Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003-0091
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-02-14T05:00Z

SUMMARY
AND
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
Spill
Prevention,
Control
and
Countermeasure
Extension
of
Compliance
Dates
for
All
Facilities
40
CFR
Part
112
February
9,
2006
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
This
document
addresses
the
comments
received
in
response
to
the
proposal
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control
and
Countermeasure
regulation,
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
December
12,
2005
(
70
FR
73518).
Comments
submitted
to
the
public
docket
for
this
rulemaking
appear
in
their
entirety
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
identified
under
Docket
number
"
EPA­
HQ­
OPA­
2005­
0003".
This
document
is
in
the
sequence
of
the
topics
listed
below.

I.
Support
II.
Suggestion
or
clarification
of
interest
to
EPA
III.
Oppose
IV.
Suggested
Alternative
Dates
EXTENSION
OF
COMPLIANCE
DATE
FOR
ALL
FACILITIES
General
Comment
Summary:
On
December
12,
2005,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA
or
Agency)
proposed
to
extend
the
dates
by
which
a
facility
must
prepare
or
amend
and
implement
its
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
(
SPCC)
Plan
(
70
FR
73518).
The
Federal
Docket
Management
System
received
a
modest
number
of
comments
on
the
EPA
proposal,
and
the
official
public
comment
period
ended
on
January
10,
2006.
Commenters
primarily
represent
electrical
utilities,
cooperatives,
and
their
representatives,
and
oil
and
gas
exploration
and
production
companies.
Additional
sectors
submitted
comments,
including
aviation,
chemical
manufacturing,
construction,
farms
and
agricultural
cooperatives,
and
environmental
organizations.
The
majority
of
commenters
supported
an
extension
of
the
dates
by
which
a
facility
must
prepare
or
amend
and
implement
an
SPCC
Plan.
Four
commenters
opposed
the
proposed
extension.
Only
one
commenter
suggested
an
alternative
date
for
this
extension.
However,
many
commenters
suggested
alternative
dates
for
compliance
in
the
event
that
the
Agency
does
not
meet
its
proposed
timeline.
Commenters
who
recommended
extending
compliance
dates
generally
confirmed
the
Agency's
view
at
the
time
of
proposal
that
an
extension
is
appropriate
to
allow
the
Agency
to
take
final
action
on
the
proposed
regulatory
relief
before
the
current
compliance
dates
for
SPCC
Plan
preparation,
amendment,
and
implementation.
Commenters
also
agreed
that
this
proposed
extension
would
provide
facilities
time
necessary
to
fully
understand
the
regulatory
relief
offered
by
revisions
to
the
2002
SPCC
rule
and
the
clarifications
presented
in
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors.
Commenters
also
supported
the
extension
to
allow
with
compliance
with
the
SPCC
rule
without
unduly
compromising
storm
recovery
efforts
as
a
result
of
the
recent
hurricanes.
Commenters
that
opposed
the
extension
of
compliance
dates
argued
that
the
proposed
extension
does
not
benefit
the
public
or
environment.
Two
commenters
suggested
that
as
the
SPCC
rule
has
been
in
effect
since
1974,
most
facilities
should
already
be
in
compliance.
Commenters
were
concerned
that
if
EPA
extends
the
compliance
dates
again,
EPA
will
reduce
numbers
of
inspections
and
enforcement
actions,
and
noncompliant
facilities
will
continue
to
operate
and
endanger
human
health
and
the
environment.
Commenters
were
also
concerned
that
the
proposed
compliance
date
does
not
allow
enough
time
for
EPA
to
reasonably
promulgate
the
revised
substantive
changes
and
communicate
to
the
affected
parties
the
requirements
of
a
revised
regulation,
and
for
the
regulated
community
to
understand
and
comply
with
the
requirements.
Several
commenters
suggested
that
the
compliance
date
should
be
extended
either
one
year,
or
at
least
one
year,
after
EPA
promulgates
the
currently
proposed
rule
revisions.
Some
commenters
suggested
that
the
compliance
date
for
Plan
preparation
be
one
year
after
EPA
promulgates
the
recently
proposed
rule
revisions,
with
the
compliance
date
for
Plan
implementation
six
months
later.
Several
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
revise
the
proposed
extension
to
include
an
alternative
time
period
to
implement
Plans
after
the
proposed
deadline
for
Plan
preparation/
amendment.
Commenters
from
agricultural
and
meat/
poultry
processing
industries
requested
targeted
extensions
or
suspension
until
issues
associated
with
their
particular
industries
can
be
resolved.
Several
commenters
also
asked
that
the
deadline
under
section
112.5
to
review
and/
or
amend
the
Plan
be
extended
thereby
providing
relief
to
all
facilities
in
an
equitable
manner.
Finally,
many
commenters
asked
that
the
Agency
reaffirm
the
application
of
the
extended
compliance
dates
in
the
final
rule.
1.
Support
for
the
Extension
Topic
Comment
Summary:
The
majority
of
commenters
generally
supported
the
extension
of
the
compliance
deadline
by
which
the
facility
must
prepare
or
amend
and
implement
its
SPCC
Plan.
The
comments
generally
agreed
that
the
extension
would
allow
the
Agency
time
to
clarify
and
amend
the
July
17,
2002
final
SPCC
rule
and
provide
affected
facility
owners
and
operators
adequate
time
to
implement
any
new
amendments.

Topic
Response:
EPA
agrees
with
these
comments.
This
action
will
allow
EPA
time
to
promulgate
revisions
to
the
July
17,
2002
final
SPCC
rule
before
owners
or
operators
are
required
to
meet
requirements
of
that
rule
related
to
preparing
or
amending,
and
implementing
SPCC
Plans.
Additionally,
this
extension
will
provide
the
regulated
community
an
opportunity
to
understand
the
material
presented
in
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
and
also
provide
additional
time
for
SPCC
compliance
for
those
facilities
impacted
by
the
recent
hurricanes.

Comment
Excerpts:

Submitted
by
­
Roger
Claff
of
American
Petroleum
Institute
Comment
Text:
API
strongly
supports
the
proposed
extension
of
the
compliance
deadlines
for
amending
and
implementing
SPCC
Plans...

Submitted
by
­
Entergy
Services,
Inc.
Comment
Text:
Entergy
Services,
Inc.
(
ESI)
appreciates
and
supports
EPA's
proposal
(
FR
EPAHQ
OPA­
0003)
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
all
facilities
subject
to
40
CFR
Part
112.
ESI
agrees
with
the
Agency's
rationale
for
proposing
this
extension.

Submitted
by
­
John
Hayden
of
The
National
Stone,
Sand
&
Gravel
Association
Comment
Text:
The
National
Stone,
Sand
&
Gravel
Association
(
NSSGA)
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines
for
submitting
an
approved
SPCC
plan
to
October
31,
2007.

Submitted
by
­
Susan
Damron
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Water
and
Power
Comment
Text:
Regarding
the
2002
Rule
Deadline
Extension,
LADWP
commends
the
EPA
for
inviting
public
comment
and
supports
the
extension
for
implementing
the
provisions
of
the
2002
Rule
to
October
31
2007.

Submitted
by
­
Bob
Elam
of
American
Chemical
Council
Comment
Text:
ACC
strongly
supports
an
extension
of
the
compliance
deadlines
for
amending
and
implementing
SPCC
Plans.
Accordingly,
ACC
recommends
an
SPCC
Plan
amendment
compliance
deadline
of
either
October
31,
2007,
or
a
date
no
less
than
one
year
following
the
promulgation
of
both
the
final
rule
for
qualified
facilities/
oilfilled
operational
equipment
(
70
FR
73524,
December
12,
2005)
and
the
"
loose
ends"
final
rule
(
discussed
below),
whichever
is
later.
Submitted
by
­
John
McKinnon
of
Kimberly­
Clark
Corporation
Comment
Text:
We
support
EPA's
current
proposal
to
again
extend
the
deadline
for
compliance
with
the
requirements
set
out
in
40
CFR
112.3
(
a)
and
(
b)
for
all
the
reasons
cited
in
the
proposal.

Submitted
by
­
Deborah
Boyle
of
TXU
Electric
Delivery
Comment
Text:
TXU
Electric
Delivery
submits
these
comments,
generally
in
support
of
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
deadline
to
October
31,
2007
for
facilities
to
amend
and
implement
their
Spill
Prevention
Control
and
Countermeasure
(
SPCC)
plans
to
comply
with
the
2002
SPCC
amendments.

Submitted
by
­
Joseph
Hurt
of
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors
Comment
Text:
The
extension
of
the
compliance
date
would
allow
the
Agency
time
to
clarify
and
amend
the
July
17,
2002
final
SPCC
rule
and
provide
affected
facility
owners
and
operators
adequate
time
to
meet
the
amended
requirements.
IADC
strongly
supports
the
proposed
extension
of
compliance
deadlines
for
amending
and
implementing
SPCC
Plans...

Submitted
by
­
Scott
Davis
of
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
Comment
Text:
The
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
("
USWAG")
submits
these
comments
generally
in
support
of
EPA's
proposal
(
70
Fed.
Reg.
73518
(
Dec.
12,
2005))
to
extend
the
deadline
to
October
31,
2007
for
facilities
to
amend
and
implement
their
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
("
SPCC")
plans
to
comply
with
the
2002
SPCC
amendments.

Submitted
by
­
June
Small
of
North
Carolina
Electric
Membership
Corporation
Comment
Text:
NCEME
supports
EPA's
extension
of
the
compliance
date
in
the
2002
regulations...
We
are
encouraged
that
these
changes
will
relieve
some
regulatory
burdens
while
offering
comparable
environmental
protection...
NCEMC
supports
the
extension
of
the
deadline
to
at
least
October
31,
2007.

Submitted
by
­
Creg
Browne
of
Akzo
Nobel
Coatings,
Inc.
Comment
Text:
Akzo
Nobel
Coatings,
as
a
member
of
the
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
(
NPCA),
strongly
supports
an
extension
in
compliance
dates
for
amending
plans...
and
implementing
these
plans...
and
concurs
with
comments
submitted
by
the
NCPA
on
this
proposal.

Submitted
by
­
Larry
Hardy
of
Anderson
Development
Company
Comment
Text:
Anderson
Development
Company
is
a
member
of
the
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturer's
Association
(
SOCMA)
and
as
such
concurs
with
SOCMA's
comments
on
this
rulemaking.
This
extension
is
warranted
since
EPA
has
just
published
extensive
proposed
guidance
and
a
proposed
rule
regarding
several
regulatory
relief
revisions.
Submitted
by
­
Michael
Bernard
of
Mid­
Continent
Oil
and
Gas
Association
of
Oklahoma,
Inc.
Comment
Text:
For
oil
and
gas
exploration
and
production
(
E&
P)
operations,
Mid­
Continent
strongly
supports
a
minimum
compliance
deadline
extension
of
one
year
following
promulgation
of
either
the
final
rule
for
qualified
facilities
(
70
Federal
Register
73542,
December
12,
2005)
or
the
final
rule
clarifying
the
SPCC
amendments
(
proposed
rulemaking
scheduled
for
June,
2006).

1.
A.
Citing
natural
disaster
Topic
Comment
Summary:
These
comments
follow
a
form
letter
that
first
appeared
in
the
docket
under
document
number
OPA­
2005­
0003­
0005.
Each
comment
supports
the
extension
of
the
dates
by
which
facilities
must
prepare
or
amend
SPCC
Plans
because
this
will
provide
extra
time
to
allow
for
compliance
with
SPCC
rules
without
unduly
compromising
storm
recovery
efforts.

Topic
Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters.
EPA
recognizes
the
effects
of
recent
hurricanes
on
many
industry
sectors,
including
the
potential
to
adversely
impact
their
ability
to
meet
the
current
compliance
dates.

Comment
Excerpts:

Submitted
by
­
Philip
Caskey
of
Consolidated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.
1
Comment
Text:
Our
company
was
affected
by
ice
storms
earlier
this
year
for
which
we
are
receiving
FEMA
assistance
and
we
will
be
devoting
considerable
resources
to
storm
recovery
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Providing
extra
time
by
extending
the
SPCC
deadlines
will
help
us
comply
with
the
SPCC
rules
without
unduly
compromising
our
storm
recovery
efforts.

Submitted
by
­
Karen
Harned
of
National
Federation
of
Independent
Business
(
NFIB)
Legal
Foundation
Comment
Text:
Lastly,
we
appreciate
the
need
to
extend
the
dates
of
compliance
for
the
small
businesses
that
have
been
affected
by
this
summer's
hurricanes.
We
have
approximately
19,000
members
in
the
gulf
coast
states
that
were
most
impacted.
These
businesses
deserve
an
opportunity
to
develop
appropriate
plans
to
help
prevent
further
harm
to
the
area's
environment.

