
c)
for
this
equipment
if
desired.
For
example,
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
at
electrical
substations
is
often
surrounded
by
a
gravel
bed,
which
serves
as
a
passive
fire
quench
system
and
support
for
the
facility
grounding
network
and
can
provide
a
restriction
to
movement
of
any
oil
that
may
be
released.
Gravel
beds,
if
designed
to
prevent
a
discharge
as
36
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
(
i.
e.
without
french
drains
or
other
drainage
systems
that
may
serve
as
a
conduit
to
surface
waters)
may
meet
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
of
§
112.7(
c).
EPA
further
notes
that
facilities
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
located
within
buildings
with
limited
drainage,
which
prevents
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b),
may
already
meet
the
requirements
for
general
secondary
containment
of
§
112.7(
c).
If
so,
a
contingency
plan
for
this
equipment
is
not
necessary.
Ultimately,
this
would
be
a
decision
of
the
owner
and/
or
operator.

Examples
of
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
hydraulic
systems,
lubricating
systems
(
including
lubricating
systems
for
pumps,
compressors
and
other
rotating
equipment),
gear
boxes,
machining
coolant
systems,
heat
transfer
systems,

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

EPA
believes
that
secondary
containment
is
often
impracticable
for
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
due
to
its
design
and
configuration.
The
oil
associated
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
remains
inside
the
equipment
and
transfers
do
not
occur
regularly.
Operational
equipment
is
designed,
constructed,
and
maintained
according
to
specifications
for
its
particular
operation
and
construction
materials
are
corrosion­
resistant.
The
complexity
of
the
equipment
and
the
nature
of
the
use
of
this
equipment
may
not
lend
itself
to
traditional
bulk
storage
containment
methods
and
thus
flexibility
is
appropriate
in
this
area
and
may
improve
compliance
with
oil
pollution
prevention
measures.

Furthermore,
operational
equipment
is
frequently
monitored
by
employees
tending
to
the
operation,
and
discharges
of
oil
would
be
noticed
quickly.
For
many
types
of
operational
equipment,
particularly
electrical
equipment,
releases
of
oil
rapidly
decrease
functionality
of
the
equipment
 
for
electrical
equipment,
loss
of
dielectric
fluid
leads
to
equipment
failure
and
an
interruption
of
electric
power
transmission.
The
need
for
equipment
reliability
assures
prompt
37
detection
of
releases
of
oil,
enhancing
the
probability
of
a
prompt
response
action.
Therefore,

with
today's
proposal
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
EPA
would
allow
a
facility
owner
and
operator
to
prepare
a
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,

equipment,
and
materials
to
expeditiously
control
and
remove
oil
discharged,
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
without
making
an
impracticability
determination
under
§
112.7(
d).

EPA
believes
that
this
streamlined
approach
is
appropriate
for
the
equipment
that
meets
the
specified
criteria.

1.
Eligibility
Criteria
a.
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
Storage
Capacity
In
July
2002,
EPA
clarified
that
oil­
filled
electrical,
operating,
and
manufacturing
equipment
are
not
bulk
storage
containers
and
therefore
are
not
subject
to
the
bulk
storage
container
provisions
in
§
112.8(
c),
including
sized
secondary
containment
and
integrity
testing.
However,

as
EPA
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
July
2002
amendments,
oil­
filled
equipment
is
subject
to
general
secondary
containment
requirements
described
in
§
112.7(
c),
which
can
be
provided
by
various
means
including
drainage
systems,
spill
diversion
ponds,
etc.
EPA
believes
these
measures
provide
for
safety
and
also
meet
the
needs
of
section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
CWA.

Though
there
are
times
when
general
secondary
containment
is
achievable
for
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
the
Agency
agreed
to
continue
to
evaluate
whether
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
found
in
§
112.7(
c)
should
be
modified
for
small
electrical
and
other
types
of
equipment
which
use
oil
for
operating
purposes.
On
September
20,
2004,

EPA
published
a
NODA
which
made
available
and
solicited
comments
on
submissions
to
EPA
suggesting
that
alternate
regulatory
requirements
for
facilities
with
oil­
filled
and
process
38
equipment
would
be
appropriate
(
69
FR
56184).
EPA
has
reviewed
the
public
comments
and
data
submitted
in
response
to
this
NODA
and
presents
today's
action
in
accordance
with
our
intention
to
consider
alternative
containment
options
for
smaller
electrical
and
operational
equipment.

EPA
proposes
a
maximum
storage
capacity
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
of
1,320
gallons
per
item
of
equipment.
In
deciding
to
propose
an
oil
storage
capacity
of
1,320
gallons
or
less
as
a
maximum,
EPA
considered
the
current
SPCC
rule
threshold
for
aboveground
storage
capacity.
Additionally,
the
1,320
gallon
threshold
was
offered
as
a
potential
consideration
in
tiering
SPCC
rule
requirements
in
an
industry
proposal
submitted
by
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
USWAG).
This
proposal
was
made
available
in
the
NODA
regarding
oil­
filled
and
process
equipment
and
received
strong
support
by
the
majority
of
commenters
on
the
NODA.

In
reviewing
data
submitted
in
response
to
the
NODA,
the
Agency
determined
that
the
burden­
reduction
impact
of
the
1,320
gallon
threshold
would
be
considerable.
Setting
the
oil
storage
capacity
at
this
threshold
would
affect
approximately
two
thirds
of
the
electrical
equipment
universe,
according
to
correspondence
from
USWAG.
Additionally,
other
commenters
indicated
that
approximately
80%
of
the
electrical
equipment
universe
would
fall
under
this
storage
capacity
threshold.
Specifically,
information
from
one
commenter
representing
a
large
domestic
utility
revealed
that
83%
of
their
electrical
equipment
contains
less
than
1,320
gallons
of
oil.
Another
commenter
representing
a
large
aircraft
manufacturer,

indicated
that
over
80%
of
their
electrical
and
hydraulic
equipment
contains
less
than
1,320
gallons
of
oil.
39
In
developing
this
proposed
threshold,
EPA
elected
to
use
the
electrical
equipment
universe
data
in
conjunction
with
comments
regarding
the
oil
storage
capacity
for
other
types
of
small
oil­
filled
equipment.
Commenters
suggested
that
where
sites
include
a
combination
of
electrical
and
other
oil­
filled
equipment,
again,
approximately
80%
of
this
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
falls
under
the
1,320­
gallon
threshold.
As
a
result,
EPA
decided
to
set
the
threshold
for
today's
proposal
at
an
oil
storage
capacity
of
1,320
gallons.

Facilities
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
below
1,320
gallons
of
oil
have
minimal
oil
throughput
because
fewer
oil
transfers
are
associated
with
this
equipment.
Further,
like
cooling
or
lubricating
oils,
the
oil
is
intrinsic
to
the
operation
of
the
device
and
facilitates
the
function
of
the
equipment.
Oil­
filled
operational
equipment
is
not
subject
to
frequent
transfers
of
oil
into
or
from
its
containers
and
are
often
subject
to
routine
maintenance
and
inspections
to
ensure
proper
operation.
While
larger
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
shares
similar
design
and
configurations
with
equipment
with
oil
storage
capacity
less
than
or
equal
to
1,320
gallons,

larger
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
has
the
inherent
potential
to
discharge
larger
quantities
of
oil
that
may
be
harmful.
EPA
believes
that
an
owner/
operator
of
a
facility
with
larger
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
should
conduct
an
assessment
of
the
facility's
capability
to
provide
general
secondary
containment
in
accordance
with
§
112.7(
c).
Thus,
EPA
decided
to
limit
the
relief
provided
in
today's
proposal
to
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
with
oil
storage
capacity
less
than
or
equal
to
1,320
gallons.
Additionally,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
use
of
a
contingency
plan
does
not
relieve
the
owner/
operator
of
liability
associated
with
an
oil
discharge
to
navigable
waters
or
adjoining
shorelines
that
violates
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
part
110.

