Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPA-2009-0880-0041
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-10-07T04:00Z

COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT 

Oil Pollution Prevention; SPCC Plan Requirements – 

Compliance Date Amendments

40 CFR Part 112

October 7, 2010

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Emergency Management

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of This Document

The purpose of this document is to provide complete responses to
comments on the 2010 proposed rule (40 CFR part 112) to revise the Oil
Pollution Prevention and Response rule, also known as the Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (40 CFR part 112),
promulgated under the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act (FWPCA) or
Clean Water Act (CWA).

Organization of This Comment and Response Document

To develop this document, EPA reviewed the submissions made to public
docket number EPA-HQ-OPA-2009-0880. EPA organized the submission
comments based on the topics they addressed in the proposed rule, which
was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45572).
Comments submitted to the public docket for this rulemaking appear in
their entirety at http://www.regulations.gov, identified by Docket
number “EPA-HQ-OPA-2009-0880.”

EPA organized the comments into general categories and subcategories,
and responds to each in turn. Several comment excerpts are provided, in
addition to responses for each major issue. In most cases, comment
excerpts that simply state support for the proposed revisions are not
included. Instead, the Docket Number of the submission is listed in
parentheses in the Comments section for each category addressed. The
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) assigns Document Numbers to each
submission based on the order they are received. Because of the
expedited nature of this action, the Agency did not consider comments
submitted electronically after the close of the comment period or
received via regular mail postmarked after the close of the comment
period. 

Comment excerpts included in this document are taken verbatim from the
submissions received by FDMS. Comments that make similar statements are
grouped and one response is provided for the group. EPA responds to the
remaining comments individually.

The following table lists comments FDMS received by the close of the
comment period for docket EPA-HQ-OPA-2009-0880. The table also lists the
name and the organization that submitted each comment; late comments are
not included.

FDMS ID	First Name	Last Name	Organization 

0002	Jesse S.	Barr	Louisiana Cotton and Grain Association

0003	Pamela F.	Faggert	Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

0004	Charles J. 	Spencer	GROWMARK, Inc.

0005	W. Harrison 	Ashley	National Cotton Ginners’ Association

0006	Casey	Creamer	California Cotton Ginners Association 

0007	Casey	Creamer	Western Agricultural Processors Association (WAPA) 

0008	Clay	Detlefsen	International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA)

0009	Tim	Crouch	Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric
Cooperatives, Inc.

0010	Lee	Fuller	Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)

 0011	Roger E.	Claff	American Petroleum Institute (API)

 0012	James F.	Carroll	Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA)

 0013	Jamie	Jonker	National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF)

 0014	Steve	Hensley	USA Rice Federation (USA Rice)

 0015	Angie	Burckhalter	Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association
(OIPA)

 0016	James R.	Roewer	Utility Sold Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

 0017	Gregory D.	Russell	Ohio Oil and Gas Association (OOGA)

 0018	 Lisa	Kelley	Agriculture Coalition on the SPCC rule (‘The
Coalition’)

 0019	Leslie J.	Kaufman	Kansas Cooperative Council (KCC)

 0020	Nancy N.	Young	Air Transport Association (ATA)

 0021	David A.	Fairfield	National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA)

 0022	Evan A.	Teague	Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation

 0023	Anne	Coan	North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation (‘NCFB’ or
‘Farm Bureau’)

 0024	Steven P.	Rowe	Northwest Dairy Association (NDA)

 0025	Richard C.	Lutz	Williams Gas Pipeline (WGP)

 0026	Ryan K. 	Miltner	Dairy Producers of New Mexico (DPNM)

 0027	Nancy 	Erickson	Illinois Farm Bureau

 0029	Steve	Rudloff	Missouri Limestone Producers Association (MLPA)

 0030	Meghan

Matt	McDonald

Stewart	Lafarge North America, Aggregate & Concrete

 0031	John S.	Hayden	National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA)

 0032	Terry D.	Weckerly	North Dakota Grain Growers Association (NDGGA)

 0033	Jesse	Robbins	Washington State Dairy Federation (WSDF)

 0034	Doug	Goehring	State of North Dakota, Department of Agriculture

 0035	John	Cowan	Texas Association of Dairymen (TAD)

 0038	Stephanie	Everett-Johnson	PECO Energy Company – An Exelon
Company

I. Extension of Compliance Date by One Year

Issue: EPA proposed to amend the SPCC rule to revise the date by which
certain facilities must prepare or amend their SPCC Plans and implement
those Plans by one year to November 10, 2011. “Certain facilities”
include facilities subject to 40 CFR part 112, but exclude: drilling,
production and workover facilities that are offshore or that have an
offshore component, and all onshore facilities required to have and
submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Production facilities in this
group that begin operations after November 10, 2011, must prepare and
implement a Plan within six months after beginning operations.

