Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPA-2002-0001-0184
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-04-11T04:00Z

1As
discussed
in
today's
preamble,
the
Agency
received
one
comment
(
from
a
PE)
disagreeing
that
an
extension
beyond
the
60
days
already
promulgated
was
needed.
In
addition,
the
Agency
did
receive
one
comment
that,
while
agreeing
that
an
extension
was
appropriate,
expressly
disagreed
with
the
Agency's
reasons
for
providing
it.
In
particular,
this
commenter,
also
a
PE,
felt
that
there
was
no
physical
shortage
of
PEs.
Instead,
in
his
view,
the
cause
of
any
difficulty
in
procuring
a
PE
was
due
to
the
unwillingness
of
PEs
to
certify
in
the
manner
required
by
the
amendments.
In
addition,
this
commenter
argued
that
sites
were
not
too
remote
to
visit
within
the
time
frames
provided,
and
that
the
problem
with
PE
rule
comprehension
was
not
a
lack
of
training,
but
a
lack
of
clear
definitions
in
the
rule
itself.
This
commenter
felt
that
an
extension
was
warranted
to
allow
the
Agency
to
make
substantive
changes
to
the
rule.
This
PE's
experience
with
regard
to
shortages
and
problems
with
visiting
difficult
locations
was
contradicted
by
PEs
and
facilities
in
other
parts
of
the
country
(
Alaska,
for
example);
this
commenter's
other
contentions
are
discussed
later
in
this
document.
Response
to
Comments
As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
today's
rule,
the
Agency
very
carefully
considered
the
comments
submitted
on
the
proposed
extension.
After
reviewing
the
comments,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines
in
40
CFR
§
§
112.3(
a)
and
(
b)
for
18
months,
which
is
six
months
longer
than
the
12
months
the
Agency
proposed.
As
explained
more
fully
in
today's
preamble,
the
Agency
came
to
this
decision
based,
in
part,
on
comments
which
confirmed
that
the
concerns
identified
at
the
time
of
proposal
were
valid
and
suggested
that
additional
time
to
address
them
was
warranted.
1
In
particular,
there
was
great
support
in
the
comments
for
the
Agency's
tentative
conclusions
at
the
time
of
proposal
that
there
is
a
shortage
of
PEs
in
some
areas,
that
compliance
is
complicated
in
many
cases
by
the
need
to
visit
sometimes
remote
facilities,
and
that
PEs
need
additional
time
to
obtain
the
training
necessary
to
certify
Plans
under
the
new
amendments.
Many
also
agreed
with
EPA
that
an
extension
of
the
compliance
deadlines
in
the
rule
will
prevent
a
flood
of
individual
extension
requests
to
the
Regions.

In
addition,
commenters
identified
a
multitude
of
other
reasons
why
they
thought
that
an
extension
was
appropriate,
citing
a
variety
of
time
frames
for
addressing
such
issues.
For
example,
many
argued
that
additional
time
was
needed
to
plan
their
budgets
for
capital
expenditures
necessary
to
comply
with
the
amendments
and
to
address
facilities
affected
by
winter
weather.
Some
commenters,
many
of
them
small
businesses,
expressed
concern
over
the
need
to
arrange
for
outside
environmental
consultants
to
ensure
compliance.
According
to
these
commenters,
this
process
not
only
takes
more
time
than
using
in­
house
personnel,
but
is
likely
to
be
slowed
by
the
great
demand
created
by
the
SPCC
amendments.
Small
businesses
discussed
the
2With
respect
to
guidance,
the
Agency
notes
that
in
an
effort
separate
from
this
rulemaking,
EPA
has
been
working
to
assess
the
need
for
implementation
guidance
in
various
areas
related
to
the
amendments.
EPA
intends
to
continue
this
process
during
the
18­
month
extension,
as
appropriate.

3Several
members
of
the
regulated
industry
filed
legal
challenges
to
the
SPCC
amendments.
See,
American
Petroleum
Institute
v.
USEPA,
No.
1,202CV02247
(
D.
D.
C
filed
11/
14/
02),
Petroleum
Marketers
Ass'n
v.
USEPA,
No.
1:
02CV02249
(
D.
D.
C
filed
11/
14/
02),
and
Marathon
Oil
Co.
v.
USEPA,
No.
1:
02CV02254
(
D.
D.
C
filed
11/
14/
02).