The
Agency
seeks
comments
on
whether
the
proposed
threshold
achieves
an
appropriate
balance
of
facility
burden
and
environmental
protection
for
small
oil­
filled
operational
40
equipment.
Any
available
data
specific
to
either
the
capacity
or
size
distribution
of
small
oilfilled
operational
equipment
in
an
industry
would
be
useful
in
Agency
deliberations
for
final
rulemaking.
Any
alternative
approach
presented
must
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
it
for
final
action.

b.
Reportable
Discharge
History
Under
today's
proposal,
the
alternative
to
secondary
containment
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
would
not
be
available
to
facilities
that
have
had
a
reportable
discharge
from
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
in
the
ten
years
prior
to
the
SPCC
Plan
certification
date,

or
if
not
subject
to
40
CFR
part
112
for
ten
years,
since
becoming
subject
to
part
112.
This
criterion
is
based
on
a
proposal
submitted
by
USWAG,
as
described
in
the
documents
supplementing
the
September
20,
2004,
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA)
at
69
FR
56184.

In
its
proposal,
USWAG
recognized
that
facilities
that
pose
a
risk,
in
the
form
of
discharges
of
oil
in
quantities
that
are
harmful
(
reportable
under
40
CFR
part
110),
should
not
be
granted
regulatory
relief.
In
general,
NODA
commenters
expressed
strong
support
for
the
USWAG
proposal.

40
CFR
§
110.3
defines
a
discharge
of
oil
"
in
such
quantities
that
may
be
harmful"
to
the
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
of
the
United
States
as
a
discharge
of
oil
that
violates
applicable
water
quality
standards;
a
discharge
of
oil
that
causes
a
film
or
sheen
upon
the
surface
of
the
water
or
adjoining
shorelines;
or
a
discharge
of
oil
that
causes
a
sludge
or
emulsion
to
be
deposited
beneath
the
surface
of
the
water
or
adjoining
shorelines.
The
Agency
refers
to
such
discharges
in
§
112.1(
b)
of
the
rule.
Any
person
in
charge
of
a
facility
must
report
any
such
discharge
of
oil
from
the
facility
to
the
National
Response
Center
(
NRC)

at
1­
800­
424­
8802
immediately.
While
EPA
recognizes
that
past
discharge
history
does
not
41
necessarily
predict
future
performance,
the
Agency
believes
that
discharge
history
can
be
used
as
a
surrogate
measure
for
a
facility's
ability
to
appropriately
manage
its
oil.
Hence,
as
with
the
"
qualified
facilities"
proposal,
EPA
proposes
to
use
this
discharge
history
criterion
to
identify
a
facility's
ability
to
effectively
implement
its
SPCC
Plan
and
prevent
discharges
in
quantities
that
may
be
harmful.
In
establishing
a
good
oil
spill
prevention
history,
a
facility
then
qualifies
for
the
oil
spill
contingency
plan
option
offered
in
this
proposal.

The
Agency
requests
comments
on
the
appropriateness
of
this
criterion
for
determining
the
qualifications
of
a
facility
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
for
this
alternative,
and
whether
there
are
other
measures
of
a
facility's
effective
implementation
of
the
oil
pollution
prevention
requirements
for
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
under
40
CFR
part
112
that
should
be
considered.
In
addition,
the
Agency
also
requests
comments
on
the
proposed
10­
year
period
by
which
facilities
can
meet
the
discharge
history
criterion.
Any
alternative
time
periods
suggested
must
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
them
for
final
action.

c.
Oil­
Filled
Manufacturing
Flow­
Through
Process
Equipment
Exclusion
As
proposed
today,
oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
through
process
equipment
would
not
qualify
for
this
alternative.
The
Agency
defines
flow­
through
process
equipment
as
a
subset
of
manufacturing
equipment
(
which
is
considered
oil­
filled
equipment)
and
under
the
current
rule,

is
not
considered
a
bulk
storage
container.
However,
oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
though
process
equipment
is
inherently
more
complicated
than
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
because
it
is
typically
interconnected
through
piping,
which
makes
it
difficult
to
calculate
the
total
oil
storage
capacity.
Additionally,
oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
through
process
equipment
receives
a
continuous
source
of
oil,
in
contrast
to
the
static
capacity
of
other,
non­
flow­
through
42
oil­
filled
equipment.
Oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
through
process
equipment
includes,
for
example,
tanks,
vessels,
conveyances
such
as
piping,
and
equipment
used
in
the
alteration,

processing
or
refining
of
crude
oil
and
other
non­
petroleum
oils,
including
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.
This
equipment
remains
subject
to
the
general
SPCC
requirements
under
§
112.7,
including
a
demonstration
of
impracticability
under
§
112.7(
d)
if
the
SPCC
Plan
does
not
provide
for
secondary
containment
as
required
by
§
112.7(
c).
The
containers
associated
with
storage
of
raw
products,
or
the
finished
oil
products
are
bulk
storage
containers
and
are
not
considered
part
of
the
oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
through
process
equipment
or
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
but
are
rather
bulk
storage
containers.
EPA
expects
the
owner
or
operator
to
delineate
bulk
storage
containers
from
the
oil­
filled
manufacturing
flow­
through
process
equipment
in
the
facility
SPCC
Plan
for
ease
of
inspection.

2.
Proposed
Requirements
for
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
a.
Contingency
Plans
In
Lieu
of
Secondary
Containment
The
regulated
community,
particularly
electrical
facilities,
identified
secondary
containment
for
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
as
one
of
its
major
cost
concerns.
This
sentiment
was
echoed
in
the
comments
submitted
in
response
to
the
NODAs.
With
this
proposal,
the
Agency
is
responding
to
those
concerns
by
providing
targeted
relief
without
compromising
on
environmental
protection.
The
proposed
amendments
to
§
112.7
would
give
a
facility
with
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
the
option
of
implementing
an
oil
spill
contingency
plan
and
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment,
and
materials
required
to
expeditiously
control
and
remove
any
quantity
of
oil
discharged
that
may
be
harmful
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
for
this
equipment,
without
having
to
make
an
impracticability
determination
for
each
piece
of
equipment.
43
In
the
preamble
to
the
2002
amendments,
EPA
discusses
how
any
facility
which
makes
a
determination
of
impracticability
and
has
submitted
a
Facility
Response
Plan
(
FRP)
under
§
112.20
is
exempt
from
the
contingency
planning
requirement
because
such
a
response
plan
is
more
comprehensive
than
a
contingency
plan
following
40
CFR
part
109.
The
Agency
believes
that
this
should
also
apply
to
a
facility
with
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
which
would
choose
to
utilize
contingency
planning
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
in
accordance
with
today's
proposal.
If
such
a
facility
has
already
developed
a
FRP
to
comply
with
§
112.20,
then
it
would
not
need
to
also
develop
a
contingency
plan
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
part
109
for
the
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.

Since
by
definition
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
is
not
considered
a
bulk
storage
container,
the
facility
owner
or
operator
is
not
required
to
comply
with
the
bulk
storage
requirements
under
§
112.8(
c)
or
to
conduct
both
periodic
integrity
testing
of
the
containers
and
periodic
integrity
and
leak
testing
of
the
valves
and
piping
as
described
under
§
112.7(
d).