COMMENTS

Support Proposal

Full Support. All comments expressed strong support for the proposed
compliance date extension to prepare, amend and implement SPCC Plans for
certain facilities from November 10, 2010 until November 10, 2011 (0002,
0003, 0004, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011, 0015, 0016, 0017,
0018, 0019, 0020, 0021, 0022, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0027, 0029, 0030, 0031,
0032, 0034, and 0038). Some comments expressed difficulty in clearly
understanding the SPCC rule and compliance date as the rule went through
development, delay and revision (0003, 0004). The general consensus
stated that the one-year extension will provide enough time for affected
facilities to thoroughly comprehend the rule and be better prepared to
develop a plan prior to November 10, 2011. Several comments also
mentioned that the extension will provide an opportunity for EPA to
amend its SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors, which has not been
updated for almost 5 years (0003, 0011, 0016, 0021, and 0025).

Oppose Proposal

Withdraw Footnote 3 from the preamble. Despite overall support for the
proposal, one comment objected to EPA’s assertion in footnote 3 of the
preamble that requires owners or operators of facilities in operation
before August 16, 2001, to continue to maintain their existing SPCC
Plans in order to be eligible for the compliance extension. The comment
argued that there is nothing in the regulatory text itself that
conditions eligibility for the compliance extension with continued
compliance with pre-2001 regulatory obligations. Therefore, the
statement only serves to confuse the regulated community (0016). One
comment argued that FRP facilities have always been included in
compliance date extensions in the past, and that this time should be no
exception (0011).

Alternative Approaches

Extend compliance date by more than a year. Although one comment
expressed support for the compliance date extension, it argued that the
deadline will still be challenging to meet considering the limitations
in both physical and professional resources (0010). Another comment
argued that in the event of EPA’s inability to promptly publish the
appropriate changes to its SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors, EPA
should consider adding additional time to the compliance extension
(0011). A third comment argued in its support for the proposal that
“at least” a one-year extension was needed to amend the SPCC Plans,
implying that the compliance date could be extended by adding more time
(0021). There was another comment who also argued that the deadline
extension “still may not be sufficient time” for the regulated
community (0025). 

Extend compliance date by more than one year for the agricultural
community. Several commenters believed that the compliance deadline
should be extended to November 10, 2014 (an additional four years)
instead of November 10, 2011 (0014, 0018, and 0023). According to the
comments, challenges unique to the agriculture sector, such as, unclear
ownership issues, difficulty in hiring of Professional Engineers to
assist with SPCC rule, and lack of guidance, all add significant time to
the compliance schedule thereby making the November 10, 2011 deadline
difficult to meet for the agricultural community. 

Extend the compliance date for agriculture producers in operation before
August 16, 2002 and for those who do not have a SPCC Plan.  According to
one comment, many agricultural producers are still unaware of the SPCC
regulations, and those that are aware are uncertain regarding the
rule’s applicability to their situation. The comment argued that the
extension of compliance will allow EPA time to do greater outreach and
allow agriculture producers to better assess their situation and
determine if they need to implement a SPCC plan (0034).

Change compliance date for natural gas pipeline facilities to one year
after finalization of the EPA/DOT jurisdictional issues. One comment
requested EPA clarification on the ambiguity concerning how natural gas
pipeline facilities are classified, and on the designation of
“transportation” and “non transportation” facilities. The
comment also recommended a compliance date for natural gas pipeline
facilities one year after finalization of the EPA/DOT jurisdictional
issues (0025).

Increase the above ground oil containment threshold to greater than
10,000 gallons in the SPCC regulations. One comment argued that 1,320
gallons of oil storage in the aggregate is far too low a threshold and
subjects many agricultural operations that do not pose any threat to
undue regulatory burden under SPCC (0032).

