SPCC­
7­
7­
18
OPA­
1997­
0002­
0072
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
FOR
THE
FINAL
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
(40
CFR
PART
112)

Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
May
2002
1
58
FR
51735.

2
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Reinventing
Environmental
Regulation,
March
16,
1995.

2
CHAPTER
1
INTRODUCTION
1.
1
BACKGROUND
AND
PURPOSE
OF
THIS
RULEMAKING
Executive
Order
12866
aims
to
reform
the
regulatory
system
to
"protect
and
improve"
the
"health,
safety,
environment,
and
well­
being"
of
Americans
"without
imposing
unacceptable
or
unreasonable
costs
to
society."
1
Section
5
of
the
Executive
Order
requires
Federal
agencies
to
periodically
review
their
existing
significant
regulations
to
determine
whether
any
such
regulations
have
become
unjustified
or
unnecessary
as
a
result
of
changed
circumstances
–
i.
e.,
that
they:
(1)
have
become
incompatible
with
other
existing
regulations,
(2)
have
become
unnecessarily
burdensome,
or
(3)
are
not
consistent
with
the
President's
priorities
and
therefore
should
be
modified
or
eliminated.

In
response
to
Executive
Order
12866
and
the
government's
subsequent
National
Performance
Review,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA
or
the
Agency)
set
a
goal
of
reducing
by
25
percent
the
paperwork
burden
associated
with
the
Agency's
regulatory
requirements
that
were
in
effect
as
of
January
1,
1995.
2
To
attain
its
25
percent
paperwork
burden
reduction
goal,
EPA
has
examined
both
the
need
for
its
paperwork
requirements
and
methods
by
which
essential
information
can
be
collected
and
provided
at
the
lowest
cost
to
the
regulated
community.
EPA
has
worked
extensively
with
industry,
States,
and
other
interested
groups
to
identify
ways
to
minimize
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
On
June
1,
1995,
EPA
reported
to
the
President
all
of
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
regulations
that
it
believed
were
duplicative
and
unnecessary.
The
changes
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
(40
CFR
part
112)
presented
below
are
being
finalized
to
further
reduce
burden
on
regulated
entities
and
to
help
the
Agency
reach
its
burden
reduction
goal
without
compromising
protection
to
public
health
or
welfare
or
to
the
environment.

The
purpose
of
this
Economic
Analysis
(EA)
is
to
provide
estimates
of
the
potential
costs
and
benefits
of
the
final
revisions
being
made
to
40
CFR
part
112.
This
regulation
establishes
requirements
for
Spill
Prevention
Control
and
Countermeasure
(SPCC)
Plans
to
prevent
spills
of
oil
into
or
upon
the
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States
or
adjoining
shorelines
or
affecting
certain
natural
resources
by
nontransportation
related
onshore
and
offshore
facilities.
The
Agency
is
finalizing
changes
that
would
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
of
the
rule
and
that
would
reduce
3
56
FR
54612.

4
58
FR
8824.

5
62
FR
63812.

3
inefficiencies
and
overlap
with
other
regulations,
thus
complying
with
the
Executive
Order.
The
effect
of
this
rulemaking
would
be
to
reduce
the
cost
of
compliance
to
the
regulated
community
while
maintaining
the
current
level
of
protection
to
public
health
and
welfare
and
to
the
environment.

1.
2
REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
The
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation,
at
40
CFR
part
112,
outlines
requirements
for
both
prevention
of
and
response
to
oil
spills.
The
changes
and
adjustments
in
this
final
rulemaking
involve
the
prevention
aspect
of
this
regulation,
also
known
as
the
SPCC
regulation.
It
was
originally
promulgated
on
December
11,
1973,
at
38
FR
34164,
under
the
authority
of
section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(CWA).
The
regulation
established
spill
prevention
procedures,
methods,
and
equipment
requirements
for
non­
transportation­
related
onshore
and
offshore
facilities
with
aboveground
oil
storage
capacity
greater
than
1,320
gallons
(or
greater
than
660
gallons
in
a
single
tank),
or
buried
underground
oil
storage
capacity
greater
than
42,000
gallons.
Regulated
facilities
are
also
limited
to
those
that,
because
of
their
location,
could
reasonably
be
expected
to
discharge
oil
into
the
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States
or
adjoining
shorelines.