However,
EPA
believes
that
inspections
and
monitoring
are
important
when
there
is
no
secondary
containment
in
place.
Therefore,
EPA
is
proposing
to
require
facilities
with
qualified
oil­
filled
equipment
choosing
the
proposed
alternative
to
secondary
containment
to
develop
and
implement
an
inspection
and/
or
monitoring
program,
as
further
discussed
in
section
B.
2.
b.

of
this
section
of
the
preamble.
Since
this
proposal
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
would
provide
an
optional
method
of
SPCC
compliance,
a
facility
with
such
equipment
could
choose
to
follow
the
current
SPCC
requirements
and
provide
general
secondary
containment
in
accordance
with
§
112.7(
c)
for
this
equipment
if
desired.
Ultimately,

this
would
be
a
decision
of
the
owner
and/
or
operator.
44
Facilities
with
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
choose
the
proposed
alternative
to
secondary
containment
and
that
subsequently
experience
a
discharge
would
not
automatically
lose
eligibility
for
today's
proposed
relief.
However,
the
Regional
Administrator
may
determine
that
a
facility
is
no
longer
eligible
to
have
a
contingency
plan
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
without
making
an
impracticability
determination,
and
such
facilities
may
be
required
to
amend
their
Plans
to
provide
secondary
containment
for
their
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
The
RA
has
the
authority
to
require
SPCC
Plan
amendments
under
§
112.4.
Section
112.4(
a)
requires
a
facility
that
has
discharged
more
than
1,000
gallons
of
oil
in
a
single
discharge
as
described
in
40
CFR
part
110,
or
that
discharged
more
than
42
gallons
of
oil
in
each
of
two
discharges
as
described
in
40
CFR
part
110
in
any
12­
month
period
to
submit
information
to
the
RA
within
60
days
of
the
date
of
the
discharge.
As
per
§
112.4(
d),
the
RA
has
the
authority
to
require
the
facility
to
amend
its
SPCC
Plan
in
order
to
prevent
and
contain
discharges,
e.
g.,
the
RA
may
require
a
facility
to
install
secondary
containment
for
oilfilled
operational
equipment.
In
addition,
a
discharge
of
oil
under
40
CFR
part
110
that
does
not
trigger
the
reporting
requirements
of
§
112.4(
a)
must
still
be
reported
to
the
National
Response
Center.
EPA
also
receives
copies
of
the
NRC
reports
and
has
the
authority
under
§
112.1(
f)
to
require
a
facility
to
prepare
and
implement
an
SPCC
Plan
or
any
applicable
part
of
a
Plan.
Thus,
the
RA
may
require
a
Plan,
partial
Plan,
or
amendments
to
the
Plan
to
achieve
full
compliance
with
the
rule,
as
deemed
appropriate
to
prevent
further
discharges
in
quantities
that
may
be
harmful.

b.
Inspections
and
Monitoring
Program
Facility
owners
or
operators
that
wish
to
take
advantage
of
this
proposed
alternative
would
be
required
to
develop
an
appropriate
set
of
procedures
for
inspections
and/
or
a
monitoring
program
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
For
facilities
that
rely
on
contingency
45
planning
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,

discharge
discovery
by
inspection
or
monitoring
is
of
paramount
importance
for
effective
and
timely
implementation
of
the
contingency
plan.
An
inspections
and/
or
a
monitoring
program
would
ensure
that
facilities
are
alerted
quickly
of
equipment
failures
and/
or
discharges.
A
written
description
of
the
inspection
or
monitoring
program
would
be
required
to
be
included
in
the
SPCC
Plan.
Under
the
existing
requirement
in
§
112.7(
e),
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
keep
a
record
of
inspections
and
tests,
signed
by
the
appropriate
supervisor
or
inspector,
for
a
period
of
three
years.
Records
of
inspections
and
tests
kept
under
usual
and
customary
business
practices
suffice.

While
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
is
not
a
bulk
storage
container
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
the
frequent
visual
inspection
requirement
under
§
112.8(
c)(
6),
it
is
good
engineering
practice
to
have
some
form
of
visual
inspection
or
monitoring
for
these
oil­
filled
non­
bulk
storage
containers
to
prevent
discharges
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b).
Additionally,
it
is
a
challenge
to
comply
with
several
of
the
SPCC
provisions
(
for
example,
requirements
for
security
under
§
112.7(
g)
and
for
countermeasures
for
discharge
discovery
under
§
112.7(
a)(
3)(
iv))
without
some
form
of
inspection
or
monitoring
program.
EPA
views
inspection
and/
or
monitoring
as
necessary
for
effective
and
timely
implementation
of
the
contingency
plan
alternative
to
secondary
containment.
EPA
is
therefore
proposing
that
discharge
discovery
by
inspection
or
monitoring
be
required
for
those
facilities
relying
on
contingency
planning
in
lieu
of
containment
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.

The
Agency
requests
comments
on
the
appropriateness
of
this
requirement
as
a
qualification
for
this
alternative,
and
whether
there
are
other
measures
that
a
facility
could
take
to
ensure
that
a
contingency
plan
is
activated
in
a
timely
manner
upon
equipment
failure
or
46
discharge.
Any
alternative
approach
presented
must
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
it
for
final
action.

The
Agency
also
requests
comments
on
whether
there
are
other
requirements
that
should
be
added
as
qualifiers
for
facilities
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
to
be
able
to
use
a
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment
and
materials
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
Any
alternative
approach
presented
must
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
it
for
final
action.

3.
Alternative
Options
Considered
EPA
considered
alternative
approaches
to
address
streamlined
requirements
for
small
oilfilled
operational
equipment.
One
option
would
call
for
a
tiered
set
of
requirements
for
electrical
and
other
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
EPA
also
considered
administrative
options
similar
to
those
presented
for
the
qualified
facilities
proposal:
1)
providing
an
extension
of
the
Plan
revision
and
implementation
dates
for
certain
types
of
oil­
filled
operational
equipment;
and
2)
suspending
all
SPCC
requirements
for
certain
types
of
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.

a.
Multi­
tiered
Structure
The
tiered
structure
option
was
considered
in
response
to
comments
EPA
received
following
publication
of
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
for
oil­
filled
equipment
(
69
FR
56184,

September
20,
2004)
and
is
based
on
a
previous
proposal
put
forth
by
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
USWAG)
that
focused
on
electrical
equipment.
A
central
element
of
this
47
option
would
allow
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
define
each
discrete
unit
of
this
type
of
oilfilled
equipment
as
a
facility.
This
option
would
also
establish
three
tiers
for
regulated
onshore
oil­
filled
electrical
equipment
based
on
the
storage
capacity
of
the
equipment.
Equipment
with
an
oil
storage
capacity
of
1,320
gallons
or
less
(
Tier
1)
would
have
been
exempt
from
all
SPCC
requirements.
For
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
with
a
capacity
greater
than
1,320
but
less
than
20,000
gallons
and
which
meet
additional
qualifying
criteria
(
Tier
II),
facility
owners
and
operators
would
have
the
option
of
preparing
a
contingency
plan
in
lieu
of
an
SPCC
Plan.
Such
an
approach
would
have
exempted
a
significant
portion
of
the
regulated
universe
with
electrical
equipment
from
the
development
of
an
SPCC
Plan
entirely
and
instead
would
only
need
to
develop
a
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,

equipment
and
materials
in
the
event
of
a
discharge.
Tier
III
would
require
that
all
other
equipment
with
capacities
greater
than
20,000
gallons
be
required
to
comply
with
the
current
SPCC
rule.

Although
the
Agency
agrees
that
some
regulatory
modifications
may
be
appropriate
for
facilities
containing
certain
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
there
is
still
a
reasonable
potential
for
discharge
from
this
equipment
and
coverage
by
some
type
of
SPCC
Plan
is
warranted.