1
This
comment
text
was
submitted
25
times
as
part
of
a
form
letter.
Commenters
who
submitted
this
text
are
as
follows:
National
Federation
of
Independent
Business;
Pioneer
Electric
Cooperative;
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association;
Virginia,
Maryland,
and
Delaware
Association
of
Electric
Cooperatives;
Hoosier
Energy
Rural
Electric
Cooperative;
Pearl
River
Valley
Electric
Power
Association;
Chugach
Electric
Association,
Inc.;
Boone
REMC;
Northeast
Missouri
Electric
Power
Cooperative;
Nolin
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Corporation;
Berkeley
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.;
Georgia
Transmission
Corporation;
Mickey
Green;
Tri­
State
Generation
and
Transmission
Association,
Inc.;
Alaska
Power
Association;
Medina
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.;
Sangre
De
Cristo
Electric
Association,
Inc.;
Capital
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.;
San
Miguel
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.;
Old
Dominion
Electric
Cooperative;
Alabama
Rural
Electric
Association
of
Cooperatives;
Tri­
County
Electric
Cooperative;
Wayne­
White
Counties
Electric
Cooperative;
Rappahannock
Electric
Cooperative;
Grand
Electric
Cooperative.
Submitted
by
­
James
Stine
of
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association2
Comment
Text:
Some
of
our
members
were
affected
by
severe
hurricanes
this
year
and
will
be
devoting
an
extraordinary
amount
of
resources
to
storm
recovery
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Extending
the
SPCC
deadlines
would
provide
extra
time
for
electric
utility
cooperatives
to
comply
with
the
SPCC
rules
without
unduly
compromising
their
storm
recovery
efforts.

Submitted
by
­
Fred
Braswell
of
Alabama
Rural
Electric
Association
of
Cooperatives
Comment
Text:
Many
of
our
cooperatives
were
affected
by
sever
hurricanes
this
year...
providing
extra
time
by
extending
SPCC
deadlines
will
help
us
comply
with
SPCC
rules
without
unduly
compromising
our
storm
recovery
efforts.

1.
B.
Concur
with
reasons
put
forth
in
proposal
Topic
Comment
Summary:
These
commenters
recommended
extending
compliance
dates
and
supported
EPA's
rationale,
specifically
confirming
the
Agency's
view
at
the
time
of
proposal
that
an
extension
is
appropriate
to
allow
the
Agency
to
promulgate
the
proposed
regulatory
relief
before
the
current
compliance
dates
for
SPCC
Plan
preparation
or
amendment,
and
implementation.
The
commenters
also
agreed
that
this
proposed
extension
would
provide
facilities
time
necessary
to
fully
understand
the
regulatory
relief
offered
by
revisions
to
the
2002
SPCC
rule
and
the
clarifications
presented
in
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors.
Several
commenters
indicated
that
additional
time
would
allow
an
opportunity
to
address
issues
related
to
the
current
regulations.
These
issues
include:
clarification
of
what
triggers
the
need
to
create
an
SPCC
Plan;
definition
of
navigable
waters;
definition
of
produced
waters;
issues
related
to
the
Agency's
definition
of
Animal
Fats
and/
or
Vegetable
Oils
(
AFVOs);
and
the
cost
of
implementing
SPCC
Plans
for
marginal
wells.
Several
commenters
also
supported
the
extension
since
it
will
allow
facilities
time
to
review
the
newly
issued
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors.

Topic
Response:
EPA
appreciates
the
support
for
the
extension
as
proposed.
EPA
believes
it
is
appropriate
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
since
the
Agency
will
not
be
able
to
take
final
action
on
the
burden
reduction
revisions
proposed
on
December
12,
2005
before
the
current
compliance
dates
for
SPCC
Plan
preparation
or
amendment,
and
implementation.
This
extension
will
allow
facilities
the
opportunity
to
take
advantage
of
any
regulatory
revisions
the
Agency
may
finalize.
This
extension
will
also
provide
the
regulated
community
an
opportunity
to
understand
the
material
presented
in
the
newly
issued
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
before
preparing
or
amending
their
SPCC
Plans,
facilitating
their
understanding
of
the
SPCC
rule's
applicability
and
of
the
performance­
based
SPCC
requirements.
Comments
regarding
other
issues
that
the
commenters
would
like
clarified
are
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking,
and
while
EPA
may
address
additional
issues,
such
as
the
ones
mentioned
by
commenters,
in
a
future
rulemaking,
today's
extension
is
not
intended
to
postpone
compliance
with
the
2
This
comment
text
was
submitted
again
as
part
of
a
form
letter
from
Sam
Cain
of
Pearl
River
Valley
Electric
Power
Association.
SPCC
rule
to
accommodate
such
a
future
rulemaking.
Today's
extension
is
intended
only
to
allow
enough
time
for
EPA
to
take
final
action
on
rule
revisions
proposed
in
December
2005
and
for
the
regulated
community
affected
by
any
such
revisions
to
take
advantage
of
them.

Comment
Excerpts:

Submitted
by
­
Philip
Caskey
of
Consolidated
Electric
Cooperative,
Inc.
3
Comment
Text:
If
the
compliance
date
is
extended,
rather
than
being
forced
to
comply
with
the
existing
regulations,
our
company
will
be
able
to
benefit
from
the
reduced
burdens
provided
by
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
without
compromising
environmental
protection.
EPA
should
extend
the
deadline
to
at
least
October
31,
2007
to
provide
sufficient
time
for
EPA
to
complete
the
rulemaking
process
and
publish
the
final
regulatory
revisions
while
still
leaving
time
for
affected
companies
to
respond.
Assuming
that
EPA
completes
the
rulemaking
process
by
October
2006,
companies
would
have
one
year
to
read
and
understand
the
new
rules,
incorporate
them
into
their
SPCC
plans
and
implement
any
changes
in
the
field.
This
seems
like
a
reasonable
schedule
as
long
as
the
rulemaking
is
not
unduly
extended.

Submitted
by
­
Beth
Van
Emburgh
of
National
Air
Transportation
Association
Comment
Text:
NATA
wholeheartedly
agrees
that
the
compliance
dates
should
be
extended
for
the
same
reasons
the
EPA
listed
in
the
proposal.
Initially
it
would
be
unreasonable
to
hold
the
existing
compliance
dates
EPA
also
proposing
amendments
to
the
2002
SPCC
rule.
The
content
of
this
other
proposal
differ
drastically
from
the
existing
requirements,
and
by
extending
the
compliance
dates
the
EPA
would
give
businesses
the
opportunity
to
take
advantage
of
those
changes.

Submitted
by
­
Vernon
Hartley
of
Mississippi
Farm
Bureau
Federation
Comment
Text:
This
extension
would
ease
the
pressure
on
the
affected
facilities
and
also
allow
EPA
additional
time
to
promulgate
the
proposed
regulation....
We
agree
with
EPA's
decision
to
extend
the
date
of
compliance
until
October
31,
2007...
We
believe
that
the
proposed
extension
would
provide
facilities
with
additional
time
to
properly
research,
understand,
and
implement
existing
SPCC
requirements
as
well
as
other
proposed
revisions
to
the
2002
SPCC
rule.

Submitted
by
­
Robert
Martinez
of
Wilko
Paint,
Inc.
Comment
Text:
Wilko
Paint,
Inc
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
for
the
EPA
to
extend
the
SPCC
compliance
dates
to
October
31,
2007.
Without
this
additional
time,
our
company
finds
it
difficult
to
comply
with
the
proposed
regulatory
revisions.

Submitted
by
­
David
F.
Darling
of
National
Paint
and
Coatings
Association
Comment
Text:
NPCA
believes
the
extension
is
warranted
since
EPA
has
just
published
extensive
proposed
guidance
and
a
proposed
rule
regarding
several
regulatory
relief
3
See
Footnote
1.
revisions.
The
regulated
community
needs
time
to
review
these
proposals
and
develop/
modify
existing
plans
and
start
executing
the
requirements.
Without
this
additional
time,
our
member
companies
are
stranded
in
their
compliance
efforts.
Therefore
NPCA
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
for
EPA
to
extend
the
SPCC
compliance
dates
to
October
31,
2007.

Submitted
by
­
Carter
Kelly
of
Waste
Management,
Inc.
Comment
Text:
We
urge
EPA
to
finalize
the
rule
as
proposed.
The
proposed
extension
is
necessary
to
allow
the
Agency
to
finalize
both
its
proposed
amendments
to
the
SPCC
Rule
(
70
FR
73524)
and
its
interpretive
guidance,
for
their
assimilation
by
the
regulated
community,
and
for
production,
certification
and
implementation
of
SPCC
Plan
amendments.

Submitted
by
­
Independent
Petroleum
Association
of
America
Comment
Text:
We
strongly
support
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
these
compliance
dates.
We
believe
that
this
additional
time
would
allow
an
opportunity
to
address
fundamental
issues
in
the
current
regulations
that
need
to
be
considered
during
the
extension
period...
One
of
the
first
issues
that
causes
concern
and
confusion
is
the
question
of
what
triggers
the
need
to
create
an
SPCC
Plan...
a
similar
issue
relates
to
the
interpretation
of
navigable
waters...
a
number
of
other
significant
issues
with
the
new
regulations
must
be
either
clarified
or
addressed...
past
interpretations
of
the
SPCC
Plan
requirements
clearly
allowed
the
operator
to
consider
costs
in
determining
the
practicability
or
impracticability
of
meeting
particular
requirements
of
the
planning
process.
In
the
new
regulation,
EPA
states,
"
Thus,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
an
owner
or
operator
to
consider
costs
or
economic
impacts
in
any
determination
as
to
whether
he
can
satisfy
the
secondary
containment
requirement."
The
consequence
of
this
approach
could
be
enormous
when
applied
to
the
marginal
wells
in
this
country...
This
issue
[
produced
waters]
needs
further
examination
during
the
delay
period;
it
clearly
presents
a
potentially
significant
cost...
we
do
not
believe
these
challenges
can
be
met
under
the
current
compliance
deadlines.

Submitted
by
­
Angie
Burckhalter
of
Oklahoma
Independent
Petroleum
Association
Comment
Text:
We
strongly
support
EPA's
proposed
extension
and
believe
it
will
allow
EPA
time
to
address
the
critical
issues
associated
with
the
2002
SPCC
rule.
This
extension
will
allow
EPA
time
to
conduct
future
rulemakings
that
could
result
in
changes
to
the
2002
rule
that
would
make
current
costly
expenditures
by
small
oil
and
gas
operators
unnecessary...
We
urge
the
EPA
to
develop
a
regulatory
approach
that
is
appropriate
and
reasonable
for
the
E&
P
industry,
especially
marginal
well
producers.
This
approach
would
include
a
practical
definition
of
navigable
waters
and
focus
on
those
facilities
that
reasonably
can
be
expected
to
impact
those
waters,
include
a
benefit/
cost
analysis
of
the
requirements
being
considered
and
implemented
at
E&
P
facilities
and
focus
on
those
areas
where
there
is
a
true
need
for
regulation,
and
provide
a
practical
and
economic
regulatory
scheme
that
small
operators
can
understand.
Such
an
approach
would
encourage
E&
P
operators
to
comply,
assure
that
industry's
funds
are
spent
where
it
can
provide
the
most
benefit,
and
maintain
the
viability
of
domestic
production.
Submitted
by
­
Nicholas
DeMarco
of
The
West
Virginia
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Association
Comment
Text:
WVONGA
fully
supports
the
proposal
to
extend
the
dates
by
which
facilities
must
prepare
or
amend
SPCC
Plans.
WVONGA
believes
that
the
proposed
extension
until
October
31,
2007
is
necessary
in
order
for
the
Environmental
protection
Agency
("
EPA")
to
promulgate
the
additional
revisions
proposed
to
the
SPCC
rules
that
would
relieve
some
of
the
regulatory
burdens
on
the
affected
facilities.

Submitted
by
­
P.
F.
Faggert
of
Dominion
Comment
Text:
Dominion
strongly
supports
an
extension
of
the
dates
for
preparation
and
for
implementation
of
SPCC
plans.

Submitted
by
­
Food
Industry
Environmental
Council
Comment
Text:
FIEC
appreciates
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA's)
proposal
to
extend,
until
October
31,
2007,
compliance
with
the
2002
Spill
Prevention,
Control
and
Countermeasure
(
SPCC)
Rule
(
70
FR
73518;
12/
12/
05),
only
to
the
degree
that
the
extension
will
permit
EPA
to
finalize
their
proposed
amendments
(
70
FR
73524;
12/
12/
05)
and
resolve
other
important
issues.

Submitted
by
­
Steve
Travis
of
Sherwin­
Williams
Comment
Text:
The
extension
of
the
compliance
deadline
to
October
31,
2007
is
warranted
to
allow
the
regulated
community
time
to
review
these
proposals
and
modify
existing
plans
as
necessary.
It
is
also
necessary
to
allow
these
proposals
to
become
finalized
such
that
companies
have
a
clear
understanding
of
the
requirements
of
the
regulations/
guidance
documents.