The
SPCC
rule
has
been
amended
a
number
of
times
since
its
initial
promulgation.
On
October
22,
1991,
the
Agency
proposed
another
set
of
revisions
to
the
SPCC
rule.
3
The
proposed
revisions
involved
changes
in
the
applicability
of
the
regulation
and
the
required
procedures
for
the
completion
of
SPCC
Plans,
as
well
as
the
addition
of
a
facility
notification
provision.
The
proposed
rule
also
reflected
changes
in
the
jurisdiction
of
section
311
of
the
CWA
made
by
amendments
to
the
Act
in
1977
and
1978.
On
February
17,
1993,
the
Agency
again
proposed
further
clarifications
and
technical
changes
to
the
SPCC
rule.
4
The
proposed
changes
involved
contingency
plans,
training,
and
methods
of
ensuring
against
brittle
fracture.
On
December
2,
1997,
the
Agency
proposed
its
latest
set
of
changes
to
the
SPCC
rule.
5
The
proposed
changes
were
intended
to
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
of
the
rule.
The
purpose
of
this
final
rule
is
to
address
the
proposed
revisions
made
in
the
October
22,
1991
proposal,
the
February
17,
1993
proposal,
and
the
December
1997
proposal.
6
33
U.
S.
C.
1321(
j)(
1)(
C).

7
56
FR
54757
(October
22,
1991),
superseding
Executive
Order
11735,
38
FR
21243.

4
EPA
is
finalizing
the
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
to
reduce
its
information
collection
burden
and
to
clarify
the
intent
of
the
existing
regulation.
The
changes
pertain
to
the
prevention
aspects
of
40
CFR
part
112.

1.3
STATUTORY
AUTHORITY
Section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
CWA
authorizes
the
President
to
issue
regulations
establishing
procedures,
methods,
equipment,
and
other
requirements
to
prevent
discharges
of
oil
from
vessels
and
facilities
and
to
contain
such
discharges.
6
The
President
has
delegated
the
authority
to
regulate
non­
transportation­
related
onshore
facilities
under
section
311(
j)(
1)(
C)
of
the
Act
to
EPA
under
Executive
Order
12777,
section
2(
b)(
1).
7
By
this
same
Executive
Order
the
President
has
delegated
authority
over
transportation­
related
onshore
facilities,
deepwater
ports,
and
vessels
to
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
(DOT)
and
authority
over
other
offshore
facilities,
including
associated
pipelines,
to
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior
(DOI).
A
subsequent
Memorandum
of
Understanding
(MOU),
dated
February
3,
1994,
among
EPA,
DOT,
and
DOI,
reallocated
the
responsibility
for
non­
transportation­
related
offshore
facilities
that
are
landward
of
the
coast
line
to
EPA.
An
earlier
MOU
between
the
Secretary
of
Transportation
and
the
EPA
Administrator,
dated
November
24,
1971
(36
FR
24080),
established
the
definitions
of
non­
transportation­
related
facilities
and
transportation­
related
facilities.

1.
4
REVISIONS
TO
40
CFR
PART
112
EPA
is
finalizing
a
number
of
changes
to
the
SPCC
rule.
Only
a
limited
number
of
these
changes
are
expected
to
have
a
measurable
effect
on
the
burden
associated
with
reporting
and
recordkeeping
activities.
The
majority
of
changes
being
made
that
are
expected
to
affect
burden­
related
activities
are
designed
to
reduce
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burdens
for
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
The
following
changes
are
expected
to
have
a
measurable
effect
on
respondent
burden:

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
and
112.1(
d)(
4).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
under
the
SPCC
program
a
completely
buried
tank
that
is
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
of
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
a
facility
having
a
single
container
with
a
storage
capacity
greater
than
660
gallons,
but
aggregate
aboveground
storage
capacity
of
1,
320
gallons
or
less
of
oil.
5
°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
5).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
any
container
with
a
storage
capacity
of
less
than
55
gallons
of
oil.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
6).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
parts
thereof
(except
at
oil
production,
oil
recovery,
and
oil
recycling
facilities)
used
exclusively
for
wastewater
treatment
and
not
used
to
meet
any
other
requirement
of
part
112.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
f).
EPA
is
granting
its
Regional
Administrators
the
authority
to
require
any
facility
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
EPA
under
section
311(
j)
of
the
CWA,
but
otherwise
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
prepare
an
SPCC
Plan
under
part
112,
to
prepare
and
implement
a
total
or
partial
SPCC
Plan
where
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.3(
a).
EPA
is
requiring
an
SPCC­
regulated
facility
to
amend
its
SPCC
Plan
to
conform
with
the
new
sequence
and
requirements
of
the
final
rule,
if
necessary,
within
six
months
of
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
and
to
implement
the
Plan
within
12
months.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.3(
e)(
1).
EPA
is
changing
from
eight
hours
to
four
hours
the
minimum
number
of
hours
that
a
facility
must
be
attended
for
a
facility
to
be
required
to
maintain
a
copy
of
an
SPCC
Plan
on
the
premises.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.4(
a).
EPA
is
changing
the
threshold
for
submission
of
information
following
certain
discharges
and
is
reducing
the
amount
of
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
after
such
discharges.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.5(
b)
and
(c).
EPA
is
changing
the
Plan
review
period
from
three
to
five
years
and
is
requiring
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
to
document
the
completion
of
the
review
and
evaluation.
A
Professional
Engineer's
(PE)
certification
of
a
Plan
amendment
will
now
only
be
required
for
technical
changes
made
to
the
Plan.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
a)(
2).
EPA
is
allowing
a
facility
to
deviate
from
most
substantive
requirements
if
the
owner
or
operator
explains
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
a)(
3).
EPA
is
requiring
an
SPCC­
regulated
facility
to
include
with
its
Plan
a
facility
diagram,
which
must
mark
the
location
and
contents
of
each
container.
6
°
Final
40
CFR
112.7.
EPA
is
allowing
an
owner
or
operator
to
use
an
alternate
format
from
that
specified
in
the
rule
if
the
format
is
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
meets
all
applicable
rule
requirements
or
is
supplemented
so
that
it
does,
and
is
cross­
referenced
to
those
requirements.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
d).
EPA
is
exempting
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
which
has
submitted
a
Facility
Response
Plan
(FRP)
from
the
requirement
to
provide
a
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment,
and
materials
to
expeditiously
control
and
remove
any
quantity
of
discharged
oil
that
may
be
harmful.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
e).
EPA
is
allowing
records
of
inspections
and
tests
kept
under
usual
and
customary
business
practices
to
suffice
for
records
of
inspections
and
tests
required
under
part
112.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
i).
EPA
is
requiring
the
owner
or
operator
to
evaluate
a
field­
constructed
aboveground
container
for
risk
of
discharge
or
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe
when
the
container
undergoes
a
repair,
alteration,
or
a
change
in
service
that
might
affect
the
risk
of
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe.

1.
5
ORGANIZATION
OF
THE
ECONOMIC
ASSESSMENT
The
remainder
of
this
report
is
organized
as
follows:

°
Chapter
2
presents
the
methodology
used
by
EPA
to
produce
the
results
reached
in
this
report;

°
Chapter
3
discusses
the
estimated
costs
of
the
rule's
final
revisions;

°
Chapter
4
summarizes
the
benefits
of
the
final
regulation;
and
°
Chapter
5
presents
a
summary
of
the
impact
of
this
rulemaking
on
small
businesses.
7
CHAPTER
2
METHODOLOGY
This
chapter
presents
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
the
economic
effects
of
the
final
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation.
Section
2.
1
summarizes
the
general
approach
followed
in
calculating
the
economic
effects.
Section
2.
2
presents
the
baseline
for
the
analysis.
Section
2.
3
describes
the
classification
of
the
final
revisions
to
the
regulation
into
four
categories
for
purposes
of
quantifying
the
economic
effects
of
the
proposed
revisions.
Section
2.4
discusses
the
manner
in
which
the
number
and
size
distribution
of
affected
facilities
is
estimated,
and
how
this
estimate
factors
into
the
analysis.
Section
2.
5
summarizes
the
process
used
to
estimate
the
unit
costs
of
compliance
to
facilities.
Finally,
Section
2.
6
presents
how
the
total
annual
costs
of
the
final
revisions
are
calculated.