The
Agency
believes
this
is
true
even
for
facilities
composed
entirely
of
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
Therefore,
EPA
rejects
the
tiered
option.
EPA
also
has
concerns
about
the
suggestion
to
allow
facility
owners
and
operators
to
define
each
piece
of
oil­
filled
equipment
as
a
separate
facility
because
of
the
potential
for
greater
rule
complexity,
implementation
questions
and
confusion
across
the
wide
variety
of
facilities
covered
by
the
SPCC
rule.
For
example,
the
Agency
may
have
to
define
and
develop
criteria
that
would
be
used
by
the
facility
owner
or
operator
to
determine
which
equipment
is
a
separate
facility,
which
is
not,
and
how
the
elements
of
a
facility
plan
would
address
these
differences.
Uncertainty
and
confusion
48
about
the
definition
of
a
facility
could
lead
to
a
greater
lack
of
compliance
and
possibly
greater
environmental
harm.

b.
Administrative
Options
EPA
could
propose
an
extension,
similar
to
the
previous
extensions
already
granted,
that
would
apply
to
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
This
action
would
allow
EPA
more
time
to
decide
how
to
regulate
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
without
delaying
compliance
for
the
entire
universe
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
and
equipment.
However,
the
extension
would
be
for
a
yet­
to­
be­
determined
length
of
time,
and
for
an
unspecified
set
of
requirements.
Facility
owners
or
operators
would
be
uncertain
about
the
timing
and
scope
of
requirements
that
eventually
would
apply
to
them.
Since
so
many
facilities
have
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,

if
changes
to
these
requirements
are
delayed,
a
significant
number
of
facilities
might
have
to
modify
their
existing
Plans
more
than
once
to
accommodate
future
rule
changes.
As
with
past
extensions,
EPA
would
continue
to
require
that
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
comply
with
pre­
2002
SPCC
requirements
during
the
interim
period
at
facilities
that
should
have
had
an
SPCC
Plan
as
of
August
16,
2002,
providing
no
immediate
relief.
Consequently,
EPA
rejected
this
option.

A
suspension
of
all
requirements
for
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
would
provide
immediate
relief
until
further
notice
and
provided
EPA
with
more
time
to
decide
how
to
regulate
this
equipment.
Like
the
extension
option,
facility
owners
or
operators
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
would
be
uncertain
about
the
timing
and
scope
of
requirements
that
would
apply
to
them.
In
addition,
the
Agency
is
concerned
that
this
option
provides
no
environmental
protection
during
the
time
that
new
requirements
are
developed.
Therefore,
EPA
rejected
this
option.
49
EPA
welcomes
comments
on
these
or
other
alternatives
that
could
reduce
the
burden
at
facilities
with
certain
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
while
maintaining
appropriate
levels
of
environmental
protection.
The
Agency
is
particularly
interested
in
comments
on
how
this
option
could
be
applied
to
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
is
co­
located
or
clustered
together
at
discrete
sites,
such
as
at
an
electrical
substation
or
a
transformer
vault.
The
Agency
is
also
interested
in
comments
related
to
the
application
of
the
electrical
equipment
tiered
option
to
other
types
of
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
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.

4.
Overlap
with
Qualified
Facilities
a.
Qualified
Facilities
with
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
Some
facilities
would
meet
the
criteria
for
both
qualified
facilities
and
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
Such
facilities
would
be
able
to
benefit
from
both
of
the
burdenreduction
options
proposed
under
today's
action.
The
owner
or
operator
would
be
able
to
choose
to
develop
a
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment
and
materials
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
Since
no
impracticability
claim
would
be
required
for
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
the
owner
or
operator
could
self­
certify
his/
her
SPCC
Plan
and
would
not
be
required
to
have
a
PE
develop
and
certify
the
contingency
plan
for
the
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment.
The
responsibility
of
preparing
a
contingency
plan
and
identifying
the
necessary
equipment,

materials
and
manpower
to
implement
the
contingency
plan
would
fall
on
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
qualified
facility.
50
b.
Qualified
Facilities
with
No
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
Because
of
the
storage
capacity
limitation,
a
qualified
facility
could
have
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
does
not
qualify
for
today's
proposed
alternative.
In
the
event
that
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
qualified
facility
would
choose
to
self­
certify
the
SPCC
Plan,
the
owner/
operator
would
be
required
to
provide
secondary
containment
in
accordance
with
§
112.7(
c)
for
the
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
does
not
meet
the
proposed
qualifying
criteria
of
§
112.7(
k).
Since
today's
proposal
provides
optional
methods
of
SPCC
compliance,
a
qualified
facility
with
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
would
not
meet
the
proposed
qualifying
criteria
could
instead
choose
to
have
a
PE
evaluate
whether
secondary
containment
is
practicable
for
this
equipment
pursuant
to
§
112.7(
d).
Otherwise,
the
owner/
operator
could
self­
certify
his/
her
Plan
and
provide
general
secondary
containment
for
this
equipment.

Ultimately,
this
would
be
a
decision
of
the
owner
and/
or
operator.

c.
Qualified
Facilities
with
Qualified
Oil­
Filled
Operational
Equipment
and
other
Oil­

Filled
Operational
Equipment
A
qualified
facility
could
also
have
both
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
as
well
as
other
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
does
not
meet
the
proposed
qualifying
criteria
of
§
112.7(
k).
If
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
qualified
facility
would
choose
to
self­
certify
the
facility's
SPCC
Plan
and
has
both
types
of
oil­
filled
operational
equipment,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
provide
secondary
containment
in
accordance
with
§
112.7(
c)
for
the
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
does
not
qualify
for
today's
proposed
alternative,
but
would
be
able
to
have
a
contingency
plan
in
lieu
of
secondary
containment
for
the
qualified
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
without
making
an
impracticability
determination.
Since
today's
proposal
would
provide
optional
methods
of
SPCC
compliance,
a
qualified
facility
could
instead
choose
51
to
hire
a
PE
to
assess
and
certify
the
flexibility
in
the
SPCC
rule
regarding
impracticability
for
the
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
that
does
not
meet
the
proposed
qualifying
criteria
of
§
112.7(
k).
Ultimately,
this
would
be
a
decision
of
the
owner
and/
or
operator.

C.
Motive
Power
Certain
motor
vehicles
(
including
aircraft)
contain
oil
in
capacities
greater
than
or
equal
to
55
gallons
solely
for
the
purpose
of
providing
fuel
for
propulsion,
or
solely
to
facilitate
the
operation
of
the
vehicle.
The
concept
of
"
motive
power"
is
not
addressed
in
the
SPCC
regulations,
but
the
EPA­
DOT
MOU
in
Appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
112
specifically
refers
to
the
transportation
of
oil,
not
to
transportation
in
the
general
sense.
As
a
result,
oil
storage
containers
with
a
capacity
greater
than
55
gallons
used
for
motive
power
fall
under
the
SPCC
rule;
secondary
containment
and
other
requirements
apply.
However,
EPA
never
intended
to
regulate
oil­
filled
containers
used
solely
for
either
the
propulsion
or
operation
of
vehicles
such
as
buses,
sport
utility
vehicles,
small
construction
vehicles,
aircraft
and
farm
equipment,
or
facilities
or
locations
such
as
heavy
equipment
dealers,
commercial
truck
dealers,
or
certain
parking
lots
that
may
be
covered
by
the
SPCC
requirements
(
including
bulk
storage
containment,
inspection,
and
overfill
protection)
solely
because
of
the
presence
of
motive
power
containers.
Nor
does
EPA
intend
to
require
facilities
otherwise
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule
to
include
motive
power
containers
in
their
Plans.

1.
Definition
of
Motive
Power
EPA
proposes
to
amend
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
(
40
CFR
part
112)
to
exempt
motive
power
containers,
defined
as
"
on­
board
bulk
oil
storage
containers
used
solely
to
power
the
movement
of
a
motor
vehicle,
or
ancillary
on­
board
oil­
filled
operational
52
equipment
used
solely
to
facilitate
its
operation."
This
definition
is
intended
to
describe
containers
such
as
the
fuel
tanks
that
are
used
solely
to
provide
fuel
for
a
motor
vehicle's
movement
or
the
hydraulic
and
lubrication
operational
oil­
filled
containers
used
solely
for
other
ancillary
functions
of
a
motor
vehicle.
This
definition
would
not
include
transfers
of
fuel
or
other
oil
into
motive
power
containers
at
an
otherwise
regulated
facility,
or
a
bulk
storage
container
mounted
on
a
vehicle
for
any
purpose
other
than
powering
the
vehicle
itself,
for
example,
a
tanker
truck
or
refueler.
Additionally,
this
definition
would
not
include
oil
drilling
or
workover
equipment.

The
Agency
is
seeking
comments
on
the
proposed
definition
of
motive
power
containers
or
if
there
are
any
other
definitions
for
"
motive
power"
that
would
be
more
suitable.
Any
alternative
approach
presented
must
include
appropriate
rationale
and
supporting
data
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
be
able
to
consider
it
for
final
action.