Exempt oil storage of 55 gallons or less from SPCC regulation. One
comment requested changing the spill requirements for oil in containers
of 55 gallons or less. According to the comment, these containers are
commonly housed away from the main storage; therefore, spill containment
requirements for these containers cause major logistical concerns for
producers while not providing much environmental benefit (0032). 

RESPONSE

EPA agrees with the comments that an extension of the compliance date
for certain facilities is necessary, because it provides the owner or
operator of a facility the opportunity to fully understand the
regulatory amendments offered by the revisions to the SPCC rule
promulgated on December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74236) and November 13, 2009 (74
FR 58784). Furthermore, this extension will allow the regulated
community time to understand all of the regulatory amendments offered by
revisions to the SPCC rule promulgated since July 2002. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating a one-year extension of the compliance dates for
certain facilities, but is excluding from the extension drilling,
production and workover facilities that are offshore or that have an
offshore component, or onshore facilities that are required to have and
submit an FRP. EPA believes that a one-year extension of the compliance
dates to November 10, 2011 is appropriate for certain facilities for a
number of reasons, particularly since the owners and operators of
SPCC-regulated facilities have had at least a year to understand the
final SPCC amendments.

EPA disagrees with the comments that suggest the compliance deadline
should be extended beyond the one-year extension. The SPCC compliance
dates have been delayed since the promulgation of amendments in July
2002; during this time, new facilities (those that have become
operational after the effective date of the July 2002 amendments) have
not yet been required to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan. Therefore,
EPA believes that any compliance date beyond the extension finalized in
this action would be inappropriate and not environmentally protective.

EPA disagrees with the comment that suggests that Footnote 3 in the
proposed rule clarifying how the compliance date extension applies to
facilities in operation prior to August 16, 2002 is incorrect.
Facilities in operation prior to the effective date of the July 2002
amendments are required to maintain their SPCC Plans and have had ample
time to schedule and conduct facility modifications (as necessary) to
comply with these amendments. Additionally, because the SPCC amendments
published in December 2008 and November 2009 primarily streamlined the
rule requirements, facilities should not require extensive modifications
in order to comply with these regulatory amendments.  EPA established
initial compliance dates in the July 2002 final rule (67 FR 47042) and
clarified in the preamble how the compliance dates apply to facilities
in operation prior to the effective date of the rule (see 67 FR 47082,
July 17, 2002). The examples provided in the July 2002 preamble were
consistent with and illustrated the accompanying regulatory text that
established the initial compliance dates. The Agency has indicated in
each Federal Register notice announcing the subsequent extension to the
compliance dates that facilities in operation prior to August 16, 2002
must maintain an SPCC Plan. If a facility has no SPCC Plan to maintain,
then the date by which the facility has to amend the Plan to comply with
the SPCC regulatory revisions promulgated since 2002 does not apply and
the owner or operator is not eligible for the extension. The footnote
discussed here is wholly consistent with the Agency’s preamble
examples in the July 2002 final rule and the regulatory text extending
compliance dates since 2002.

EPA disagrees with the comment that argues development of new guidance
or jurisdictional clarifications between EPA and other federal agencies
are a basis for further extending the compliance date. Since
promulgating the July 2002 amendments to the SPCC rule, the Agency has
and will continue to provide outreach and compliance assistance to SPCC
regulated facilities so that a compliance extension for certain
facilities to November 10, 2011 should be sufficient. Finally, the
Agency is not addressing comments regarding the current SPCC rule
applicability thresholds because these issues are outside the scope of
this action. 

II. Exception to the Compliance Date Extension

Issue: EPA proposed not to extend the compliance date for drilling,
production and workover facilities that are offshore or that have an
offshore component; or for onshore facilities required to have and
submit FRPs. This subset of SPCC-regulated facilities must amend or
prepare and implement SPCC Plans by November 10, 2010. Oil production
facilities in this group that begin operations after November 10, 2010
continue to have six months after beginning operations to prepare and
implement a Plan. 

COMMENTS

Support Proposal

Support. Three comments supported EPA’s proposed compliance date
extension including the language to not extend the compliance date for
drilling, production and workover facilities that are offshore or that
have an offshore component, or onshore facilities required to have and
submit FRPs (0003, 0016, and 0021). One comment supported the proposed
compliance date extension but took no position on the question of
whether EPA should exclude offshore facilities or those onshore
facilities required to have FRPs (0020).