Submitted
by
­
Vulcan
Materials
Company
Comment
Text:
Vulcan
Materials
Company...
supports
the
proposed
extension
of
the
SPCC
compliance
deadlines.
The
extension
is
necessary
given
the
delayed
release
of
regulatory
guidance
and
to
ensure
that
the
regulated
community
has
time
to
address
compliance
requirements.

Submitted
by
­
Greg
Huncovsky
of
WBI
Holdings
Comment
Text:
WBIH
supports
the
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
developing
and
implementing
Spill
Prevention
Control
and
Countermeasure
Plans
(
SPCC).
The
extension
will
provide
more
time
to
adequately
review
and
implement
material
from
the
lengthy
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
document
released
in
December,
2005...
Additionally,
EPA's
recent
proposal
to
provide
SPCC
regulatory
relief
will
likely
result
in
the
revisions
of
most
of
our
SPCC
plans.
An
extension
of
the
compliance
dates
would
allow
us
to
avoid
costly
repetitive
revisions
to
our
SPCC
plans.

Submitted
by
­
Dick
Patyrak
of
CenterPoint
Energy
Houston
Electric,
LLC
Comment
Text:
CenterPoint
Energy
Houston
Electric,
LLC
is
pleased
to
acknowledge
the
proposed
SPCC
amendments
as
offered
in
70
Federal
Register
73524,
December
12,
2005.
We
feel
it
is
important
that
the
EPA
extend
the
plan
amendment
and
implementation
deadline
to
adequately
allow
for
compliance
with
the
currently
pending
2002
SPCC
amendments.

Submitted
by
­
Shirley
Ruffin
of
SCANA
Corporation
Comment
Text:
Based
on
recent
proposed
changes
to
the
SPCC
rules
as
published
in
the
December
12,
2005
edition
of
the
Federal
Register,
the
requirements
for
oil­
filled
operating
equipment
and
small
facilities
will
be
significantly
different
than
the
requirements
of
the
current
SPCC
rules.
As
a
member
of
the
regulated
community,
SCANA
will
need
time
to
prepare
for
and
ensure
compliance
with
these
new
rules
and
balance
the
business
needs
of
the
corporation.
Since
these
proposed
rules
have
not
been
finalized,
there
may
yet
be
more
changes
to
the
requirements
for
oilfilled
operating
equipment
in
the
near
future.
It
would
be
a
waste
of
finite
resources
to
commit
budgets
to
comply
with
a
rule
that
is
only
changing.
Therefore,
this
proposed
extension
is
both
timely
and
essential
for
our
business.

Submitted
by
­
Douglas
Greenhaus
of
National
Automobile
Dealers
Association
Comment
Text:
Extending
these
compliance
deadlines
to
at
least
October
31,
2007,
is
both
necessary
and
appropriate.
Just
last
month,
EPA
proposed
new
changes
to
its
SPCC
rules
that
could
significantly
impact
how
and
if
car
and
truck
dealerships
must
comply
with
the
July
2002
SPCC
amendments.
70
Fed.
Reg.
73524,
et
seq.
(
December
12,
2005).
Also
last
month,
EPA
issued
a
comprehensive
guidance
document
that
could
significantly
impact
how
regulated
facilities
comply
with
the
2002
SPCC
amendments.
NADA
is
preparing
comments
responding
to
the
December
2005
proposal
(
due
February
11,
2006)
and
is
reviewing
EPA's
voluminous
SPCC
guidance.
Suspension
of
the
2006
compliance
dates
is
warranted
given
that
recent
events
have
rendered
them
irrelevant
by
making
them
virtually
impossible
to
comply
with.
The
proposed
deadline
of
October
31,
2007,
should
allow
dealerships
enough
time
to
analyze
EPA's
guidance
and
a
final
rule
based
on
the
December
2005
regulatory
proposal
(
assuming
it
issues
sometime
this
Fall),
and
to
appropriately
develop
and/
or
modify
their
SPCC
plans,
as
necessary
Submitted
by
­
Dee
Gavora
of
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
Comment
Text:
AF&
PA
strongly
supports
the
proposed
extension
of
the
compliance
date
for
amending
SPCC
Plans.
The
extension
will
allow
the
Agency
time
to
clarify
and
amend
the
July
2002
final
SPCC
rule
and
provide
regulatory
relief
to
affected
facilities.

Submitted
by
­
John
G.
Hill
of
The
Dow
Chemical
Company
Comment
Text:
Dow
fully
supports
an
extension
of
the
implementation
date
of
the
SPCC
requirements
including
coordination
of
the
extension
with
the
promulgation
of
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
regulation.
Submitted
by
­
Caroline
Choi
of
Progress
Energy
Comment
Text:
A
compliance
extension
is
appropriate
to
provide
EPA
adequate
time
to
finalize
the
proposed
SPCC
amendments
and
the
regulated
community
with
time
to
achieve
compliance.

Submitted
by
­
Tim
Pohle
of
Aviation
Coalition4
Comment
Text:
The
Coalition
concurs
with
EPA's
determination
that,
with
the
Proposed
Rule
to
further
amend
the
SPCC
Rule
and
effort
by
EPA
to
provide
clarifications
through
guidance
on
certain
issues
(
particularly
via
EPA's
recently
published
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors),
the
regulated
community
will
need
the
extra
time
proposed
to
amend
or
prepare
and
implement
SPCC
Plans
accordingly.

Submitted
by
­
Jeff
Gunnulfsen
of
Synthetic
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Comment
Text:
SOCMA
strongly
supports
this
extension
and
believes
that
it
is
warranted...
Providing
adequate
time
for
companies
to
review
the
effect
of
the
proposals
on
their
facilities,
analyze
and
synthesize
the
material
presented
in
the
guidance
document
in
order
to
properly
develop
(
or
modify
existing)
plans
and
begin
implementing
the
new
requirements
is
critical
to
the
success
of
the
expanded
requirements
of
the
SPCC
program.
Give
the
complexity
of
the
regulations
and
its
implementation,
the
time
permitted
under
the
extension
will
greatly
assist
companies
in
attaining
full
compliance.

Submitted
by
­
John
Arnett
of
Copper
and
Brass
Fabricators
Council
Comment
Text:
The
Council
agrees
that
the
compliance
dates
should
be
extended
to
October
31,
2007,
for
the
reasons
the
Agency
listed
in
the
Federal
Register
notice.
Chief
among
these
is
to
allow
time
for
the
Agency
to
take
comment
on
SPCC
regulatory
relief
measures
proposed
on
December
12,
2005,
in
the
same
Federal
Register
notice,
and
to
allow
facilities
to
adapt
their
plans
to
the
new
requirements
once
adopted.

Submitted
by
­
Robert
Fronczak
of
Association
of
American
Railroads
Comment
Text:
AAR
supports
this
proposed
rulemaking...
it
makes
no
sense
to
prepare
plans
by
February
17,
2006,
and
modify
facilities
by
August
18,
2006
if
those
plans
and
facility
modifications
will
have
to
be
modified
again
in
the
very
near
future
due
to
this
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.

Submitted
by
­
Kellie
Skelton
of
Energen
Resources
Corp.
Comment
Text:
Energen
strongly
supports
the
proposed
extension
of
the
deadlines.
An
extension
is
absolutely
essential
for
both
EPA
and
the
regulated
community
to:
1)
resolve
and
4
Collectively
submitted
under
one
name
by:
The
Air
Transport
Association
of
America,
Inc.,
American
Association
of
Airport
Executives;
Airports
Council
International
­
North
America;
National
Air
Transportation
Association.
document
all
the
outstanding
issues
identified
during
previous
discussions,
2)
review
proposed
amendments,
and
3)
review
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors...
EPA
recently
released
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
and
revisions
to
the
rule.
The
guidance
document
contains
many
clarifications
within
a
several
hundred
page
document.
It
is
prudent
that
all
stakeholders
as
well
as
regulators
are
allowed
sufficient
time
to
review
and
comment
on
the
guidance
document.
In
addition
to
the
guidance
documents,
additional
proposed
amendments
were
published
on
December
12,
2005
in
the
federal
register.
Time
is
necessary
to
comment
on
the
amendments.
The
comments
for
the
amendments
are
due
only
one
week
prior
to
the
February
17,
2006
deadline
for
necessary
changes
to
the
SPCC
plans.
Since
the
amendments
will
affect
multiple
SPCC
plans
it
only
right
to
extend
the
deadline
for
compliance.

Submitted
by
­
Bill
Verner
of
Georgia
Electric
Membership
Corporation
Comment
Text:
GEMC
and
the
Georgia
EMCs
support
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines
until
October
31,
2007.
By
doing
so,
regulated
facilities
will
have
the
benefits
of
being
able
to
review
the
SPCC
guidance
now
available
to
the
regulated
community
before
preparing
or
amending
their
SPCC
plans.
Moreover,
as
EPA
recognized,
extending
the
compliance
deadlines
will
allow
regulated
facilities
the
opportunity
to
benefit
from
and
take
full
advantage
of
any
regulatory
relief
that
EPA
may
promulgate
in
the
near
future...
These
proposed
revisions
potentially
impact
GEMC
and
its
member
EMCs,
and
they
need
the
additional
time
proposed
to
prepare
or
amend
and
implement
their
SPC
plans
in
accordance
with
any
revisions
to
the
SPCC
program
that
EPA
may
finalize
pursuant
to
this
December
2005
proposal.

Submitted
by
­
Paul
Glader
of
Hecla
Mining
Company
Comment
Text:
EPA's
rationale
for
the
proposed
extension
of
the
compliance
dates
is
both
valid
and
appropriate.
Numerous
smaller
facilities
have
staff
limitations
and
must
seek
out
assistance
to
interpret
many
regulatory
proposals,
such
as
those
applicable
to
SPCC
requirements.
The
additional
time
is
necessary
to
interpret
the
new
regulatory
requirements
recently
published
by
EPA
in
the
Federal
Register
in
addition
to
reviewing
the
new
SPCC
guidance.
Further,
many
facilities
trigger
the
requirements
for
development
of
a
SPCC
but
site
logistics
realistically
prevent
releases
to
water
in
all
but
bizarre
circumstances.

1.
C.
Other
Topic
Comment
Summary:
Several
commenters
support
the
extension
provisionally.
Commenters
requested
clarification
regarding
the
compliance
obligations
given
the
extensions
of
the
compliance
dates
as
compared
to
the
effective
date
of
the
2002
SPCC
rule
amendments.
Additionally,
commenters
presented
other
issues
they
believe
EPA
should
address
in
conjunction
with
the
proposed
extension.
Several
commenters
offered
conditional
support
for
the
extension,
contingent
upon
EPA
establishing
a
firm
timetable
to
fulfill
its
obligations
as
required
by
the
Edible
Oil
Regulatory
Reform
Act
(
EORRA)
to
promulgate
separate
regulations
for
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils
(
AFVOs)
that
reflect
the
different
characteristics
between
these
oils
and
petroleum­
based
oils.
Other
commenters
were
concerned
about
the
costs
associated
with
the
implementation
of
the
2002
SPCC
rule
requirements
on
the
Exploration
and
Production
(
E&
P)
industry,
specifically
questioning
the
economic
analysis
supporting
the
2002
action.
These
commenters
argue
that
there
are
continuing
burden
issues
regarding
the
implementation
of
the
SPCC
regulation
and,
although
they
agree
with
the
proposed
extension,
they
express
concern
about
the
impediments
the
rule's
requirements
and
stipulations
would
create
on
its
ability
to
cost
effectively
develop
and
produce
its
oil
and
natural
gas
reserves
­
particularly
for
small
production
facilities.

Topic
Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters'
support
of
the
compliance
dates
extension.
The
Agency
has
not
changed
the
effective
date
for
the
July
2002
SPCC
final
rule
amendments,
but
is
finalizing
the
proposed
new
extension
to
the
compliance
dates
for
preparing/
amending
and
implementing
SPCC
Plans.
The
interim
compliance
requirements
would
remain
the
same
as
those
stated
in
the
previous
compliance
date
extensions.
Specifically,
to
the
extent
that
the
July
2002
rule
imposes
new
or
more
stringent
compliance
obligations
than
did
the
old
SPCC
rule,
those
dates
in
40
CFR
112.3(
a)
and
(
b)
for
fulfillment
of
those
obligations
are
extended
under
this
rule.
Provisions
that
provide
regulatory
relief
in
the
2002
rule
are
not
affected
by
the
compliance
dates
extension
because
such
provisions
are
not
addressed
by
40
CFR
112.3(
a)
or
(
b)
and
are
not
provisions
that
would
trigger
a
revision
of
the
SPCC
Plan
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
2002
amendments.
The
compliance
date
extensions
do
not
change
the
requirement
under
112.8(
d)(
1),
which
applies
to
buried
piping
installed
or
replaced
on
or
after
August
16,
2002.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
July
2002
SPCC
rule
amendments
provide
flexibility
that
allows
owners
and
operators
to
prepare
and
implement
SPCC
Plans
that
are
commensurate
with
the
risk
of
spills
at
their
facility
and
that
would
not
impose
undue
economic
burdens.
Although
EPA
appreciates
and
understands
the
concerns
regarding
the
implementation
costs
associated
with
the
2002
SPCC
amendments,
AFVO
differentiation
and
the
definition
of
navigable
waters
are
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
notice.