2.
Proposed
Exemption
This
proposed
rule
amendment
would
exempt
motive
power
containers,
as
defined
above,

from
SPCC
rule
applicability
through
a
proposed
additional
paragraph
under
the
general
applicability
section,
§
112.1(
d).
Furthermore,
these
storage
containers
would
not
be
counted
toward
facility
capacity
under
§
112.1(
d)(
2).
EPA
recognizes
that
there
is
a
potential
for
an
oil
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
from
motive
power
containers,
such
as
from
a
breach
in
the
fuel
storage
container,
from
an
overfill
event,
or
from
a
rupture
of
operational
oil­
filled
equipment
such
as
a
hydraulic
line
on
heavy
construction
equipment.
EPA
has
the
authority,

under
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
CWA,
to
impose
requirements
to
prevent
oil
discharges
from
motive
power
containers.
The
Regional
Administrator
has
the
option
under
§
112.1(
f)
to
require
facilities
with
motive
power
containers
to
prepare
and
implement
an
SPCC
Plan
or
any
53
applicable
part,
if
a
determination
is
made
that
it
is
necessary
in
order
to
prevent
a
discharge
of
oil
into
waters
of
the
United
States.

EPA
notes
that
although
this
proposal
provides
the
fuel
tanks
and
ancillary
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
on
motor
vehicles
with
an
exemption
from
SPCC
requirements,
oil
transfer
activities
occurring
within
an
SPCC
covered
facility
would
continue
to
be
regulated.

An
example
of
such
an
activity
would
be
the
transfer
from
an
onsite
tank
via
a
dispenser
to
motive
power
containers.
This
transfer
activity
is
subject
to
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
of
§
112.7(
c),
but
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
§
112.7(
h),
because
it
does
not
occur
across
a
loading/
unloading
rack.
Regulating
a
transfer
between
unregulated
motive
power
containers
and
a
regulated
tank
is
required
by
§
112.1(
b),
which
requires
that
the
SPCC
rule
apply
to
owners
or
operators
of
facilities
that
transfer
oil
and
oil
products.
Another
example
would
be
an
SPCC­
regulated
refueler
at
an
SPCC­
regulated
airport
that
transfers
oil
to
motive
power
containers
or
to
an
aircraft.
That
transfer
activity
would
again
be
subject
to
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
of
§
112.7(
c),
but
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
§
112.7(
h),
again
because
it
does
not
generally
occur
across
a
loading/
unloading
rack.

An
onboard
container
that
supplies
oil
for
the
movement
of
a
vehicle
or
operation
of
equipment,
and
at
the
same
time
is
used
for
the
distribution
or
storage
of
this
oil
is
not
subject
to
this
proposed
exemption.
For
example,
a
mobile
refueler
that
has
an
onboard
bulk
storage
container
to
distribute
fuel
to
other
vehicles
on
a
site
may
draw
its
engine
fuel
from
the
onboard
bulk
storage
tank.
Because
EPA
continues
to
consider
storage
tanks
mounted
on
vehicles
or
towed
by
a
vehicle
(
such
as
a
typical
cargo
tanker
truck)
as
bulk
storage
containers
subject
to
certain
transfer­
related
SPCC
requirements,
these
containers
are
not
subject
to
today's
proposed
exemption.
As
noted
above,
the
exemption
applies
only
to
onboard
oil
containers
used
solely
to
provide
motive
power
or
to
facilitate
the
operation
of
the
vehicle.
54
EPA
is
not
extending
the
exemption
for
motive
power
containers
to
oil
drilling
and
workover
equipment.
The
Agency
believes
that
due
to
the
unique
nature
of
oil
drilling
and
workover
operations
and
the
large
amounts
and
high
flow
rates
of
oil
associated
with
these
activities,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
or
environmentally
sound
to
exempt
them
from
the
SPCC
requirements,
and
thus
they
should
remain
subject
to
40
CFR
part
112.
The
purpose
of
offering
the
exemption
is
to
offer
relief
for
a
particular
set
of
equipment
(
such
as
automobiles)

that
may
be
present
at
an
otherwise
regulated
SPCC
facility,
and
not
to
offer
relief
for
facilities
that
may
be
mobile
and
move
from
place
to
place
as
in
the
case
of
a
drilling
or
workover
rig.

The
agency
believes
that
the
general
protection
and
the
spill
response
and
planning
activities
provided
at
an
otherwise
regulated
SPCC
facility
will
help
the
facility
to
address
the
spills
associated
with
these
motive
power
containers.
However,
the
specific
provisions
(
such
as
blowout
prevention)
which
are
present
in
the
current
rule
for
drilling
or
workover
rigs,
need
to
be
preserved
to
maintain
an
adequate
level
of
environmental
protection
for
these
unique
activities.
Therefore,
an
exemption
for
drilling
and
workover
rigs
is
inappropriate.

3.
Alternative
Options
Considered
EPA
considered
other
options
to
address
motive
power
containers
greater
than
55
gallons
in
size.
These
options
included:
1)
exemption
of
all
motive
power
containers,
except
motive
power
containers
on
aircraft
and
mining
equipment,
which
would
be
subject
to
the
general
requirements
under
§
112.7;
2)
exemption
of
all
motive
power
containers
below
a
certain
gallon
threshold,
with
containers
above
this
threshold
remaining
subject
to
the
general
requirements
under
§
112.7;
and
3)
exclusion
of
motive
power
containers
only
from
the
facility
storage
capacity
calculation
and
bulk
storage
container
requirements.

a.
Equipment­
based
Motive
Power
Exemption
55
EPA
could
choose
to
exempt
motive
power
containers,
except
containers
on
aircraft
and
mining
equipment,
from
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
112.
The
majority
of
motive
power
containers
would
be
exempt
from
the
SPCC
rule.
EPA
would
require
that
the
containers
on
aircraft
and
mining
equipment
be
covered
because
these
containers
are
typically
much
larger
than
all
other
motive
power
containers
and
potentially
pose
a
greater
threat
to
the
environment
in
the
event
of
a
spill.
However,
it
would
be
difficult
to
characterize
spills
from
motive
power
containers
on
aircraft
and
mining
equipment
as
being
different
than
spills
from
other
motive
power
containers.
There
is
no
data
available
to
EPA
specific
to
mining
and
aircraft
equipment
spills
that
would
justify
this
option,
and
therefore
it
was
rejected.

b.
Threshold­
based
Motive
Power
Exemption
Another
option
considered
was
to
exempt
motive
power
containers
with
a
capacity
below
a
certain
threshold,
and
requiring
containers
with
a
capacity
above
the
established
threshold
to
have
appropriate
containment
under
§
112.7(
c).
Those
motive
power
containers
included
in
the
rule
would
only
be
required
to
have
general
containment,
and
would
be
exempt
from
all
other
requirements
in
§
§
112.7
and
112.8(
c).
However,
EPA
rejected
this
option
because
it
has
no
basis
for
choosing
an
appropriate
threshold
for
these
containers
and
there
is
no
data
that
clearly
supports
any
specific
quantity.
In
addition,
it
would
still
present
implementation
problems
for
those
motive
power
containers
that
were
subject
to
the
regulation.

c.
Exclusion
from
Storage
Capacity
Calculation
EPA
could
exclude
motive
power
containers
from
the
storage
capacity
determination
at
a
regulated
facility
and
from
the
definition
of
bulk
storage
container
to
clarify
that
these
56
containers
are
not
counted
towards
the
1,320
gallon
aboveground
oil
storage
threshold
for
the
regulation.
Nevertheless,
the
facility
would
have
to
consider
these
containers
in
their
overall
facility
SPCC
Plan.
Although
motive
power
containers
would
not
be
considered
bulk
storage
containers,
they
would
be
subject
to
the
general
requirements
of
the
rule
under
§
112.7,

including
the
provision
for
secondary
containment.
The
facility
SPCC
Plan
would
have
to
identify
the
presence
of
motive
power
containers
on­
site,
in
addition
to
their
reasonable
potential
for
discharge
as
per
§
112.7(
b).
This
option
is
more
complex
for
the
regulated
community
and
is
not
a
clear
exemption
of
motive
power
containers.
It
would
also
bring
into
the
SPCC
program
a
number
of
facilities
solely
because
of
their
storage
or
use
of
motive
power
containers,
such
as
heavy
equipment
dealers,
commercial
truck
dealers,
and
parking
lots,
to
name
a
few.
Therefore,
EPA
rejected
this
option.