2.
1
GENERAL
APPROACH
The
first
step
in
analyzing
the
economic
effects
of
the
final
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
is
to
develop
the
baseline
for
the
analysis,
which
is
the
benchmark
from
which
changes
in
regulatory
behavior
(caused
directly
or
indirectly
by
the
final
regulation)
are
measured.
In
general,
the
baseline
is
a
projection
of
regulated
facility
behavior
in
the
absence
of
the
new
regulatory
provisions.

After
establishment
of
the
baseline,
each
regulatory
revision
is
classified
into
one
of
five
categories:
baseline,
cost
increase,
negligible
increase,
cost
savings,
or
negligible
savings.
Revisions
classified
as
baseline
are
assumed
to
produce
no
substantive
change
in
the
existing
regulation
or
to
be
already
adhered
to
as
good
engineering
practices
or
prevailing
industry
standards
or
practices.
Revisions
classified
as
negligible
increases
or
negligible
savings
are
expected
to
result
in
small
and
generally
unmeasurable
costs
or
cost
savings
per
facility
or
to
affect
only
a
small
subset
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
Revisions
that
may
result
in
more
significant
costs
or
costs
savings
to
facilities
are
categorized
as
cost
increases
or
cost
savings,
respectively.

Next,
the
number
of
affected
facilities
is
estimated
by
size
category
to
allow
the
analysis
to
account
for
differences
in
the
potential
costs
experienced
by
different
sizes
of
facilities.
Unit
costs
of
compliance
are
then
estimated
for
certain
revisions.
Unit
costs
vary
by
facility
size
(small,
medium,
and
large),
as
appropriate.
The
final
step
in
the
methodology
is
to
combine
information
on
the
number
and
size
of
affected
facilities
with
information
on
unit
costs
to
estimate
the
total
annual
costs
of
the
final
revisions.
Exhibit
2­
1
provides
an
overview
of
the
approach
used
to
estimate
the
economic
effects
of
the
final
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation.
The
remainder
of
this
8
chapter
provides
greater
detail
on
the
steps
in
the
methodology;
Chapters
3
and
4
discuss
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
final
regulation.
9
Develop
baseline
for
the
analysis.

Classify
regulatory
revisions
as
baseline,
cost
increase,
negligible
increase,
cost
savings,
and
negligible
savings.

Estimate
the
number
and
size
distribution
of
affected
facilities.

Estimate
unit
costs
of
compliance
for
certain
revisions,
varying
unit
costs
by
facility
size
as
appropriate.

Estimate
total
first­
year
and
subsequentyear
costs
of
the
final
revisions.
EXHIBIT
2­
1
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
APPROACH
FOR
ESTIMATING
THE
ECONOMIC
EFFECTS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
In
addition
to
the
analyses
shown
here,
this
EA
contains
a
discussion
of
the
potential
effects
of
the
revisions
on
small
businesses
(Chapter
5).
10
2.
2
BASELINE
FOR
THE
ANALYSIS
The
incremental
costs
of
this
final
regulation
are
calculated
relative
to
a
baseline
of
current
behavior.
The
term
"baseline"
is
shorthand
for
the
projection
of
public
and
private
sector
behavior
in
the
absence
of
the
new
regulatory
provisions.
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
and
EPA
regulatory
guidelines
recommend
that
the
effects
of
regulatory
alternatives
be
measured
relative
to
the
effects
of
behavior
in
the
absence
of
the
proposed
alternatives.
Thus,
the
baseline:

°
Provides
a
point
of
comparison
for
estimating
the
effects
of
different
regulatory
alternatives.
The
baseline
should
not
include
the
effects
of
the
final
regulation;
this
would
render
the
evaluation
of
the
regulation
meaningless
and
lead
to
an
assessment
of
the
regulation
as
having
no
positive
or
negative
effects.

°
Does
not
necessarily
represent
current
industry
practices
or
behavior,
although
such
practices
or
behavior
might
be
reflected
in
the
baseline.

°
Is
a
projection,
but
not
necessarily
a
prediction,
of
behavior;
as
such,
the
baseline
represents
a
hypothetical,
anticipated
situation.

°
Should
be
constructed
for
purposes
of
evaluating
only
the
effects
of
the
regulatory
alternatives.
It
should
not
be
designed
to
evaluate
the
effects
of
the
enabling
statute,
the
existing
regulation
that
would
be
modified
by
the
final
regulation,
or
other
existing
regulations.