Comment
Excerpts:

Submitted
by
­
G.
H.
Holliday
of
Holliday
Environmental
Services
Comment
Text:
We
oppose
the
proposed
extension
because:
1.
EPA
did
not
economically
justify,
in
accordance
with
Executive
Order
No.
12866,
the
July
17,
2002
(
67
FR
47140)
SPCC
rule
promulgation.
2.
The
1973
version
of
40
CFR
Part
112
remains
in
effect,
since
EPA
has
not
allowed
40
CFR
Part
112
dated
17
July
2002
to
become
effective.
3.
EPA
does
not
need
extra
time
to
cancel
the
2002
SPCC
Plan
rule,
reinstate
the
1973
version
and
add
farm
facilities
and
home
facilities
to
40
CFR
Part
112.

Submitted
by
­
Food
Industry
Environmental
Council5
5
This
comment
was
submitted
by
the
Food
Industry
Environmental
Council
and
includes
fifteen
signatories:
American
Bakers
Association;
American
Feed
Industry
Association;
American
Frozen
Food
Institute;
American
Meat
Institute;
Corn
Refiners
Association;
Independent
Bakers
Association;
International
Dairy
Foods
Association;
Institute
of
Shortening
and
Edible
Oils;
Midwest
Food
Processors
Association;
National
Cotton
Council;
National
Oilseed
Processors
Association;
Northwest
Food
Processors
Association;
Pet
Food
Institute;
Snack
Food
Association.
Comment
Text:
Importantly,
there
are
still
issues
relative
to
EPA's
characterization
of
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils
(
AF/
VO)
produced
by
and
used
in
the
food
industry
compared
to
petroleum
oils
which
preclude
FIEC's
full
support
of
the
amended
rule.
FIEC
urges
EPA
to
establish
a
timetable
to
resolve
unique
issues
associated
with
the
production
and
use
of
AF/
VO.
Unless
critical
issues
are
resolved
future
compliance
extensions
may
be
necessary.

Submitted
by
­
David
Fairfield
of
National
Grain
and
Feed
Association
Comment
Text:
The
NGFA
and
GEAPS
generally
support
the
Agency's
proposed
Oct.
31,
2007
compliance
date
for
facilities
to
amend
and
implement
their
SPCC
plans.
But
our
support
is
conditional,
and
is
contingent
upon
EPA
establishing
a
firm
timetable
to
fulfill
its
obligations
as
required
by
the
Edible
Oil
Regulatory
Reform
Act
(
EORRA)
to
promulgate
separate
regulations
for
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils
(
AF/
VOs)
that
reflect
the
different
characteristics
between
these
oils
and
petroleum­
based
oils.
Future
SPCC
plan
compliance
extensions
will
be
warranted
unless
EPA
promptly
addresses
the
unique
issues
associated
with
facilities
that
produce,
handle,
and
store
AF/
VOs
and
other
food
grade
oils.

Submitted
by
­
Gregory
D.
Russell
of
Vorys,
Sater,
Seymour
and
Pease
LLP
Comment
Text:
Because
of
the
potentially
destructive
impact
the
most­
recent
amendments
to
EPA's
SPCC
program
can
have
on
Ohio
producers
and
the
citizens
they
serve,
the
Association
strongly
supports
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
dates
for
a
facility
to
amend
and
implement
its
SPCC
Plan
until
October
31,
2007.
This
will
provide
time
to
resolve
the
many
issues
previously
raised
by
oil
and
gas
producers
concerning
EPA's
SPCC
program...[
the]
DOE
expressed
the
concern
that:

[
New]
regulations
*
*
*
could
negatively
affect
the
supply
of
affordable
natural
gas.
Specifically,
new
gathering
line
definitions
and
compliance
with
attendant
new
rules
could
impose
additional
costs
on
those
marginal
gas
producers
that
currently
provide
approximately
10
percent
of
our
onshore
supplies
of
natural
gas.
Such
costs
could
lead
many
of
these
producers
to
"
shut­
in"
production
as
well
as
create
disincentives
for
natural
gas
producers
to
initiate
new
exploration
and
production
activities.
[
DOE
Comments
filed
in
Docket
No.
RSPA­
1998­
4868
(
Jan.
14,
2004).]

Similarly,
the
high
costs
associated
with
implementing
SPCC
plans
­
estimated
by
IPAA
to
range
from
$
5,000
to
$
20,000
per
facility,
most
of
which
relate
to
secondary
containment
requirements
­
could
have
a
ruinous
impact
on
marginal
wells
in
Ohio
and
elsewhere
in
the
country.
The
public,
however,
gets
very
little
environmental
benefit,
if
any,
in
return
for
that
significant
outlay
given
the
marginal
­
and
thus
low
flow
­
nature
of
the
wells.
An
extension
of
the
deadlines,
therefore,
is
appropriate
and
necessary
to
address
these
issues
and
avoid
the
premature
loss
of
significant
volumes
of
natural
resources
in
Ohio
and
elsewhere.

Submitted
by
­
Kellie
Skelton
of
Energen
Resources
Corp.
Comment
Text:
Energen
compliments
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
implementation
date
however,
we
have
three
primary
concerns
associated
with
any
implementation
at
all.
First,
the
EPA
instructed
the
SPCC
economic
contractor
to
assume
that
all
SPCC
plans
in
place
prior
to
the
publication
dated
July
17,
2002
were
in
full
compliance
with
the
revisions
in
the
publication
dated
July
17,
2002.
It
is
prudent
that
EPA
evaluate
cost
analysis
associated
with
the
implementation
of
the
rule
as
well
as
the
cost
versus
the
benefit.
Without
a
thorough
cost
analysis,
the
EPA
does
not
comply
with
regulatory
statute.
Energen
compliments
EPA
in
recognizing
that
there
are
continuing
issues
with
the
implementation
of
the
plan
and
promotes
the
extension
times
as
listed
in
the
proposal.

Second,
Energen
is
concerned
about
the
impediments
the
rule's
requirements
and
stipulations
would
create
on
its
ability
to
develop
and
produce
its
natural
gas
reserves.
These
conditions
and
restrictions
or
other
provisions,
including
secondary
containment
around
production
equipment
(
non­
bulk
storage
equipment),
prohibit
cost
effective
mineral
recovery.
The
overwhelming
cost
to
small
production
facilities
may
even
require
abandonment
of
low
producing
wells.

1.
D.
Conditional
Support
Pending
Clarification
Topic
Comment
Summary:
Representatives
from
meat
and
poultry
processing
facilities
asked
that
their
facilities
be
granted
a
compliance
date
extension
until
all
issues
unique
to
the
production
and
use
of
AFVO
are
resolved.
Representatives
from
oil
and
gas
exploration
and
production
industry
also
expressed
concern
that
there
remain
a
number
of
issues
that
have
not
been
answered
satisfactorily.
These
groups
feel
that
EPA
must
quickly
resolve
these
remaining
industry
specific
issues
in
order
for
October
31,
2007
to
be
a
realistic
final
compliance
date.

Topic
Response:
EPA
agrees
with
commenters
that
it
is
important
to
resolve
the
issues
in
the
pending
proposal
and
is
working
towards
promulgating
any
amendments
in
a
timely
manner.
As
the
Agency
works
towards
resolution
of
all
issues,
the
need
for
further
targeted
compliance
date
extensions
may
be
considered.
At
this
time
the
Agency
believes
that
the
dates
being
promulgated
adequately
balances
environmental
protection
with
the
social
costs
imposed
on
the
US
economy.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
commenters
that
conditioned
their
support
of
this
compliance
date
extension
to
taking
final
action
regarding
differentiation
of
AFVOs.
In
the
pending
proposal
of
December
12,
2005,
the
Agency
requested
information
specific
to
the
set
of
criteria
specified
by
the
Edible
Oil
Regulatory
Reform
Act
(
33
U.
S.
C.
2720)
that
would
be
required
to
establish
differentiated
requirements
for
AFVOs.
The
Agency
is
not
prepared
at
this
time
to
determine
whether
that
request
for
information
will
result
in
information
adequate
to
support
such
an
action,
nor
can
the
Agency
predict
at
this
time
what
resources
a
rulemaking
to
develop
these
differentiated
requirements
may
entail.
Thus
the
Agency
believes
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
condition
the
compliance
dates
in
section
112.3
on
such
uncertain
factors.
Although
the
Agency
will
review
and
give
full
consideration
to
the
information
it
receives
related
to
the
AFVO
issue,
this
is
outside
the
scope
of
the
Agency's
action
to
extend
the
compliance
dates
for
SPCC
Plan
preparation/
amendment
and
implementation.
Similarly,
the
issues
presented
by
the
exploration
and
production
sector
that
relate
to
the
2002
SPCC
rule
amendments
and
are
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
notice.

Comment
Excerpts:
Submitted
by
­
Stephen
Johnson
of
American
Meat
Institute
Comment
Text:
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
date
of
compliance
with
the
2002
SPCC
rule
for
all
qualified
facilities
until
October
31,
2007,
is
adequate
only
if
EPA
finalizes
its
proposed
amendments
and
resolves
in
a
timely
manner
and
other
important
issues
relative
to
the
differentiation
of
AF/
VO
from
the
SPCC
requirements
for
petroleum
oils
and
non­
petroleum
oils
other
than
AF/
VO.

Submitted
by
­
Norbert
Dee
of
National
Petrochemical
&
Refiners
Association
Comment
Text:
Since
the
July
17,
2002
final
SPCC
rule
was
published,
EPA
has
worked
with
industry
to
identify
problem
areas.
Further,
the
agency
has
entered
into
settlement
agreements,
and
has
issued
proposed
amendments
and
guidance
to
the
regions
in
a
good
faith
effort
to
ensure
that
the
SPCC
regulations
are
workable
for
our
members.
We
do
have
a
concern,
however,
as
we
note
that
there
remain
a
number
of
questions
which
have
not
been
answered
satisfactorily.

In
the
current
proposed
rule,
EPA
would
extend
the
dates
for
facilities
to
amend
and
implement
SPCC
plans,
in
accordance
with
the
July
17,
2002
final
rule,
until
October
31,
2007.
NPRA
supports
extension
of
the
deadlines.
However,
in
order
for
October
31,
2007
to
be
a
realistic
final
compliance
date
for
the
2002
rule,
EPA
must
quickly
resolve
the
remaining
questions.

Submitted
by
­
Bob
Elam
of
American
Chemical
Council
Comment
Text:
In
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
extends
the
deadlines
by
which
facilities
must
amend
and
implement
their
SPCC
plans
to
comply
with
the
July
2002
SPCC
rule
[
e.
g.,
dates
in
40
CFR
112.3(
a)
­
(
c)],
but
EPA
does
not
delay
the
effective
date
of
the
July
2002
rule
itself.
ACC
understands
this
to
mean
that
to
the
extent
the
July
2002
rule
imposes
new,
more
stringent
compliance
obligations
than
did
the
previous
SPCC
rules,
the
deadline
for
fulfillment
of
those
obligations
is
extended
under
the
proposed
rule
[
including
the
date
in
40
CFR
112.8(
d)(
1)],
to
the
same
extent
as
the
deadline
for
implementing
amended
plans.
At
the
same
time,
the
July
2002
rule
relaxes
a
few
aspects
of
the
SPCC
rules.
Because
the
proposed
rule
delays
the
effective
date
of
the
July
2002
rule,
those
few
aspects
of
the
July
2002
rule
that
are
less
stringent
than
before
remain
in
full
force.
The
regulated
community
does
not
need
more
time
to
comply
with
provisions
that
relieve
or
lessen
a
compliance
burden,
so
a
deferment
designed
to
give
the
regulated
community
"
more
time
to
comply
with
the
rule"
is
obviously
not
intended
to
defer
such
provisions.
ACC
will
make
this
logical
assumption
unless
EPA
specifically
responds
otherwise.