Each
of
these
alternative
options
was
rejected
because
they
did
not
address
the
implementation
issues
with
regulating
motive
power
containers
under
the
SPCC
requirements.

The
Agency
welcomes
comments
on
these
or
other
alternatives
that
could
serve
to
reduce
the
burden
for
facilities
with
motive
power
containers,
while
at
the
same
time
maintaining
appropriate
levels
of
environmental
protection.
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.

D.
Airport
Mobile
Refuelers
Airport
mobile
refuelers
are
vehicles
that
are
used
on
an
airport
to
refuel
aircraft
and
ground
service
equipment.
Their
onboard
oil
containers
used
to
transport
and
transfer
fuel
are
considered
bulk
storage
containers
under
the
SPCC
rule
because
they
are
containers
used
to
store
oil
prior
to
use,
while
being
used,
or
prior
to
further
distribution
in
commerce.
As
such,
57
they
are
subject
to
all
applicable
SPCC
rule
provisions,
including
the
secondary
containment
provisions
of
§
112.8(
c)(
2)
(
applicable
to
all
bulk
storage
containers)
and
§
112.8(
c)(
11)

(
applicable
more
specifically
to
mobile/
portable
bulk
storage
containers).
These
provisions
require
a
secondary
means
of
containment,
such
as
a
dike
or
catchment
basin,
sufficient
to
contain
the
capacity
of
the
largest
single
compartment
or
container
with
sufficient
freeboard
to
contain
precipitation.

Regulated
community
members
in
the
aviation
sector
have
expressed
concern
that
requiring
sized
secondary
containment
for
airport
mobile
refuelers
is
not
practicable
for
safety
and
security
reasons.
They
argue
that
requiring
refuelers
to
park
in
specially
designed
secondary
containment
areas
located
within
an
airport's
aircraft
operations
area
could
create
a
safety
and
security
hazard
because
it
entails
grouping
the
vehicles
or
placing
impediments
in
the
operations
area.
In
addition,
they
claim
that
requiring
mobile
refuelers
to
return
to
containment
areas
located
within
the
airport's
tank
farm
between
refueling
operations
may
increase
the
risk
of
accidents
(
and
therefore
accidental
oil
discharge),
as
the
vehicles
would
travel
with
increased
frequency
through
the
busy
aircraft
operations
area.
They
also
claim
that
providing
secondary
containment
for
mobile
refuelers
during
airport
operations
presents
inherent
difficulties
and
point
to
controls
on
design,
inspection,
maintenance
and
operation
of
mobile
refuelers
imposed
by
the
Federal
Aviation
Administration's
Advisory
Circulars.
For
example,
the
storage
containers
on
the
mobile
refuelers
must
be
manufactured
to
USDOT­
406
specifications
for
pressure
vessels
(
49
CFR
178.346).

EPA
is
aware
that
certain
airports
subject
to
FAA's
regulations
at
14
Part
139
require
certification
by
the
FAA
Administrator
or
his
delegated
agent.
As
part
of
this
certification,
the
Agency
understands
that
compliance
with
Uniform
Fire
Code
requirements,
among
other
requirements
in
Part
139,
must
be
detailed
in
the
Airport
Certification
Manual
to
obtain
FAA
58
approval
and
thus
an
Airport
Operating
Certificate
per
Part
139.
The
Agency
understands
that
the
applicable
Uniform
Fire
Code
includes
National
Fire
Protection
Association's
(
NFPA)
30,

Flammable
and
Combustible
Liquids
Code,
NFPA
407,
Standard
for
Aircraft
Fuel
Servicing
and
NFPA
415,
Standard
on
Airport
Terminal
Buildings,
Fueling
Ramp
Drainage,
and
Loading
Walkways.
In
particular,
NFPA
407
requires
that
aircraft
fuel
servicing
vehicles
and
carts
shall
be
positioned
so
that
a
clear
path
of
egress
from
the
aircraft
for
fuel
servicing
vehicles
shall
be
maintained
[
5.12.1].
Further,
in
NFPA
415,
the
code
specifically
states
that
in
no
case
shall
the
design
of
a
drainage
system
of
any
aircraft
fueling
ramp
allow
fuel
to
collect
on
the
aircraft
fueling
ramp
or
adjacent
ground
surfaces
where
it
constitute
a
fire
hazard
[
5.1.4].
As
such,

EPA
believes
that
subjecting
mobile
airport
refuelers
to
the
sized
secondary
containment
requirements
at
§
§
112.8(
c)(
2)
and
(
11)
would
directly
conflict
with
the
Uniform
Fire
Code
applicable
to
fuel
handling
at
airports.
EPA
believes,
however,
that
these
bulk
storage
containers
should
remain
subject
to
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
at
§
112.7(
c)
as
this
provision
affords
sufficient
flexibility
to
the
owner/
operator
and
certifying
PE
to
select
a
spill
prevention
method
that
would
not
conflict
with
the
applicable
Uniform
Fire
Code.
Thus,
EPA
is
proposing
to
exempt
airport
mobile
refuelers
from
the
sized
bulk
storage
secondary
containment
requirements
for
airport
mobile
refuelers
in
§
§
112.8(
c)(
2)
and
(
11).

EPA
believes
that
this
exemption
is
appropriate
for
airport
mobile
refuelers,
so
as
not
to
conflict
with
the
specific
Uniform
Fire
Code
requirements
for
airport
fueling
activities,
while
preserving
environmental
protection,
afforded
by
the
spill
prevention
provisions
outlined
in
§
112.7(
c).
EPA
also
believes
that
this
clarification
for
airport
mobile
refuelers
applies
to
refuelers
operating
at
all
airports,
both
those
certified
under
14
Part
139
and
non­
certified
airports.

1.
Definition
of
Airport
Mobile
Refueler
59
EPA
proposes
to
amend
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
(
40
CFR
part
112)
to
exempt
airport
mobile
refuelers
from
the
requirements
of
§
§
112.8(
c)(
2)
and
(
11).
In
today's
proposal,
EPA
defines
an
airport
mobile
refueler
as
"
a
vehicle
with
an
on­
board
bulk
storage
container
designed
for,
or
used
to,
store
and
transport
fuel
for
transfer
into
or
from
an
aircraft
or
ground
service
equipment."
This
definition
is
adapted
from
definitions
in
the
U.
S.
DOT
Federal
Aviation
Administration's
Advisory
Circular
150/
5230­
4
on
Aircraft
Fuel
Storage,

Handling,
and
Dispensing
on
Airports,
and
the
NFPA
407
for
Aircraft
Fuel
Servicing.
The
definition
is
intended
to
describe
vehicles
of
various
sizes
equipped
with
a
cargo
tank
(
tank
trucks,
tank
full
trailers,
tank
semitrailers,
etc.)
that
are
used
to
fuel
or
defuel
aircraft
at
airports.

2.
Proposed
Amended
Requirements
This
proposed
amendment
would
revise
§
§
112.8(
c)(
2)
and
(
11)
to
specifically
exempt
airport
mobile
refuelers,
as
defined
above,
from
these
provisions.
Secondary
containment
systems
sufficient
to
contain
the
capacity
of
the
largest
single
compartment
or
container
with
sufficient
freeboard
to
contain
precipitation
would
no
longer
be
required.
However,
there
is
a
potential
for
oil
discharges
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
from
airport
mobile
refuelers.
Indeed,

there
are
documented
cases
of
reportable
discharges
from
refueling
activities
at
airports.