4Although
many
commenters
did,
with
respect
to
their
individual
situations,
submit
time
frames
for
when
funds
for
expenditures
associated
with
the
rule
would
be
available.
fear
that,
because
they
will
likely
be
very
low
in
priority
for
already
overtaxed
PEs
(
and
other
consultants),
they
will
be
unable
to
meet
the
deadlines
as
originally
promulgated.
Others
stated
that
the
new
requirement
for
facility
diagrams
will
require
much
more
work
than
initially
anticipated
since
they
have
found
that
such
diagrams
often
do
not
already
exist.

As
for
other
examples,
there
were
extensive
comments
arguing
that
until
a
great
number
of
diverse
issues
were
clarified
in
guidance,
the
rule
would
be
too
difficult
to
implement
and
the
compliance
deadlines
should
therefore
be
extended
for
a
longer
period.
2
Further,
several
parties
argued
that
the
deadlines
should
be
postponed
until
resolution
of
the
litigation
challenging
portions
of
the
SPCC
amendments.
3
Other
examples
include
concerns
about
perceived
PE
reluctance,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
to
engage
in
the
new
certification
process
requirements,
state
law
impediments
to
the
practice
of
non­
local
PEs,
the
economic
burden
of
compliance
with
"
unexpected"
changes
to
the
rules,
and,
for
several
companies,
the
sheer
number
of
facilities
that
will
need
to
be
addressed
under
the
amendments.
Still
others
cautioned
the
Agency
more
generally
that
additional
time
was
needed
to
avoid
"
the
negative
consequences
of
hasty
implementation
of
highly
technical
and
site­
specific
measures."

As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
today's
rule,
many
commenters
stated
that
greater
than
an
18­
month
extension
was
needed,
but
no
commenter
provided
a
technical
basis
in
support
of
the
time
frame
it
was
advancing.
4
Given
the
record
before
the
Agency
at
this
time
on
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenters,
which
is
largely
comprised
of
anecdotal,
general,
speculative
or
vague
assertions,
the
Agency
cannot
conclude
that
an
18­
month
extension
is
generally
inadequate
for
the
regulated
community
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
SPCC
amendments.
Where
a
facility
believes
that
additional
time
is
needed,
that
facility
may
seek
an
extension
pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
112.3(
f),
where
appropriate.
Should
there
be
further
factual
development
on
these
issues
in
the
future,
however,
the
Agency
will,
of
course,
consider
requests
that
it
take
appropriate
action.

In
addition,
numerous
commenters
raised
substantive
issues
regarding
the
rule
that
were
not
associated
with
the
issue
of
whether
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines
in
the
July
2002
rule.
In
particular,
many
commenters
called
for
modifications,
interpretations
or
clarifications
of
the
amended
SPCC
rule.
EPA
did
not
consider
these
comments
because
they
are
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

Miscellaneous
issues
*
In
addition
to
the
arguments
discussed
in
today's
preamble,
the
one
commenter
who
believed
that
additional
time
was
unnecessary
argued
that
a
PE
shortage
was
unlikely
because
"
the
revised
rule
.
.
.
extends
the
mandatory
PE
certification
from
3
years
to
5
years."
The
Agency
does
not
understand
this
point;
although
it
appears
unrelated
to
today's
rulemaking,
the
Agency
believes
the
commenter
may
have
misinterpreted
the
5­
year
technical
review
requirement
in
§
112.5(
b)
to
require
PE
certification
every
five
years.
See
67
FR
47092
(
stating,
in
discussing
this
regulatory
provision,
that
"[
d]
ocumentation
of
completion
of
review
is
a
function
of
the
owner
or
operator,
whereas
certification
of
any
resulting
technical
amendment
is
a
function
of
the
PE.")

*
One
commenter
requested
that
"
EPA
confirm
in
the
final
rule
that
the
extension
dates
also
apply
to
preparing,
amending,
and
implementing
FRPs."
In
response,
the
Agency
notes
that
the
extension
only
applies
to
the
regulations
containing
the
compliance
dates
at
issue
in
today's
rule
 
40
CFR
§
§
112.3(
a)
and
(
b).

*
At
least
one
commenter
suggested
that
the
Agency
finalize
the
ability
to
process
any
future
extensions
without
public
notice
and
comment.
The
Agency
did
not
see
a
need
for
such
a
provision.

*
One
commenter
disagreed
with
the
Agency's
view
in
certain
sections
of
the
"
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews"
section
of
the
proposed
preamble
that
today's
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
because
the
costs
of
the
SPCC
amendments
(
which
the
commenter
believed
were
extensive)
"
would
still
occur."
The
Agency
rejected
this
comment
because
today's
extension,
by
postponing
compliance,
reduces
burdens
on
the
regulated
community.