2.
Suggestion
or
clarification
of
interest
to
EPA
Topic
Comment
Summary:
Several
commenters
requested
that
the
EPA
reaffirm
the
scope
of
the
compliance
requirements
that
are
affected
by
the
proposed
extension.
Commenters
urged
EPA
to
confirm
that
the
extended
compliance
deadline
applies
to
"
new
or
more
stringent
compliance
obligations"
imposed
by
the
July
2002
SPCC
amendments
and
not
to
provisions
in
the
amendments
that
provide
regulatory
relief
to
regulated
facilities.
Another
commenter
urged
EPA
to
extend
the
deadline
under
section
112.5
to
review
and/
or
amend
the
current
Plan,
thereby
providing
relief
to
all
facilities
in
an
equitable
manner.
A
representative
of
the
AFVO
industry
urged
EPA
to
grant
all
meat
and
poultry
processing
facilities
an
extension
until
all
issues
unique
to
AFVO
are
resolved.
The
agricultural
sector
also
suggested
a
"
formal
suspension
of
enforcement
for
all
farms
to
be
appropriate
until
more
information
can
be
gathered
about
the
industry,
its
needs,
its
unique
characteristics,
and
its
history
of
spills."

Topic
Response:
The
Agency
is
providing
an
extension
from
the
requirements
in
the
2002
amendments
to
those
facilities
that
were
in
compliance
with
the
SPCC
regulation
and
those
facilities
that
became
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation
after
the
2002
amendments
effective
date.
The
compliance
date
provision
(
40
C.
F.
R.
112.3(
a))
means
that
components
of
the
2002
SPCC
rule
that
imposed
new
or
more
stringent
requirements
than
the
1973
SPCC
rule
must
be
met
by
this
date.
Because
facilities
with
SPCC
Plans
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
1973
SPCC
rule
would
already
be
in
compliance
with
those
provisions
of
the
July
2002
rule
that
are
less
stringent
than
the
1973
rule,
those
aspects
of
the
facility's
SPCC
plan
would
not
have
to
be
amended
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
2002
SPCC
rule
(
although
there
may
be
other
reasons,
such
as
material
changes
at
the
facility,
which
would
require
the
plan
to
be
amended).
The
compliance
dates
in
§
112.3
are
independent
of
the
requirement
to
review
the
SPCC
Plan
at
least
once
every
five
years
as
required
by
§
112.5(
b).

Section
112.5(
b)
requires
that,
as
a
result
of
this
periodic
review
and
evaluation,
an
owner/
operator
must
amend
the
SPCC
Plan
within
six
months
to
include
more
effective
prevention
and
control
technology
if
the
technology
has
been
field­
proven
at
the
time
of
the
review
and
if
it
will
significantly
reduce
the
likelihood
of
a
discharge
as
described
in
§
112.1(
b)
from
the
facility.
The
purpose
of
the
periodic
review
is
to
account
for
improved
technologies
to
reduce
the
likelihood
of
a
discharge
and
is
therefore
an
aspect
of
maintaining
an
existing
SPCC
Plan.
Owners
and
operators
of
existing
facilities
must
conduct
the
Plan
review
under
§
112.5(
b)
as
part
of
the
task
of
maintaining
the
SPCC
Plan,
and
must
amend
the
Plan
if
appropriate
under
that
provision.
However
they
are
not
required
to
amend
the
Plan
in
order
to
comply
with
the
2002
regulatory
revisions
prior
to
the
compliance
dates
in
§
112.3
as
part
of
the
periodic
review
under
§
112.5(
b).

EPA
expects
that
any
revisions
to
the
2002
SPCC
rule
based
on
the
proposal
published
in
December
2005
will
be
finalized
in
time
for
facilities
that
qualify
for
the
regulatory
relief
that
may
be
afforded
by
any
such
revisions
to
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
those
revisions.
Because
any
revisions
based
on
the
December
2005
proposal
would
reduce,
rather
than
increase,
the
requirements
for
SPCC
plans
for
some
facilities,
EPA
believes
that
a
year
is
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
for
facilities
to
determine
what
revisions
to
their
plans
are
necessary,
or
what
their
new
plans
need
to
include,
and
to
implement
their
plans.
Therefore,
in
anticipation
of
taking
final
action
on
the
December
proposal
by
October
2006,
EPA
believes
that
extending
the
compliance
dates
in
40
C.
F.
R.
112.3(
a)
is
reasonable.

The
purpose
of
today's
rule
is
solely
to
extend
the
dates
by
which
revision,
preparation,
and
implementation
of
revised
or
new
SPCC
plans
in
compliance
with
the
2002
SPCC
are
required.
EPA
has
requested
information
with
respect
to
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils
(
AFVO)
in
a
separate
notice
(
see
70
FR
73524).
There
is
no
basis
for
providing
a
special
extension
for
facilities
with
AFVO
in
today's
rule.
Similarly,
in
that
Federal
Register
notice
the
Agency
proposed
a
compliance
date
extension
specifically
for
farms.
Comments
concerning
issues
addressed
in
the
separate
Federal
Register
notice
will
be
addressed
in
the
Agency's
response
to
comments
on
that
notice.

Comment
Excerpts:

Submitted
by
­
Beth
Van
Emburgh
of
National
Air
Transportation
Association
Comment
Text:

NATA
urges
the
EPA
to
apply
such
an
extension
to
all
businesses,
not
just
those
with
existing
plans
or
those
that
had
plans
prior
to
the
2002
revisions,
as
these
new
proposals,
such
as
mobile
refueler
requirements,
are
subject
to
change.

That
being
said,
NATA
urges
the
EPA
to
clarify
to
whom
the
extension
actually
applies.
As
the
proposal
currently
stands,
it
seems
the
extension
applies
to
all
businesses,
regardless
of
whether
they
currently
have
a
plan.
NATA
feels
this
is
a
problem,
as
our
industry
is
confused
as
to
whether
this
extension
applies
to
them.
Upon
further
questioning,
the
EPA
stated
that
the
extension
would
apply
to
those
facilities
in
operation
prior
to
the
2002
revision
that
already
have
a
plan
to
update
that
plan,
or
facilities
that
began
operations
after
2002
to
create
and
implement
a
plan.
This
is
problematic
for
the
following
reasons:
·
Despite
the
EPA
insistence
otherwise,
the
2002
revision
did
clarify
that
a
mobile
refueler
was
considered
mobile/
portable
storage.
The
industry
was
surprised
by
this
clarification,
and
had
to
scramble
to
provide
secondary
containment
for
these
vehicles.
Now,
the
EPA
is
proposing
to
remove
the
sized
secondary
containment
requirement
for
these
same
vehicles.
NATA
urges
the
EPA
to
consider
the
effects
of
this
"
back­
and­
forth"
position
when
applying
the
extension
to
the
industry.
·
An
aviation
business,
despite
when
they
began
their
operations,
often
just
does
not
have
funds
on
hand
to
comply
with
a
mandate
that
may
change
in
a
few
months.
The
EPA
should
apply
the
extension
dates
across
the
board
to
the
industry,
so
they
can
properly
fund
and
plan
a
system
that
protects
the
environment
from
spills
at
airports.

Submitted
by
­
Roger
Claff
of
American
Petroleum
Institute
Comment
Text:
As
with
other
deadline
extensions
of
this
rule,
API
continues
to
have
concerns
about
the
scope
of
the
compliance
obligations
that
are
affected
by
the
proposed
extension
of
the
amendment/
implementation
dates.
Attached
is
a
letter
API
sent
to
EPA
on
January
29,
2003
describing
our
understanding
of
the
scope
of
the
extension...
EPA
should
reaffirm
API's
understand
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
similar
to
the
confirmation
in
the
April
17,
2003
extension
(
68
Fed.
Reg.
18893).
[
See
attachment
to
submission.]

Submitted
by
­
Patrick
Flowers
of
Xcel
Energy
Comment
Text:
One
other
note
in
response
to
the
proposal
by
EPA:
EPA
needs
to
ensure
that
it
is
clear
in
its
final
rule
that
the
compliance
extension
extends
the
compliance
deadline
for
"
new
or
more
stringent
compliance
obligations"
that
were
imposed
on
the
2002
amendments
and
not
to
provisions
that
provide
regulatory
relief
to
regulated
facilities.
EPA
issued
a
similar
statement
in
the
2004
final
extension
notice
(
69
FR
48796)
and
a
similar
notice
is
needed
for
this
notice
as
well.

Some
SPCC
inspectors
are
confused
about
which
parts
of
the
amendments
apply
and
which
ones
do
not.
Also,
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
foments
this
confusion
by
addressing
topics
that
have
yet
to
be
fully
resolved
and
have
resulted
in
the
three
(
now
four)
compliance
deadline
extensions.

Submitted
by
­
P.
F.
Faggert
of
Dominion
Comment
Text:
At
the
same
time,
Dominion
requests
clarification
from
EPA
in
the
final
rule
on
the
interim
compliance
requirements.
Specifically,
Dominion
requests
clarification
from
EPA
in
the
final
rule
on
the
interim
compliance
requirements.
Specifically,
Dominion
requests
clarification
that
the
same
provision
included
in
the
previous
extensions
is
still
applicable:
"
to
the
extent
that
the
July
2002
rule
imposes
new
or
more
stringent
compliance
obligations
than
did
the
old
SPCC
rule,
...
the
deadlines
in
40
CFR
112.3(
a)
and
(
b)
for
fulfillment
of
those
obligations
is
extended
under
this
final
rule.
On
the
other
hand,
a
provision
that
provides
regulatory
relief
in
the
revised
rule
is
not
affected
by
the
compliance
deadline
extensions
because
such
provisions
are
not
addressed
by
40
CFR
112.3(
a)
or
(
b);
these
are
not
provisions
for
which
it
would
be
"
necessary"
to
amend
existing
Plans
"
to
ensure
compliance
with"
the
July
2002
amendments."
FR
Vol.
68,
No.
74,
p.
18893.

Submitted
by
­
Stephen
Johnson
of
American
Meat
Institute
Comment
Text:
AMI
urges
that
all
meat
and
poultry
processing
facilities
be
granted
an
extension
from
the
2002
amendments
until
all
issues
unique
to
the
production
and
use
of
AF/
VO
are
resolved.
An
adequate
resolution
would
include:

·
Regulations
and
guidance
that
appropriately
distinguish
AF/
VO
from
other
oils
(
petroleum
and
non­
petroleum
oils
other
than
AF/
VO),
and
reflect
the
significant
differences
in
the
substances
themselves
and
the
facilities
handling
these
materials;

·
Clarification
that
SPCC
requirements
should
not
apply
to
AF/
VO
that
is
solid
at
room
temperature;

·
A
reasonable
maximum
threshold
of
AF/
VO
storage
below
which
meat
and
poultry
processing
facilities
would
not
be
required
to
file
an
SPCC
plan
and/
or
comply
with
other
inappropriate
SPCC
provisions
(
e.
g.,
full
fencing,
locking,
and
guarding
entrances);

·
Visual
inspection
instead
of
integrity
testing
of
indoor
and
outdoor
storage
tanks
containing
non­
corrosive
AF/
VO;

·
No
secondary
containment
requirement
for
mobile
tanks
(
e.
g.,
railroad
tank
cars,
tanker
trucks)
containing
AF/
VO;
and
·
Self­
certification,
instead
of
Professional
Engineer
certification,
of
SPCC
plans,
prepared
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
Part
112,
by
all
meat
and
poultry
packing
and
processing
facilities.
Submitted
by
­
Caroline
Choi
of
Progress
Energy
Comment
Text:
Progress
Energy
also
asks
EPA
to
reaffirm
in
the
preamble
to
its
final
promulgation
of
the
compliance
extension
that
the
extended
compliance
deadline
applies
to
"
new
or
more
stringent
compliance
obligations"
imposed
by
the
July
2002
SPCC
amendments
and
not
only
to
provisions
in
the
amendments
that
provide
regulatory
relief
to
regulated
facilities.

Submitted
by
­
Tim
Pohle
of
Aviation
Coalition6
Comment
Text:
While
apparently
there
is
no
dispute
that
the
July
2002
SPCC
Rule
affected
changes
with
respect
to
SPCC
coverage
of
motive
power,
oil­
filled
equipment,
the
scope
of
the
"
impracticability
exclusion,"
and
the
loading
rack
definition
(
among
other
things),
EPA
appears
to
have
taken
the
position
that
application
of
the
secondary
containment
provisions
to
on­
airport
mobile
refuelers
was
unchanged
by
and
pre­
dated
the
July
2002
SPCC
Rule.
2
As
EPA
is
aware,
the
Aviation
Coalition
disputes
this
interpretation
and
continues
to
maintain
that
the
July
2002
SPCC
Rule
did
change
and
expand
the
regulations
to
require
secondary
containment
for
"
mobile
or
portable
containers,"
instead
of
the
previously
covered
"
tanks."
In
any
event,
the
Aviation
Coalition
and
EPA
have
worked
very
hard
since
July
2002
to
clarify
the
application
of
the
secondary
containment
provisions,
highlighting
the
considerable
confusion
and
uncertainty
generated
by
the
provisions.
In
light
of
this
history
of
uncertainty
and
the
new
changes
set
forth
in
the
Proposed
Rule
affecting
on­
airport
mobile
refuelers,
we
believe
the
extension
is
and
should
be
applicable
to
secondary
containment
for
on­
airport
mobile
refuelers
in
addition
to
the
other
provisions
covered
by
the
July
2002
Rule.
While
we
believe
that
application
of
the
extension
to
the
secondary
containment
provisions
as
applied
to
on­
airport
mobile
refuelers
is
supported
by
law
and
policy,
should
EPA
decline
to
specifically
apply
the
extension
in
this
way,
we
respectfully
request
that
the
Agency
exercise
its
discretion
to
not
make
this
issue
an
inspection
priority
or
otherwise
exercise
enforcement
discretion
to
decline
to
enforce
the
provisions
until
the
October
31,
2007
deadline,
providing
the
air
transport
industry
the
time
necessary
to
understand,
take
account
of
and
address
the
revisions
proposed
in
the
Proposed
Rule
and
new
guidance.