Therefore,
the
general
secondary
containment
requirements
of
§
112.7(
c)
would
continue
to
apply
to
airport
mobile
refuelers
under
this
proposal.
Section
112.7(
c)
does
not
prescribe
a
size
for
the
secondary
containment
structure
but
does
require
appropriate
containment
and/
or
diversionary
structures
or
equipment
to
prevent
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b).
In
addition,
since
airport
mobile
refuelers
are
mobile
or
portable
bulk
storage
containers,
the
other
provisions
of
§
112.8(
c)
would
still
apply.
60
The
Agency
seeks
comments
on
the
proposed
definition
for
"
airport
mobile
refuelers,"
the
adequacy
of
general
secondary
containment
requirements
for
preventing
discharges
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
from
airport
mobile
refuelers,
and
whether
the
proposed
regulatory
relief
satisfies
the
concerns
of
airport
owners
and/
or
operators.
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.

E.
Animal
Fats
and
Vegetable
Oils
In
1995,
Congress
enacted
the
Edible
Oil
Regulatory
Reform
Act
(
EORRA),
33
U.
S.
C.

2720.
That
statute
requires
most
Federal
agencies
to
differentiate
between,
and
establish
separate
classes
for,
various
types
of
oil,
specifically,
animal
fats
and
oils
and
greases,
and
fish
and
marine
mammal
oils
of
vegetable
origin,
including
oils
from
seeds,
nuts,
and
kernels;

and
other
oils
and
greases,
including
petroleum.
EORRA
also
requires
affected
agencies
to
apply
standards
to
the
different
classes,
based
on
considerations
of
differences
in
the
physical,
chemical,
biological,
and
other
properties
of
these
oils
and
on
the
environmental
effects
of
the
oils.

In
the
July
17,
2002
final
SPCC
rule,
the
Agency
promulgated
general
requirements
in
§
112.7
for
SPCC
Plans
for
all
facilities
and
all
types
of
oil
as
well
as
additional
requirements
tailored
to
specific
types
of
facilities
in
§
§
112.8
­
112.15.
At
that
time,
in
response
to
EORRA,

EPA
established
separate
subparts
in
the
rule
for
facilities
storing
or
using
the
various
classes
of
oil
listed
in
that
act.
Subpart
C
(
§
112.12
through
§
112.15)
sets
out
the
requirements
for
facilities
with
animal
fats
and
oils
and
greases,
and
fish
and
marine
mammal
oils;
and
for
oils
of
vegetable
origin,
including
oils
from
seeds,
nuts,
fruits,
and
kernels
(
hereinfafter
"
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils"
or
"
AFVO").
Subpart
B
(
§
112.8
through
§
112.11)
sets
out
the
requirements
2The
Agency
also
responded
to
a
petition
it
received
on
August
12,
1994
to
treat
facilities
that
handle,
store
or
transport
animal
fats
and/
or
vegetable
oils
differently
from
those
facilities
that
store
petroleum
based
oil.
EPA
denied
that
petition
and
published
the
denial
in
a
federal
register
notice
(
see
62
FR
54508,
October
20,
1997).

61
for
facilities
with
petroleum
oils
and
non­
petroleum
oils
other
than
AFVO.
The
Agency
promulgated
the
identical
requirements
for
facilities
storing
or
using
all
classes
of
oil
in
the
final
rule.
As
a
result,
certain
requirements,
including
requirements
for
types
of
facilities
that
only
exist
in
the
petroleum
sector,
also
apply
to
facilities
handling
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.
2
In
today's
proposal,
the
Agency
proposes
to
amend
Subpart
C
of
Part
112
by
removing
§
112.13
(
requirements
for
onshore
oil
production
facilities),
§
112.14
(
requirements
for
onshore
oil
drilling
and
workover
facilities),
and
§
112.15
(
requirements
for
offshore
oil
drilling,

production,
or
workover
facilities).
As
members
of
the
regulated
community
pointed
out,

facilities
that
process,
store,
use,
or
transport
animal
fats
and/
or
vegetable
oils
(
AFVO)
do
not
engage
in
production,
drilling
or
workover.
EPA
agrees
that
these
sections
should
not
be
included
in
part
112,
subpart
C
and
therefore
proposes
to
remove
them
from
the
rule.
The
Agency
seeks
comment
on
the
proposal
to
remove
and
reserve
these
sections
of
Subpart
C
of
the
regulation
The
Agency
has
not
developed
a
proposal
following
the
1999
Advanced
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
regarding
differentiation
of
AFVO
from
petroleum
and
other
oils
in
the
SPCC
rule
(
64
FR
17227).
To
assist
the
Agency
in
its
ongoing
consideration
of
this
issue,

EPA
requests
suggestions
for
additional
amendments
that
would
differentiate
AFVOs
from
other
classes
of
oils
in
the
SPCC
rule
and
scientific
support
for
those
amendments.
In
particular,
EPA
is
seeking
information
that
specifically
addresses
the
criteria
for
differentiation
set
forth
in
EORRA,
33
U.
S.
C.
§
2720(
b);
that
is,
differences
in
the
physical,
chemical,
62
biological,
and
other
properties,
as
well
as
the
environmental
effects,
of
various
types
of
oil,
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
support
a
rationale
for
differentiation
of
oil
spill
prevention
requirements.
The
Agency
will
continue
to
examine
these
issues
to
determine
the
appropriateness
of
amendments
to
the
regulatory
scheme
which
differentiate
the
SPCC
requirements
for
AFVO
from
the
requirements
for
petroleum
and
other
oils.

VI.
Compliance
Dates
A.
Proposed
Extension
of
Compliance
Dates
for
All
Facilities
In
order
to
allow
for
the
rulemaking
process
started
by
today's
proposal
to
be
completed
and
to
provide
the
SPCC
regulated
universe
time
to
determine
if
they
are
eligible
for
any
burden
relief
that
may
be
promulgated
in
a
final
rule,
we
are
proposing
to
extend
the
compliance
date
for
Plan
amendment
by
six
months
to
coincide
with
the
existing
Plan
implementation
date
as
provided
in
§
112.3(
a),
August
18,
2006.
Under
EPA's
planned
schedule,
the
Agency
expects
to
take
final
action
on
today's
proposal
in
early
2006.
The
Agency
believes
the
extension
is
warranted
because
today's
proposal
is
expected
to
affect
a
large
number
of
the
SPCC­
regulated
universe
and
we
believe
such
delay
is
warranted
to
provide
sufficient
time
to
allow
for
preparation
and
implementation
of
an
SPCC
Plan
following
publication
of
the
final
rule.
However,
we
would
note
that
we
are
not
extending
the
compliance
date
for
implementation
of
the
rule,
which
remains
at
August
18,
2006.
The
Agency
is
seeking
comment
on
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
as
described
above.

B.
Proposed
Extension
of
Compliance
Dates
for
Farms
63
The
agricultural
community
has
been
providing
EPA
with
additional
information
and
data
which
suggests
that
the
universe
of
farms
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule
may
be
much
larger
than
EPA
estimated
in
the
preparation
of
the
2002
SPCC
rule
revisions.
EPA
believes
that
the
unique
characteristics
of
farms
pose
particular
challenges
to
SPCC
compliance
and
that
further
consideration
of
the
requirements
as
they
relate
to
farms
is
warranted.
We
are
particularly
concerned
that
many
of
these
farms
are
small
and
that
subjecting
them
to
these
requirements
may
not
be
necessary.
Therefore,
EPA
intends
to
review
the
impact
of
the
SPCC
requirements
on
farms
and
will
take
action
in
a
future
rulemaking.