Oppose Proposal

Include onshore facilities required to have and submit FRP in the
one-year compliance date extension. According to one comment, FRP
facilities have always been included in compliance date extensions in
the past, and that this time should be no exception. The Agency’s
decision to exclude these facilities based on their concerns about
“increasing the potential to cause substantial harm if a discharge
were to occur” is unwarranted as they have EPA-approved FRPs that are
in place to address this very concern. The comment argues that onshore
FRP facilities need the one year compliance date extension, to November
10, 2011, for the same reasons that other onshore facilities do.
Moreover, the comment states that the extension is all the more
necessary for FRP facilities as they are “larger, more complex, and
more costly to address under the SPCC Rule” (0011).

Alternative Approaches

Add additional time to the compliance date extension if updates to the
SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors are delayed. One comment mentioned
that in case the publishing of SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors is
delayed, more time will need to be added in addition to the one-year
extension (0011).

RESPONSE

	EPA does not agree that onshore facilities that are required to have
and submit FRPs should be eligible for the one-year extension. The
Agency is concerned with the threat for immediate environmental impacts
resulting from oil spills from these facilities because of their large
oil storage capacities and their potential to cause substantial harm in
the event of a discharge as identified under the FRP regulation (40 CFR
112.20). The comment correctly indicates that many of these facilities
are implementing FRPs that are approved by the Agency; however, these
plans serve to identify response capability in the event of a discharge
to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines and do not specifically
include requirements that serve to prevent these discharges. For
example, implementation of a tank integrity testing program and brittle
fracture evaluations are SPCC requirements and not FRP requirements.
Many of the SPCC requirements promulgated since July 2002 serve to
enhance prevention of oil spills and EPA does not believe it is
environmentally protective to extend the date by which these
requirements are addressed and implemented at FRP-regulated facilities.
The Agency recognizes that some facilities excluded from the extension
of the compliance date (i.e., drilling, production or workover
facilities that are offshore or that have an offshore component, or an
onshore facility that is required to have and submit an FRP) may require
additional time to amend or prepare their SPCC Plans as a result of
either non-availability of qualified personnel, or delays in
construction or equipment delivery beyond the control and without the
fault of the owner or operator. If so, the owner or operator of the
facility may submit a written request for additional time to amend or
prepare an SPCC Plan to the Regional Administrator in accordance with
§112.3(f).

The Agency does not agree ongoing outreach activities; updates to
existing guidance documents; further regulatory clarifications; or
development of new guidance or jurisdictional clarifications between EPA
and other federal agencies are a basis for further extending the
compliance date. Since promulgating the July 2002 amendments to the SPCC
rule, the Agency has and will continue to provide outreach and
compliance assistance to SPCC regulated facilities so that a compliance
extension for certain facilities to November 10, 2011 should be
sufficient. EPA intends to continue to conduct outreach and provide
guidance and clarification on the SPCC requirements (as appropriate),
but does not believe that facilities should wait to amend or prepare and
implement their SPCC Plans because these are ongoing activities. EPA
also does not agree that the extension or additional time for compliance
should be provided to revise the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors. 
While EPA plans to revise the guidance document, most of the
modifications to the SPCC regulation are already explained and discussed
in the preamble to the final rules.  Thus, there are very few necessary
revisions to the guidance to address any new regulatory burden, as the
past several actions on the SPCC rule were for the purposes of
regulatory streamlining. EPA did not propose an extension to the
compliance date with a rationale based on completion of the guidance for
the reasons stated above.

III. Delayed Compliance Date for Facilities with Milk Containers,
Associated Piping and Appurtenances

 

Issue: EPA proposed to delay the compliance date by which facilities
with milk containers, associated piping and appurtenances that are
constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards,
and subject to the current applicable Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk
Ordinance (PMO) or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to
the current applicable PMO must prepare or amend their SPCC Plans, and
implement those Plans. This delay is for one year from the effective
date of a final rule addressing SPCC requirements specifically for these
milk containers, associated piping and appurtenances, or as specified by
a rule that otherwise establishes a compliance date for these
facilities.

COMMENTS

Support Proposal

Support: Several comments expressed support for delaying the compliance
date of the SPCC rule for facilities with milk containers, associated
piping and appurtenances until one year after EPA finalizes a rule for
these facilities (0008, 0012, 0013, 0018, 0019, 0023, 0024, 0026, 0027,
0034, and 0035). One comment emphasized that EPA should not consider
establishing a new compliance date that would be less than one-year
after the bulk milk exemption is finalized (0035). 