Submitted
by
­
John
McKinnon
of
Kimberly­
Clark
Corporation
Comment
Text:
While
this
extension
will
in
fact
cover
those
facilities
that
would
otherwise
need
to
prepare
and
amend
the
plans
under
Section
112.3
(
a),
(
b)
and
(
c),
it
has
no
apparent
effect
on
those
facilities
which
currently
have
SPCC
Plans
under
the
original
1973
SPCC
regulations.
Since
many
of
these
facilities
must
review
and/
or
amend
their
plans
under
the
five­
year
time
schedule
under
Section
112.5,
they
will
be
faced
with
having
to
either:
1)
Pay
a
Professional
Engineer
to
review
the
plan
under
the
old
1973
rules
plus
undertake
a
second
review
and
amendment
once
the
currently
proposed
rule
is
promulgated,
or
6
Collectively
submitted
under
one
name
by:
The
Air
Transport
Association
of
America,
Inc.,
American
Association
of
Airport
Executives;
Airports
Council
International
­
North
America;
National
Air
Transportation
Association.
2)
Pay
a
Professional
Engineer
to
amend
the
plan
under
the
2002
rules
assuming
that
no
relief
is
forthcoming
under
the
proposed
rule,
and
then
decide
whether
to
amend
the
Plan
again
after
the
currently
proposed
rule
is
promulgated....
Thus,
the
proposed
extension
does
not
in
fact
provide
the
same
treatment
to
all
facilities
as
is
EPA's
stated
intent.
Facilities
that
currently
have
a
SPCC
Plan,
which
must
be
amended
under
the
five
year
period,
but
before
the
proposed
deadline
extension,
will
be
required
to
undergo
a
double
financial
and
regulatory
burden
that
other
competitive
facilities
will
not.
Therefore,
EPA
should
broaden
the
scope
of
its
time
extension
proposal
to
truly
include
all
regulated
facilities.
This
will
allow
EPA
to
properly
synchronize
the
two
rules
as
a
matter
of
good
policy
and
avoid
unintended
consequences
to
the
affected
facilities.

In
addition
to
the
time
extension
in
this
proposed
rule,
Kimberly­
Clark
requests
that
EPA
modify
the
proposal
to
include
all
affected
facilities...

Submitted
by
­
Steve
Hensley
of
USA
Rice
Comment
Text:
USA
Rice
has
worked
with
EPA
since
the
promulgation
of
the
2002
rule
and
its
applicability
to
farmers
became
known
yet
much
uncertainty
surrounds
the
applicability,
deadlines,
costs
to
implement,
and
definitions
of
farms.

Although
we
are
pleased
with
some
of
the
changes
EPA
has
initiated
in
regard
to
the
2005
SPCC
Proposed
Rule,
outstanding
issues
do
remain.
EPA
has
taken
the
position
that
farms
not
in
compliance
with
the
1973
SPCC
rule
will
not
be
covered
by
the
compliance
extension
deadline
of
October
31,
2007.
Given
this,
we
continue
to
believe
that
a
formal
suspension
of
enforcement
for
all
farms
is
appropriate
until
more
information
can
be
gathered
about
the
industry,
its
needs,
its
unique
characteristics,
and
its
history
of
spills.

Many
if
not
most
of
these
farms
were
unaware
that
the
SPCC
rule
even
applied
to
them;
and
for
greater
than
30
years
EPA
has
apparently
not
regarded
these
facilities
as
within
the
enforcement
universe.

Submitted
by
­
Scott
Davis
of
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
Comment
Text:
As
we
requested
in
the
prior
extensions,
we
ask
EPA
to
reaffirm
in
the
preamble
to
its
final
promulgation
of
the
compliance
extension
that
the
extended
compliance
deadline
applies
to
"
new
or
more
stringent
compliance
obligations"
imposed
by
the
July
2002
SPCC
amendments
and
not
to
provisions
in
the
amendments
that
provide
regulatory
relief
to
regulated
facilities.
EPA
issued
such
a
statement
in
the
2004
final
extension
notice.
See
69
Fed.
Reg.
at
48796.
USWAG
members
have
often
found
that
EPA
regional
inspectors
are
unsure
which
parts
of
the
2002
amendments
are
in
effect
and
which
parts
are
being
deferred,
and
even
the
newly
published
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
has
incorrectly
stated
that
new
language
added
in
2002
is
in
effect
when,
as
a
new
requirement,
it
clearly
is
not.
We
plan
to
address
this
error
in
comments
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
next
month
on
the
Guidance
document.
3.
Oppose
Topic
Comment
Summary:
Three
of
the
four
commenters
that
opposed
the
extension
of
compliance
dates
argued
that
the
proposed
extension
does
not
benefit
the
environment.
Two
commenters
suggested
that
as
the
SPCC
rule
has
been
in
effect
since
1974,
most
facilities
should
already
understand
the
rule
and
be
in
compliance.
Commenters
were
concerned
that
if
EPA
extends
the
compliance
deadlines
again,
EPA
will
reduce
numbers
of
inspections
and
enforcement
actions,
and
noncompliant
facilities
will
continue
to
operate
and
endanger
human
health
and
the
environment.
One
commenter
disagreed
with
EPA's
contention
that
regulated
community
members
needs
time
to
understand
the
material
recently
provided
in
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
because
the
commenter
believed
that
"
the
substance
of
the
guidance
document
has
been
in
place
for
almost
35
years".
Another
commenter
opposed
the
extension
of
the
compliance
dates
on
the
basis
of
opposition
to
the
July
2002
SPCC
rule
in
general,
suggesting
that
EPA
did
not
provide
a
sufficient
justification
for
the
economic
impact
of
the
2002
rule,
and
making
an
extension
unnecessary
because
the
1973
version
of
the
rule
should
still
be
in
effect.

Topic
Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
both
the
regulated
community
and
the
environment
to
address
areas
of
confusion
that
arose
after
promulgation
of
the
2002
amendments.
By
promulgating
a
proposal
intended
to
clarify
requirements
and
reduce
burdens,
particularly
on
small
businesses,
and
by
making
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
available
to
the
regulated
community,
the
Agency
believes
that
a
more
effective
and
complete
implementation
of
the
SPCC
regulation
and
improved
environmental
protection
will
ultimately
result.
The
Agency
also
believes
that
the
regulated
community
needs
the
additional
time
allowed
by
the
extension
in
order
to
better
take
advantage
of
the
guidance
and
any
further
regulatory
amendments
that
are
promulgated
and
that
the
benefits
of
this
extension
outweighs
the
concerns
raised
by
commenters
of
increased
administrative
burdens.
The
Agency
disagrees
that
this
extension
would
result
in
reduced
environmental
protection
during
the
interim
period,
or
that
it
somehow
allows
oil
spills
to
continue
and
the
environment
to
be
unprotected.
The
extension
is
for
preparing
and
implementing
Plans
according
to
the
2002
amendments
­
facilities
are
still
required
to
be
maintaining
their
existing
Plans
and
to
continue
working
to
prevent
oil
spills.
Even
those
facilities
that
have
no
SPCC
Plan
because
they
came
into
existence
or
became
subject
to
SPCC
since
August
of
2002
need
to
work
towards
spill
prevention,
and
they
are
still
liable
for
any
oil
discharges
from
the
facility
that
may
occur.
Comments
on
the
Economic
Impact
Analysis
for
the
2002
rule
are
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
notice.

Comment
Excerpts:

Submitted
by
­
M
Aponte
Comment
Text:
Please
do
not
extend
the
dates
for
compliance
of
the
SPCC
plan.
It
is
only
in
the
interest
of
the
operators
and
does
nothing
to
support
the
public
or
environment
that
these
plans
are
designed
to
protect.
Accountability
is
key.

Submitted
by
­
D.
M.
O'Regan
Comment
Text:
A
further
deferral
of
the
dates
for
preparation
and
implementation
of
SPCC
Plans
is
inappropriate.
EPA's
rationale
for
this
deferral
is
a
non
sequitur.
It
is
not
a
given
that
the
parallel
rule
proposals
of
70
FR
73524
(
self­
certification
of
qualified
facilities,
etc.)
are
appropriate
to
the
furtherance
of
protection
of
the
environment.

Inasmuch
as
the
compliance
with
the
current
rules
requires
the
preparation
or
amendment
of
SPCC
Plans
by
February
17,
2006,
it
is
likely
that
owners
and
operators
of
facilities
subject
to
40
CFR
112
have
already
completed
and
sealed
their
plans
in
anticipation
of
this
deadline.
Thus
there
is
no
real
burden
created
by
maintaining
the
current
compliance
dates.
...
EPA
also
uses
the
recent
issuance
of
the
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors
as
a
rationale
for
deferring
the
effective
dates
of
the
July
2002
rules.
This
is
a
specious
argument
inasmuch
as
the
substance
of
the
SPCC
rules
have
been
in
place
for
nearly
35
years.
In
promulgating
the
July
2002
amended
rules
EPA
was
very
clear
in
presenting
its
expectations
for
implementation
by
the
regulated
community.
The
recent
Guidance
is
nothing
more
than
a
compilation
of
informative
guidance
that
EPA
Headquarters
and
the
various
EPA
Regions
have
provided
over
the
years.

Submitted
by
­
Nancy
Stoner
of
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
Comment
Text:
NRDC
opposes
extension
of
these
deadlines
for
compliance
with
development
and
implementation
of
the
SPCC
Plans
for
the
reasons
given
below.

First,
it
is
unnecessary
and
absurd
to
extend
the
deadline
a
THIRD
time
to
October
31,
2007,
four
years
after
the
rules
should
have
first
been
effective,
and
almost
35
years
after
the
SPCC
rules
were
promulgated.
Facilities
should
already
be
in
compliance
with
the
1973
rules
and
the
rule
changes
previously
proposed
by
EPA
because
the
rules
primarily
REDUCE
the
requirements
for
regulated
facilities.

Second,
most
regulated
facilities
have
already
developed
and
implemented
SPCC
Plans
to
comply
with
the
earlier
proposed
rules,
because
they
had
to
comply
with
the
past
three
deadlines.
These
facilities
are
ready
to
meet
their
obligations
to
prevent
oil
spills
and
other
releases.
It
is
entirely
unnecessary
to
extend
the
deadline
when
most
facilities
have
developed
and
implemented
plans.

Finally,
this
third
compliance
deadline
extension
will
extend
EPA's
practice
of
reduced
inspection
and
enforcement
at
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
This
will
continue
the
increased
likelihood
of
oil
releases
and
endangerment
of
facility
personnel
and
neighboring
communities.
EPA
needs
to
abandon
this
compliance
extension
and
enforce
the
rules
as
of
the
upcoming
2006
compliance
dates.
As
mentioned
above,
most
facilities
have
developed
and
implemented
SPCC
Plans
to
meet
current
regulatory
requirements.
However,
there
are
still
many
facilities
that
have
not
developed
and
implemented
effective
SPCC
Plans
and
installed
adequate
secondary
containment
and
spill
prevention
equipment.
These
facilities
need
to
be
inspected
and
current
rules
enforced
to
prevent
oil
spills
and
other
releases.
If
EPA
extends
the
compliance
deadlines
again,
these
noncompliant
facilities
will
continue
to
operate
and
continue
to
endanger
the
environment
and
human
health.
Submitted
by
­
Anonymous
Comment
Text:
An
extension
of
the
deadline
for
compliance
would
create
an
unnecessary
administrative
burden.
Continued
extensions
only
delay
the
inevitable
and
costs
for
compliance
could
increase
with
time.
There
is
no
incentive
to
comply
if
continued
extensions
are
anticipated.