While
determining
if
the
agriculture
sector
warrants
specific
consideration
under
the
SPCC
rule,
EPA
proposes
to
extend
the
deadlines
for
amending
or
adopting
SPCC
Plans
for
farms
that
have
a
total
storage
capacity
of
less
than
10,000
gallons.
Our
basis
for
taking
this
action
is
several
fold.
First,
there
are
factors
concerning
the
physical
layout
of
a
farm
that
make
this
sector
unique
within
the
universe
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
For
example,
farms
vary
considerably
in
design
and
size
(
less
than
an
acre
to
many
thousand
acres).
Further,
the
environment
in
which
farms
operate
varies
considerably
from
other
industries.
Farmers
often
own
and/
or
farm
land
that
are
noncontiguous,
and
may
be
separated
by
roads
and
other
obstacles.
Oil
is
generally
not
centrally
stored
and
oil
containers
may
be
widely
dispersed.

Certain
SPCC
requirements
(
such
as
fencing,
lighting,
etc.)
may
be
disproportionately
difficult
and
expensive
for
farmers
to
implement,
and
provide
little
environmental
benefit.
Also,

because
farms
are
often
residential
properties,
under
the
existing
rule,
home
heating
oil
tanks
may
be
required
to
be
covered
by
the
farm's
SPCC
Plan.
Other
rule
provisions,
including
security,
would
also
affect
the
residential
portions
of
a
farm.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
proposing
an
extension
of
the
compliance
date
for
farms
with
a
total
storage
capacity
of
less
than
10,000
gallons.
64
1.
Eligibility
Criteria
EPA
proposes
the
10,000­
gallon
threshold
for
farms
to
be
consistent
with
the
threshold
quantity
used
in
the
NCP
to
classify
oil
discharges
to
inland
waters
as
"
major"
(
40
CFR
300.5).

Thus,
a
facility
storing
less
than
10,000
gallons
of
oil
could
not
be
involved
in
a
major
discharge
based
on
the
NCP
quantitative
criterion
alone,
although
use
of
this
numerical
criteria
is
not
meant
to
imply
that
smaller
discharges
are
not
harmful.
This
same
10,000
gallon­
threshold
discharge
volume
is
also
one
factor
used
in
identifying
facilities
that
must
prepare
and
submit
a
Facility
Response
Plan
(
FRP)
under
§
112.20(
f)(
1).
In
addition,
10,000
gallons
is
a
common
storage
capacity
and
such
a
threshold
would
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
a
significant
portion
of
the
farm
sector.
Data
provided
by
the
agricultural
industry
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
indicate
that
the
average
aggregated
aboveground
oil
storage
capacity
at
farms
surveyed
in
2005
was
5,550
gallons;
approximately
83
percent
of
surveyed
farms
have
aggregated
oil
storage
below
10,000
gallons.
Farms
with
less
than
1,000
acres
had
an
average
oil
storage
capacity
of
less
than
2,500
gallons;
farms
with
over
1,000
acres
had
an
average
oil
storage
capacity
of
almost
8,000
gallons.
(
See
"
Fuel/
Oil
Storage
and
Delivery
for
Farmers
and
Cooperatives,"
USDA,
March
2005,
in
the
docket
for
today's
proposal.)

For
this
proposed
extension,
EPA
would
define
"
farm"
by
adapting
the
definition
used
by
the
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
(
NASS)
in
its
Census
of
Agriculture.
NASS
defines
a
farm
as
any
place
from
which
$
1,000
or
more
of
agricultural
products
were
produced
and
sold,
or
normally
would
have
been
sold,
during
the
census
year.
Operations
receiving
$
1,000
or
more
in
Federal
government
payments
are
counted
as
farms,
even
if
they
have
no
sales
and
otherwise
lack
the
potential
to
have
$
1,000
or
more
in
sales.
65
EPA
also
considered
the
definition
it
uses
to
exempt
farm
tanks
under
the
Underground
Storage
Tank
(
UST)
regulations
at
40
CFR
280.
The
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
as
amended,
section
9001(
1)(
A),
exempts
farm
and
residential
USTs
storing
less
than
1,100
gallons
of
motor
fuel
for
"
noncommercial"
purposes.
As
defined
in
40
CFR
280.12,

a
farm
tank
is
a
tank
located
on
a
tract
of
land
devoted
to
the
production
of
crops
or
raising
of
animals,
including
fish.
The
preamble
to
the
UST
rule
explains
that
the
term
"
farm"
includes
fish
hatcheries,
rangeland,
and
nurseries
with
growing
operations
but
does
not
include
laboratories
where
animals
are
raised,
land
used
to
grow
timber,
and
pesticide
aviation
operations.
This
term
also
does
not
include
retail
stores
or
garden
centers
where
the
product
of
nursery
farms
is
marketed,
but
not
produced,
nor
does
EPA
interpret
the
term
"
farm"
to
include
golf
courses
or
other
places
dedicated
primarily
to
recreational,
aesthetic,
or
other
non­
agricultural
activities.
(
53
FR
37082,
37117,
September
23,
1988).

EPA
also
considered
defining
a
farm
by
listing
the
appropriate
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes,
but
we
believe
that
the
definition
proposed
today
in
§
112.2,
along
with
the
10,000
gallon
threshold
quantity,
more
effectively
identifies
the
sector
to
which
the
extension
would
appropriately
apply.
Potentially
affected
entities
that
fall
within
certain
NAICS
codes,
including
111
(
Crop
Production)
and
112
(
Animal
Production),
are
likely
to
fall
within
the
proposed
definition
of
farm
and
should
consider
the
definition
and
eligibility
criteria
further
to
determine
if
the
proposed
extension
applies.

EPA
utilized
elements
of
the
UST
definition
of
farm,
in
combination
with
the
Census
definition,
in
developing
today's
proposal.
By
combining
elements
of
both
of
these
approaches,

the
Agency
believes
the
proposed
definition
more
specifically
targets
the
intended
universe
for
the
extension.
EPA
seeks
comment
on
the
proposed
definition
for
farms,
and
whether
an
66
alternate
definition
of
"
farm"
may
be
more
appropriate.
Comments
may
also
address
the
proposed
10,000
gallon
threshold
for
qualifying
for
the
extension,
and
whether
an
alternative
threshold
may
be
more
appropriate.
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

°
Qualified
facilities
with
smaller
storage
capacities;

°
Oil­
filled
operational
equipment;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPCC
Plans
ordinarily
need
not
be
submitted
to
EPA,
but
must
generally
be
maintained
at
the
facility.
Preparation,
implementation,
and
maintenance
of
an
SPCC
Plan
by
the
facility
helps
prevent
oil
discharges,
and
mitigates
the
environmental
damage
caused
by
such
discharges.

Therefore,
the
primary
user
of
the
data
is
the
facility.
While
EPA
may,
from
time
to
time,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
as
defined
in
the
Small
Business
Administration's
(
SBA)

regulations
at
13
CFR
121.201­­
the
SBA
defines
small
businesses
by
category
of
business
using
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes,
and
in
the
case
of
farms
and
production
facilities,
which
constitute
a
large
percentage
of
the
facilities
affected
by
this
proposed
rule,
generally
defines
small
businesses
as
having
less
than
$
500,000
in
revenues
or
500
employees,
respectively;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's
proposed
rule
would
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments.
Therefore,
we
have
not
consulted
with
a
representative
organization
of
tribal
groups.

G.
Executive
Order
13045­­
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045,
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866;
and
(
2)
concerns
an
94
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5­
501
of
the
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dated:
____________________________

____________________________

Stephen
L.
Johnson,

Administrator.

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

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

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

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

§
112.1
General
applicability.

*
*
*
*
*

(
d)
*
*
*

(
2)
*
*
*

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

§
112.2
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*

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

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

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

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

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

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(
v)
The
Plan
is
being
fully
implemented;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

(
a)
*
*
*

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

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

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

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

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

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

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

Subpart
B
­
[
Amended]

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

(
c)
*
*
*

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
C
­
[
Amended]

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

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

*
*
*
*
*

§
112.13
[
Removed
and
Reserved]

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

§
112.14
[
Removed
and
Reserved]

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

§
112.15
[
Removed
and
Reserved]

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