Oppose Proposal

No comments were submitted on this topic.

Alternative Approaches

Extend compliance date for all facilities with bulk milk storage
regardless of their date of commencing operations. Several comments
complained that the different compliance deadlines for dairy facilities
based on their start date are confusing and unnecessarily complex. The
comments requested EPA extend the compliance date to one year after
finalization of the bulk milk storage exemption to all facilities,
regardless of start date (0012, 0013, 0026, 0033, and 0035).

Clarify the treatment of farms and establish one compliance deadline for
all agriculture sectors. One comment expressed that given the lack of
knowledge, exposure and understanding of the SPCC rule within the
agriculture sector, and the Agency’s lack of a communication plan, the
Agency should establish one compliance deadline for all agricultural
sectors that are impacted by the rule to avoid any confusion (0014).
Three other comments also expressed concern regarding EPA’s bifurcated
compliance dates for the agriculture sector based on start dates and
those with milk containers and those without, which has led to much
confusion within the sector (0018, 0019, and 0023).

Clarify the compliance date language for farm operations with both
petroleum and bulk milk storage. Three comments complained that the
compliance date language is ambiguous for farm operations with both
petroleum and bulk milk storage and encourages the Agency to clarify the
treatment of farms and seeks a simplified compliance deadline that is
appropriate for all farms. The comments specifically asked if the
original plan just pertains to the petroleum storage or if it would it
also cover bulk milk storage. Additionally, when updating the original
plan, would the farm have to update the plan as it pertains to petroleum
storage to be in compliance with SPCC requirements by November 10, 2011,
or would their deadline be predicated on the Agency finalizing the bulk
milk storage exemption that will come into effect later? (0018, 0019,
and 0023)

Take action on proposal to exempt milk containers, associated piping and
appurtenances. Several comments urged EPA to finalize the proposed
exemption for milk containers, associated piping and appurtenances as
soon as possible. (0008, 0012, 0013, 0018, 0019, 0023, 0024, 0026, 0027,
0033, and 0035)

Clarify that the extension and future exemption will apply to milk and
milk products. Two comments requested that EPA clarify that the
extension and future exemption will apply to milk and milk products.
(0008 and 0024) Two comments argued that the extension and future
exemption should apply to milk and milk products, including but not
limited to such products as cheese, cream, yogurt and ice cream mix.
(0008 and 0013)

Provide further clarification on the definition of oil and oil mixtures.
Several comments urged EPA to further clarify the definition of oil and
oil mixtures to address outstanding questions regarding liquid product
that have oils in a concentration as little as 1 percent or less in the
finished mix. EPA should define mixtures, where the properties of oil
are no longer actively present due to their minimal concentration, as
exempt from SPCC regulation. (0014, 0018, 0019, 0021, and 0023)

RESPONSE

EPA agrees with comments that supported a delay of the compliance date
by which facilities must address milk containers, associated piping and
appurtenances that are constructed according to the current applicable
3-A Sanitary Standards, and subject to the current applicable Grade
“A” PMO or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the
current applicable PMO. The Agency is moving forward to take final
action on the proposed rulemaking that addresses those milk containers
as expeditiously as possible. Additionally, the Agency is considering
whether to exempt milk product containers, piping and appurtenances that
are subject to the same 3-A Sanitary Standards and Grade “A” PMO
specified for milk containers, associated piping and appurtenances. 
Therefore, the Agency is clarifying that the delay applies to both milk
and milk product containers, associated piping and appurtenances
constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards,
and subject to the current applicable Grade “A” PMO or a State dairy
regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable PMO. The
Agency is further clarifying this delay does not apply to any product
container that is not subject to PMO or State regulatory equivalent. The
compliance date delay by which the owner or operator of a facility must
address milk and milk product containers described above will provide
time to complete this action.

EPA agrees that a single date by which the owners or operators of
facilities must address milk and milk product containers associated
piping and appurtenances that are constructed according to the current
applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and subject to the current applicable
Grade “A” PMO or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to
the current applicable PMO in the facility’s SPCC Plan would offer
clarity. A date will be established in a FR notice in the future and
will be one year from the effective date of a final rule addressing the
SPCC requirements specifically for these milk and milk product
containers, associated piping and appurtenances, or as specified by a
rule that otherwise establishes a compliance date for these facilities.
During the delay, the owner or operator of the facility excludes milk
and milk product containers, associated piping and appurtenances that
are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary
Standards, and subject to the current applicable Grade “A” PMO or a
State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable
PMO from the facility’s aggregate oil storage capacity calculations,
and does not include these containers in the SPCC Plan.  