4.
Suggested
alternative
dates
Topic
Comment
Summary:
Commenters
argued
for
a
number
of
different
options
as
alternates
to
the
extension
period,
including
various
combinations
of
the
following:
eighteen
months
following
promulgation
of
revised
rule;
a
"
flexible"
extension
period
to
be
based
on
when
EPA
finalizes
the
other
pending
regulatory
actions;
one
year
after
finalizing
all
clarifications
and
making
necessary
rule
amendments;
and
at
least
one
year
after
finalizing
all
clarifications
and
making
necessary
rule
amendments,
with
implementation
of
amended
plans
to
follow
at
least
6
months
later.
Others
suggested
that
the
Agency
extend
the
deadline
for
all
facilities
regardless
of
whether
they
would
otherwise
be
required
to
review
and/
or
amend
their
current
Plan
under
112.5
so
as
to
provide
relief
to
all
facilities
in
an
equitable
manner.
Finally,
commenters
requested
that
EPA
formally
suspend
enforcement
for
all
agricultural
facilities
and
extend
compliance
dates
indefinitely
for
those
agricultural
facilities
(
farms,
agricultural
cooperatives,
and
agribusinesses
until
more
information
can
be
gathered
about
the
nature
of
the
industry.

Topic
Response:
The
Agency
agrees
with
commenters
in
that
the
regulated
community
needs
time
between
publication
of
a
final
rule
amending
the
SPCC
Plan
requirements,
and
the
date
that
amended
Plans
must
be
implemented
and
in
place.
The
Agency
believes
that
one
year
is
an
adequate
time
period
between
promulgation
of
new
requirements
and
compliance
dates
for
SPCC
Plan
preparation,
amendment
and
implementation.
Thus,
the
Agency
is
working
towards
taking
final
action
on
the
proposed
amendments
as
soon
as
possible
so
that
facilities
have
as
much
time
as
possible
before
the
new
compliance
deadline.
The
Agency
has
already
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposal
for
further
SPCC
amendments
that
"
to
the
extent
practicable,
EPA
will
establish
deadlines
for
compliance
implementation
that
commence
one
year
after
promulgating
the
regulatory
revisions"
[
70
FR
73526].
At
this
time
the
Agency
believes
that
the
October
31,
2007
deadline
is
appropriate
to
both
meet
regulated
community
concerns
and
provide
adequate
environmental
protection.
During
the
development
of
a
final
SPCC
rule
amendment
the
Agency
will
revisit
the
effective
dates
if
it
becomes
evident
that,
due
to
delays
in
the
regulatory
process,
owners
and
operators
would
not
have
adequate
time
to
prepare,
amend
and
implement
their
Plans.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
commenters
on
the
suggestion
that
a
six
month
period
should
still
be
required
between
Plan
preparation/
amendment
and
Plan
implementation.
By
combining
the
two
dates,
the
Agency
is
allowing
for
an
additional
six
months
for
the
Plan
preparation/
amendment
work
to
be
completed
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
under
sections
112.3(
a)
through
(
c).
The
Agency
believes
that
this
approach
provides
added
flexibility
given
that
facilities
are
not
required
to
submit
SPCC
Plans
to
the
Agency
at
the
time
of
preparation/
amendment.
Comments
regarding
a
suspension
and
indefinite
extension
of
compliance
for
agricultural
facilities
are
beyond
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
While
EPA
may
address
these
comments
in
a
future
rulemaking,
today's
extension
is
not
intended
to
postpone
compliance
with
the
SPCC
rule
to
accommodate
such
a
future
rulemaking
for
agricultural
facilities.
Today's
extension
is
intended
only
to
allow
enough
time
for
EPA
to
take
final
action
on
rule
revisions
proposed
in
December
2005
and
for
the
regulated
community
affected
by
any
such
revisions
to
take
advantage
of
them.

Comment
Excerpts:

Submitted
by
­
Roger
Claff
of
American
Petroleum
Institute
Comment
Text:
Should
EPA
not
be
able
to
meet
this
timeline,
API
recommends
the
Plan
amendment
deadline
be
set
at
least
one
year
after
finalizing
all
clarifications
and
making
the
necessary
rule
amendments.
This
year
would
allow
the
industry
time
to
prepare
its
amended
plan
and
to
budget
and
plan
for
the
required
facility
modifications.
The
deadline
for
implementation
of
amended
plans
would
follow
at
least
six
months
after
that
date.

Submitted
by
­
Patrick
Flowers
of
Xcel
Energy
Comment
Text:
While
Xcel
Energy
agrees
with
US
EPA
that
the
deadline
for
compliance
with
the
2002
amendments
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulations
must
be
extended
(
70
FR
73518),
we
are
not
convinced
that
setting
a
date
without
some
flexibility
is
appropriate 
The
three
previous
times
EPA
announced
a
deadline
they
have
not
been
able
to
meet
it
due
to
the
complexity
of
dealing
with
the
issues
presented
in
the
wake
of
the
2002
amendments.
The
current
deadline
extension
seems
to
be
following
the
pattern
set
by
the
previous
three.
Xcel
Energy
is
concerned
that
it
may
require
more
time
to
resolve
the
issues,
complete
any
necessary
inter­
agency
review,
and
promulgate
a
final
rule
than
the
proposed
time
will
allow.
Additionally,
if
it
takes
more
than
one
year
to
resolve
and
promulgate
a
final
rule,
EPA
will
not
be
allowing
enough
time
for
industry
to
revise
plans
and
make
necessary
changes/
upgrades
to
comply
with
the
requirements.
In
previous
deadlines
and
deadline
extensions,
EPA
has
always
given
industry
time
between
complying
with
the
new
SPCC
rule
and
fully
implementing
any
changes
necessary
to
achieve
compliance.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
that
same
acceptable
pattern
built
into
it.

EPA
can
avoid
being
backed
into
another
corner
by
stating
that
the
deadline
for
compliance
is
"
October
31,
2007,
or
one
year
following
promulgation
of
the
SPCC
amendments,
whichever
is
later."

Submitted
by
­
Nicholas
DeMarco
of
The
West
Virginia
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Association
Comment
Text:
As
the
dates
for
the
final
rules
are
unknown,
WVONGA
suggests
that
the
EPA
allow
some
flexibility
for
the
compliance
deadline
for
facilities,
which
must
amend
their
SPCC
Plan
in
accordance
with
such
rules.
As
such,
we
request
that
the
rule
provide
facilities
until
October
31,
2007,
or
a
date
no
less
than
one
year
following
promulgation
of
the
final
rules,
whichever
is
later,
to
amend
their
SPCC
Plans.
In
addition,
WVONGA
requests
that
the
EPA
retain
the
additional
six­
month
period
after
the
amendment
of
the
plan
for
facilities
to
implement
their
amended
plan...
Therefore,
we
request
that
the
date
for
implementing
the
amended
SPCC
Plans
be
revised
to
include
a
six­
month
period
after
the
October
31,
2007
deadline
for
the
amended
plans.

Submitted
by
­
P.
F.
Faggert
of
Dominion
Comment
Text:
Because
the
dates
of
promulgation
of
[
the
final
rule
on
qualified
facilities
and
oil
filled
operational
equipment]
and
the
"
loose
ends"
final
rules
are
unknown,
Dominion
recommends
flexibility
in
the
compliance
date.
Specifically,
Dominion
recommends
that
the
compliance
date
be
extended
to
either
October
31,
2007,
or
a
date
no
less
than
one
year
following
promulgation
of
the
final
rule
on
qualified
facilities
and
oil
filled
operational
equipment,
whichever
is
later.
Dominion
also
recommends
that,
to
the
extent
the
"
loose
ends"
rule
incorporates
more
stringent
compliance
requirements,
a
separate
compliance
date
of
at
least
12
months
following
promulgation
of
that
rule
be
established.

Submitted
by
­
Susan
Damron
of
Los
Angeles
Department
of
Water
and
Power
Comment
Text:
LADWP
is
concerned
that
some
uncertainty
will
exist
as
to
the
final
content
of
the
2002
Rule
Amendment
such
that,
until
this
rule
is
actually
finalized,
LADWP
will
not
know
whether
October
31,
2007
deadline
will
be
an
adequate
period
of
time
to
prepare
and
implement
the
2002
Rule
Amendments.
Due
to
this
level
of
uncertainty,
it
would
seem
unlikely
that
one
would
commence
plan
preparation
until
it
is
known
what
they
are
or
are
not
subject
to
in
the
2002
Rule
Amendments.
For
this
reason,
LADWP
recommends
that
the
proposed
deadline
of
October
31,
2007
be
applied
only
to
the
2002
Rule
and
that
any
provisions
subject
to
the
2002
Rule
Amendment
(
FR
73524)
have
its
own
deadline
date
of
at
least
one
year
beyond
the
date
that
the
rule
becomes
final.

Submitted
by
­
Rick
Stott
of
Agri
Beef
Co
Comment
Text:
Agri
Beef
Co.
welcomes
EPA's
proposal
to
extend
the
compliance
date
for
all
facilities
to
comply
with
SPCC
regulations.
However
the
extended
date
of
October
31,
2007
does
not
allow
enough
time
for
the
EPA
to
reasonably
promulgate
the
streamlined
guidelines,
for
the
regulated
community
to
understand
the
requirements,
for
the
EPA
to
communicate
to
all
the
affected
parties
the
requirements
of
the
regulation,
and
most
importantly,
for
the
regulated
community
to
initiate
compliance.

Submitted
by
­
Dee
Gavora
of
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
Comment
Text:
AF&
PA
recommends,
however,
that
EPA
maintain
the
six
month
separation
between
the
deadline
for
Plan
amendment
and
implementation.
Thus,
AF&
PA
recommends
that
SPCC
Plans
be
amended
by
October
31,
2007
and
implemented
by
April
30,
2008.
This
will
allow
facilities
adequate
time
after
Plans
have
been
amended
to
fully
implement
required
changes.

AF&
PA's
comments
are
contingent
on
EPA
promulgating
proposed
changes
to
the
rule
by
October
31,
2006.
In
the
event
that
the
final
rule
is
delayed,
AF&
PA
recommends
that
SPCC
Plans
be
amended
one
year
after
promulgation
of
the
final
rule
and
implemented
six
months
later.

Submitted
by
­
John
G.
Hill
of
The
Dow
Chemical
Company
Comment
Text:
The
extension
for
implementation
of
the
regulations
does
not
allow
adjustment
time
for
the
proposed
amendments
as
announced
in
the
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
Federal
Register
Vol.
70
No.
237
Part
III)

To
achieve
one
of
the
intended
purposes
of
the
extension,
EPA
must
coordinate
the
extension
of
the
implementation
of
the
SPCC
requirements
with
the
promulgation
of
the
proposed
amendments.
This
would
significantly
reduce
the
unnecessary
re­
work
and
modification
of
the
SPCC
Plan
and
would
also
adjust
capital
projects
that
would
be
required
by
the
proposed
amendments.
Such
unnecessary
expenditures
are
unreasonable
and
EPA
should
take
this
opportunity
to
properly
extend
the
dates
to
offset
this
unintended
impact.

In
addition,
the
issuance
of
the
new
proposed
rule
amendments
by
the
Agency
begins
a
new
regulatory
cycle.
The
proposed
changes
in
regulations
will
certainly
impact
implementation
by
the
regulated
community,
both
in
resources
and
time.
Without
addressing
the
substance
of
the
proposed
revisions,
it
is
necessary
to
discuss
the
assertion
in
this
proposal
that
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule
amendments
be
completed
one
year
after
promulgation.
Scoping,
budgeting,
engineering,
estimating,
bidding,
and
construction
of
implementation
requirements
often
requires
more
than
one
year.
At
least
eighteen
months
should
be
provided
for
implementation
following
promulgation
of
the
revised
rule.

In
order
to
avoid
a
period
of
uncertainty
between
the
current
and
to­
be­
revised
regulations,
EPA
should
revise
the
language
in
the
current
extension
proposal
and,
by
reference,
set
the
proposed
extension
to
be
the
date
established
as
the
implementation
date
of
the
proposed
amendments.

Dow
agrees
that
an
extension
to
the
current
rule
is
necessary;
however,
the
duration
of
the
extension
must
reflect
adequate
time
to
properly
implement
the
revised
regulations
and
take
into
account
the
final
"
SPCC
Guidance
for
Regional
Inspectors."
...
The
effective
date
of
the
implementation
of
the
SPCC
regulations
should
be
coordinated
with
the
implementation
date
of
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
rule.

Submitted
by
­
Caroline
Choi
of
Progress
Energy
Comment
Text:
Because
of
the
proposed
changes
to
the
2002
amendments,
it
is
difficult
for
the
regulated
community
to
justify
expending
resources
at
this
time
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
2002
SPCC
amendments.
The
Company
believes
that
the
deadline
should
be
no
earlier
than
October
31,
2007.
This
should
provide
enough
time
for
the
agency
staff
to
complete
the
rulemaking
process
and
for
affected
facilities
to
respond.
However,
since
the
date
of
final
promulgation
of
the
amendments
is
not
certain,
The
Company
is
concerned
that
the
proposed
October
31,
2007
deadline
may
be
sufficient.
Progress
Energy
suggests
that
EPA
express
the
extension
in
terms
of
either
the
proposed
October
31,
2007
date
or
one
year
following
promulgation
of
the
pending
SPCC
amendments,
whichever
is
later.
This
way,
EPA
can
establish
a
target
for
achieving
implementation
by
a
specific
date,
and
at
the
same
time
ensure
a
12­
month
period
to
achieve
compliance
following
finalization
of
the
SPCC
rule
amendments.
The
final
SPCC
amendment
rule
could
even
provide
the
precise
compliance
dates.

Submitted
by
­
Bob
Elam
of
American
Chemical
Council
Comment
Text:
Further,
ACC
requests
that
EPA
provide
a
separation
of
six
months
between
the
deadline
for
SPCC
Plan
amendment
and
implementation
to
allow
owners/
operators
time
after
plan
amendment
to
modify
their
facilities.

Accordingly,
ACC
recommends
an
SPCC
Plan
amendment
compliance
deadline
of
either
October
31,
2007,
or
a
date
no
less
than
one
year
following
the
promulgation
of
both
the
final
rule
for
qualified
facilities/
oil­
filled
operational
equipment
(
70
FR
73524,
December
12,
2005)
and
the
"
loose
ends"
final
rule
(
discussed
below),
whichever
is
later.
ACC
further
recommends
the
SPCC
Plan
implementation
compliance
deadline
be
no
less
than
six
months
following
the
amendment
deadline.

Submitted
by
­
John
McKinnon
of
Kimberly­
Clark
Corporation
Comment
Text:
Kimberly­
Clark
requests
that
EPA
modify
the
proposal
to...
extend
the
deadline
to
October
31,
2007
for
all
facilities,
regardless
of
whether
they
would
otherwise
be
required
to
amend
their
current
SPCC
Plan
under
Section
112.5.
This
change
should
be
in
the
form
of
a
change
in
the
proposal
to
include
a
change
of
Section
112.5
or
a
concurrent
formal
guidance
letter
stating
that
the
requirements
of
Section
112.5
would
be
held
in
abeyance
and
would
again
become
effective
following
the
proposed
deadline
extension
to
October
31,
2007.
This
would
provide
the
relief
to
all
facilities
that
EPA
intends
in
an
equitable
manner.

Submitted
by
­
Deborah
Boyle
of
TXU
Electric
Delivery
Comment
Text:
While
the
proposed
deadline
of
October
31,
2007
seems
reasonable,
it
is
impossible
to
predict
whether
or
not
the
time
will
be
sufficient
for
the
regulated
community
to
achieve
compliance.
EPA
will
be
receiving
comments
on
the
proposed
SPCC
amendments,
and
the
time
required
for
EPA
to
address
concerns
brought
up
during
this
comment
period
is
unknown.
EPA
can
avoid
this
concern
by
expressing
the
extension
in
terms
of
the
proposed
date,
October
2007,
or,
at
least
12
months
following
promulgation
of
the
pending
SPCC
amendments,
whichever
is
later.
The
final
SPCC
amendment
could
give
notice
of
the
precise
compliance
dates.

Submitted
by
­
Joseph
Hurt
of
International
Association
of
Drilling
Contractors
Comment
Text:
...
IADC
also
recommends
EPA
maintain
the
separation
of
six
months
between
the
deadline
for
SPCC
Plan
amendment
and
implementation,
to
allow
facility
owners/
operators
adequate
time
after
plan
amendment
to
modify
their
facilities,
properly
train
employees
on
the
amended
plan
requirements,
and
allow
for
full
implementation
of
the
amended
plan
requirements...
IADC
recommends
a
SPCC
Plan
amendment
compliance
deadline
of
October
31,
2007
and
an
implementation
compliance
deadline
of
April
30,
2008.
Our
recommendation
is
contingent
on
EPA
finalizing
no
later
than
October
31,
2006
its
responses
to
all
outstanding
request
for
clarification...
submitted
by
industry
members.

Submitted
by
­
Robert
Fronczak
of
Association
of
American
Railroads
Comment
Text:
Companies
need
to
be
able
to
understand
the
new
compliance
requirements,
then
budget
the
money
needed
to
comply
with
them.
If
the
regulations
cannot
be
finalized
by
mid­
year
2006,
then
AAR
suggests
that
EPA
delay
the
implementation
date
one
more
year,
to
October
31,
2008.

Submitted
by
­
Scott
Davis
of
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
Comment
Text:
EPA
can
avoid
tying
its
hands
with
a
specific
compliance
date
by
expressing
the
extension
in
terms
of
either
the
proposed
date,
October
31,
2007,
or
one
year
following
promulgation
of
the
pending
SPCC
amendments,
whichever
is
later.
In
this
way,
EPA
can
establish
a
target
for
promulgating
the
SPCC
amendments
and
achieving
implementation
by
a
specific
date
and
simultaneously
honoring
the
Agency's
commitment
of
a
12
month
period
for
achieving
compliance
following
amendment
of
the
current
SPCC
rule.

Submitted
by
­
June
Small
of
North
Carolina
Electric
Membership
Corporation
Comment
Text:
A
concern
remains,
however,
that
October
31,
2007
may
not
allow
for
sufficient
time
for
affected
entities
to
respond
if
the
rulemaking
is
not
completed
quickly.
We
believe
EPA
should
consider
language
that
would
tie
a
compliance
date
to
one
year
after
publication
of
the
final
rule.

Submitted
by
­
Michael
Bernard
of
Mid­
Continent
Oil
and
Gas
Association
of
Oklahoma,
Inc.
Comment
Text:
 
Mid­
Continent
supports
a
separation
of
six
months
between
the
deadline
for
SPCC
Plan
amendment
and
implementation
to
allow
exploration
and
production
operators
time
after
plan
amendment
to
modify
their
facilities.
This
extension
should
allow
EPA
further
time
to
consider
the
need
for
and
effect
of
the
revised
SPCC
regulations
on
domestic
oil
and
gas
industries
exploration
and
production
operations.
A
concern
remains
that
the
impact
to
industry
has
not
been
clearly
and
fully
addressed.

Submitted
by
 
The
Agriculture
Coalition
on
Spill
Prevention,
Control
and
Countermeasure7
7
This
comment
was
not
submitted
through
the
docket.
Signatories
of
this
submission
are
listed
as
follows:
Agribusiness
Association
of
Iowa;
AgriBusiness
Association
of
Kentucky;
Agricultural
Retailers
Association;
Agri­
Mark,
Inc.;
Alabama
Cattlemen's
Association;
Alabama
Crop
Management
Association;
Alabama
Farmers
Cooperative,
Inc.;
Alabama
Farmers
Federation;
American
Corn
Growers
Association;
American
Crystal
Sugar
Company;
American
Farm
Bureau
Federation;
American
Soybean
Association;
Arizona
Cattle
Feeders'
Association;
Arizona
Cattle
Growers
Association;
Arkansas
Cattlemen's
Association;
Blue
Diamond
Growers;
California
Association
of
Wheat
Growers;
California
Cattlemen's
Association;
California
Dairies,
Inc.;
California
Rice
Commission;
CHS
Inc.;
CoBank;
Colorado
Farm
Bureau;
Colorado
Livestock
Association;
Corn
Producers
Association
of
Texas;
Dairy
Farmers
of
America;
Dairylea
Cooperative,
Inc.;
Dairy
Producers
of
New
Mexico;
Farm
Credit
Council;
Florida
Cattlemen's
Association;
Florida
Farm
Bureau
Federation;
Georgia
Agribusiness
Council;
Georgia
Cattlemen's
Association;
GROWMARK,
Inc.;
Idaho
Cattle
Association';
Idaho
Grain
Producers
Association;
Illinois
Beef
Association;
Illinois
Corn
Growers
Association;
Illinois
Farm
Bureau;
Indiana
Beef
Cattle
Association;
Comment
Text:

The
Agriculture
Coalition
on
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control
and
Countermeasure
(
SPCC),
which
includes
organizations
representing
farmers,
ranchers,
farmer
cooperatives,
livestock
operations
and
related
agribusinesses,
requests
that
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issue
a
formal
statement
suspending
compliance
with
the
SPCC
rule
given
the
uncertainty
that
surrounds
the
applicability
of
the
1973
rule
[
FR
Dec.
11,
1973,
Vol.
38,
No.
237,
Parts
I
&
II].
Also,
the
coalition
strongly
urges
that
all
agricultural
facilities
 
farms,
farmer
cooperatives
and
other
agribusinesses
 
be
granted
an
indefinite
extension
of
compliance
until
more
information
can
be
gathered
by
the
EPA
on
the
unique
nature
of
our
industries,
our
needs,
our
history
of
spills
and
how
those
spills
were
addressed.

Indiana
Grain
and
Feed
Assn;
Indiana
Plant
Food
&
Ag
Chemicals
Assn;
Institute
of
Shortening
and
Edible
Oils,
Inc.;
Iowa
Cattlemen's
Association;
Kansas
Agricultural
Retailers
Association;
Kansas
Association
of
Wheat
Growers;
Kansas
Cooperative
Council;
Kansas
Corn
Growers
Association;
Kansas
Farm
Bureau;
Kansas
Grain
Sorghum
Producers
Association;
Kansas
Livestock
Association;
Kentucky
Cattlemen's
Association;
Kentucky
Corn
Growers
Association;
Kentucky
Farm
Bureau;
Kentucky
Small
Grain
Growers
Association;
Land
O'
Lakes,
Inc.;
MFA
Incorporated;
Michigan
Agri­
Business
Association;
Michigan
Cattlemen's
Association;
Michigan
Corn
Growers
Association;
Michigan
Farm
Bureau;
Michigan
Milk
Producers
Association;
Mid
America
CropLife
Association;
Minnesota
Crop
Production
Retailers;
Mississippi
Cattlemen's
Association;
Missouri
Agriculture
Industries
Council,
Inc;
Missouri
Cattlemen's
Association;
Missouri
Corn
Growers
Association;
Montana
Agricultural
Business
Association;
Montana
Stockgrowers
Association;
National
Agricultural
Aviation
Association;
National
Association
of
Wheat
Growers;
National
Barley
Growers
Association;
National
Cattlemen's
Beef
Association;
National
Corn
Growers
Association;
National
Cotton
Council;
National
Council
of
Farmer
Cooperatives;
National
Farmers
Union;
National
Grange;
National
Grape
Cooperative
Association,
Inc.;
National
Milk
Producers
Federation;
National
Sorghum
Producers;
Nebraska
Cattlemen;
Nebraska
Cooperative
Council;
Nebraska
Wheat
Growers
Association;
Nevada
Cattlemen's
Association;
New
Jersey
Farm
Bureau;
New
Mexico
Cattle
Grower's
Association;
North
Carolina
Cattlemen's
Association;
North
Carolina
Farm
Bureau;
North
Dakota
Stockmen's
Association;
Ocean
Spray
Cranberries,
Inc.;
Ohio
Cattlemen's
Association;
Ohio
Corn
Growers
Association;
Ohio
Farm
Bureau
Federation,
Inc;
Oklahoma
Agribusiness
Retailers
Association;
Oklahoma
Cattlemen's
Association;
Oklahoma
Farm
Bureau;
Oklahoma
Wheat
Growers
Association;
Olive
Growers
Council
of
California,
Inc.;
Oregon
Cattlemen's
Association;
Oregon
Wheat
Growers
League;
Producers
Cooperative
Oil
Mill,
OK;
South
Carolina
Cattlemen's
Association;
South
Carolina
Farm
Bureau
Federation;
South
Carolina
Fertilizer
and
Agrichemicals
Association;
Southern
Crop
Production
Association;
South
Dakota
Association
of
Cooperatives;
South
Dakota
Cattlemen's
Association;
South
Dakota
Corn
Growers
Association;
South
Dakota
Wheat
Inc;
South
East
Dairy
Farmers
Association;
Southern
States
Cooperative,
Inc.;
Soybean
Producers
of
America;
Sun­
Maid
Growers
of
California;
Tennessee
Cattlemen's
Association;
Tennessee
Farmers
Cooperative;
Tennessee
Farm
Bureau
Federation;
Texas
&
Southwestern
Cattle
Raisers;
Texas
Cattle
Feeders
Association;
Texas
Farm
Bureau;
Texas
Wheat
Producers
Association;
The
Fertilizer
Institute;
United
Egg
Producers;
USA
Rice
Federation;
US
Canola
Association;
U.
S.
Custom
Harvesters,
Inc.;
US
Rice
Producers
Association;
Utah
Cattlemen's
Association;
Virginia
Small
Grain
Association;
Washington
Association
of
Wheat
Growers;
Washington
Cattle
Feeders
Association;
Washington
State
Council
of
Farmer;
Cooperatives;
Welch's;
West
Central;
Western
Plant
Health
Association;
Western
United
Dairymen;
Wisconsin
Fertilizer
&
Chemical
Association;
Wyoming
Ag
Business
Association;
Wyoming
Stock
Growers
Association