EPA is clarifying that, when there are other oil storage containers
(petroleum containers, such as diesel tanks and lube oil drums) at a
facility that has milk and milk product containers, associated piping
and appurtenances as described above and the facility meets the
aggregate oil storage capacity thresholds of §112.1 (excluding the
capacity of the milk and milk product containers), then the owner or
operator of the facility must maintain and amend, or prepare an SPCC
Plan to address these other oil containers at the facility in accordance
with §112.3(a)(1) by November 10, 2011.

The Agency is not addressing comments regarding the current SPCC rule
applicability to oil and oil mixtures because these issues are outside
the scope of this action.

IV. Alternative Approach to the Proposed Compliance Date Extension

 

Issue: EPA also requested comment on whether it would be appropriate to
consider a shorter compliance date extension, such as either six or nine
months. The alternative approach would extend the compliance date for
facilities to either May 10, 2011 or August 10, 2011, for all SPCC
regulated facilities, except for: drilling, production and workover
facilities that are offshore or that have an offshore component, or for
onshore facilities required to have and submit an FRP, which must comply
by November 10, 2010. This alternative approach does not impact the
Agency’s proposal to delay the compliance date for facilities with
milk containers, associated piping and appurtenances that are
constructed according to the current applicable 3–A Sanitary
Standards, and subject to the current applicable Grade ‘‘A’’ PMO
or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current
applicable PMO.

COMMENTS

Support Proposal

No comments were submitted on this topic.

Oppose Proposal

Insufficient time. Two comments expressed concerns with the alternative
compliance 

dates of May 10, 2011 or August 10, 2011, as it would not be enough time
for the owner or operators of facilities to educate their members about
the rule and develop effective SPCC Plans on time (0004 and 0011). Other
comments argued that the compliance date should be no earlier than the
proposed November 10, 2011 date. (0003, 0017, and 0021)

Alternative Approaches

No comments were submitted on this topic.

RESPONSE

The Agency agrees with the comments and has decided not to promulgate an
amended compliance date for certain facilities to either of the
alternative shorter time periods offered for comment (either May 10,
2011 or August 10, 2011). The Agency recognizes that the owner or
operator of a regulated facility needs adequate time to comply with the
SPCC rule following amendments to the regulation. EPA recognizes that
any timeframe shorter than one year from the current compliance date may
not allow sufficient time for those facilities for which EPA is granting
a compliance date extension to fully understand and comply with all of
the recently promulgated SPCC amendments or hire Professional Engineers.
A one year timeframe also accommodates seasonal considerations for
various industries. Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a one-year
compliance date extension to allow certain facilities time to prepare,
amend, and implement an SPCC Plan following recent amendments to the
SPCC rule.

 Document Number 0001 is assigned to the Federal Register Notice for the
proposed rule, included in the docket prior to FDMS posting the first
public comment.

 The dates for complying with amendments to the SPCC regulations have
been amended six times: on January 9, 2003 (68 FR 1348), on April 17,
2003 (68 FR 18890), on August 11, 2004 (69 FR 48794), on February 17,
2006 (71 FR 8462), on May 16, 2007 (72 FR 27444), and again on June 19,
2009 (74 FR 29136).

 EPA intends to issue revisions to the SPCC Guidance for Regional
Inspectors that address changes made to the SPCC rule, consistent with
the December 2006, December 2008, and November 2009 regulatory
amendments (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006; 73 FR 74236, December 5,
2008; 74 FR 58784, November 13, 2009). The guidance document is designed
to provide more detail about the rule's applicability, to clarify the
role of the inspector in the review and evaluation of a facility owner
or operator's compliance with the performance-based SPCC requirements,
and to provide a consistent national policy on several SPCC-related
issues. EPA welcomes comments from the regulated community and the
public on the guidance document at any time. Instructions for submitting
comments are provided on the EPA Office of Emergency Management website
at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies.

 The facility has an aboveground oil storage capacity greater than 1,320
U.S. gallons or the completely buried storage capacity is greater than
42,000 U.S. gallons.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1