Because
this
analysis
estimates
only
the
incremental
effects
associated
with
the
final
regulatory
changes,
a
natural
choice
for
the
baseline
would
be
full
regulated
party
compliance
with
current
regulatory
requirements.
However,
the
possibility
that
current
industry
practices,
behavior,
or
standards
may
exceed
current
regulatory
requirements
also
needs
to
be
considered
to
accurately
measure
the
true
incremental
effects
of
the
final
rulemaking.
If
current
industry
standards
exceed
current
regulatory
requirements,
for
example,
the
estimated
costs
to
industry
of
complying
with
the
final
new
requirements
may
be
lower
if
current
industry
standards
are
incorporated
in
the
baseline.
Projections
of
activity
in
the
absence
of
the
final
revisions,
therefore,
could
be
based
on
current
regulatory
requirements,
current
industry
standards,
or
some
combination
of
the
two.

For
the
purpose
of
this
report,
the
baseline
is
assumed
to
be
full
compliance
by
regulated
facilities
with
the
current
regulation,
as
well
as
industry
behavior,
practices,
or
standards
that
exceed
the
current
regulation.
When
industry
behavior
or
practices
exceed
the
current
regulatory
requirements,
actions
beyond
those
taken
to
meet
the
current
government
requirements
generally
are
voluntary.
Voluntarily
incurred
costs
are
not
attributable
to
the
final
rule
because
they
would
have
occurred
even
in
the
11
absence
of
the
final
revisions
and,
therefore,
cannot
be
judged
to
have
been
caused
by
the
regulation.
When
industry
behavior
or
practices
fall
short
of
the
current
regulatory
requirements,
the
costs
to
industry
of
complying
with
the
current
regulatory
requirements
are
attributable
to
the
current
regulatory
requirements,
not
to
the
final
regulation.
If
the
costs
of
complying
with
the
current
regulation
were
included
in
the
costs
of
complying
with
the
final
regulation,
then
the
costs
of
the
original
rule
would
be
counted
twice
(once
in
the
analysis
supporting
the
original
rule
and
once
in
the
analysis
supporting
the
final
rule).

For
the
most
part,
the
extent
to
which
regulated
facilities
will
be
affected
by
specific
revised
provisions
has
been
determined
by
expert
judgment.
For
example,
as
described
in
Section
3.
3.
13,
to
estimate
the
number
of
facilities
affected
by
paragraph
112.7(
i),
EPA
relied
on
the
judgment
of
engineers
familiar
with
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
The
Regional
EPA
personnel
who
participated
in
the
rulemaking
workgroup
have
conducted
SPCC
inspections
and
evaluated
SPCC
Plans
for
many
years.
In
addition,
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
rules,
EPA
reviewed
a
sample
of
113
inspection
reports
from
five
States,
as
well
as
two
earlier
studies
of
SPCC
inspections
and
deficiency
notices.
As
described
in
Section
3.
3.
10,
EPA's
estimate
of
the
number
of
facilities
affected
by
paragraph
112.7(
a)(
3)
was
based
on
its
experience
with
facility
inspections.

Many
industry
trade
groups
and
national
safety
organizations
have
standards
and
guidelines
relating
to
the
storing,
handling,
and
transfer
of
flammable
and
hazardous
materials,
including
oil.
The
good
engineering
practices
and
prevention
and
control
measures
currently
required
by
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
include
the
application
of
appropriate
industry
standards.
Furthermore,
industry
standards
generally
are
developed
through
the
concurrence
of
a
majority
of
the
firms
in
the
relevant
industry,
so
adherence
to
these
standards
may
be
considered
widespread.

Current
regulatory
requirements,
as
discussed
in
Chapter
1,
include
those
in
40
CFR
part
112.
Changes
from
"should"
to
"shall"
to
"must"
in
40
CFR
part
112.7
(reorganized
as
40
CFR
parts
112.7
­
112.15
in
the
final
revisions)
do
not
require
evaluation,
because
these
changes
are
assumed
to
be
clarifications
of
existing
requirements
rather
than
substantive
changes.
Changes
from
"should"
to
"must,"
therefore,
are
subsumed
in
the
baseline.
The
preamble
to
the
final
rule
states:

Section
112.3
of
the
SPCC
rule
has
always
required
that
SPCC
Plans
be
prepared
in
accordance
with
§112.7,
which
in
turn
requires
that
Plans
be
prepared
in
accordance
with
good
engineering
practice.
However,
clarification
of
the
existing
rule
is
necessary
because
of
confusion
on
the
part
of
some
facility
owners
or
operators
who
have
interpreted
the
current
rule's
use
of
the
words
"should"
and
"guidelines"
12
in
§112.7
as
an
indication
that
compliance
with
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
rule
is
optional.
The
rule
used
the
words
"should"
and
"guidelines"
to
provide
flexibility
for
facilities
with
unique
circumstances.
Those
circumstances
might
be
such
that
mandated
regulatory
provisions
would
not
be
in
accord
with
good
engineering
practice.
Therefore,
the
rule
gave
facilities
the
opportunity
to
provide
alternative
methods
that
achieve
equivalent
environmental
protection,
or
to
show
that
the
provisions
were
inapplicable
based
on
specific
circumstances.

In
1991,
we
proposed
to
clarify
that
misunderstanding
by
generally
substituting
"shall"
in
place
of
"should"
throughout
the
reorganized
rule.
In
today's
final
rule,
we
have
editorially
changed
"shall"
to
"must"
in
furtherance
of
the
Agency's
"plain
language"
objectives.
The
"shall"
to
"must"
is
not
a
substantive
change,
but
merely
an
editorial
change.
Nor
will
the
change
add
to
the
information
collection
burden.
We
have
always
included
requirements
prefaced
by
"should"
in
the
information
collection
burden
for
the
rule.
We
will
continue
to
provide
flexibility
for
an
owner
or
operator
who
can
explain
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
with
rule
requirements,
and
can
provide
alternate
measures
from
those
specified
in
the
rule,
which
achieve
equivalent
environmental
protection.

It
is
possible
that
some
facilities
have
misinterpreted
the
existing
regulation
and
are
not
currently
in
full
compliance
with
existing
requirements,
but
there
is
no
practical
way
to
measure
the
level
of
non­
compliance.
Moreover,
as
discussed
above,
the
costs
of
coming
into
compliance
with
the
clarified
requirements
are
not
properly
attributed
to
this
final
regulation.
The
baseline
used
in
this
analysis
also
assumes
full
compliance
with
other
current
regulations
that
are
related
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation,
including
regulations
issued
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration,
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard,
and
EPA's
Underground
Storage
Tank
(UST)
program.

Where
current
industry
standards
meet
or
exceed
the
existing
regulatory
requirements,
the
estimated
cost
of
the
final
revisions
will
include
only
the
incremental
cost
between
the
current
standard
and
the
final
requirement
because
facilities
are
assumed
to
adhere
to
industry
standards.
Some
examples
of
industry
behavior
that
may
exceed
the
current
regulatory
requirements
include
compliance
with
the
following
industry
standards:

°
American
Petroleum
Institute
(API)
standards
620,
650,
653,
and
2610;
13
°
National
Fire
Protection
Association
(NFPA)
standards
30
and
30A;

°
American
Society
of
Mechanical
Engineers
(ASME)
standard
B31.3;
and
°
Underwriters
Laboratories,
Inc.
(UL)
standard
142.
2.
3
CLASSIFYING
THE
FINAL
REVISIONS
The
final
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
include
provisions
that
may
require
changes
in
industry
behavior
and
other
provisions
that
may
affect
the
regulated
community
less
significantly,
if
at
all.
In
estimating
potential
economic
impacts,
it
is
necessary
to
isolate
the
regulatory
changes
that
are
likely
to
contribute
to
a
measurable
increase
or
decrease
in
the
level
of
economic
burden.
Consequently,
each
of
the
changes
in
the
final
rule
has
been
classified
as
"none,"
"baseline,"
"cost
increase,"
"negligible
increase,"
"cost
savings,"
or
"negligible
savings."
Exhibit
2­
2
presents
each
revision
and
its
classification
under
the
final
rule.

Final
revisions
classified
as
"none"
do
not
result
in
costs
to
regulated
facilities.
Revisions
classified
as
"baseline"
generally
do
not
substantively
change
the
regulatory
requirements
or
industry
behavior
and,
therefore,
are
assumed
not
to
result
in
additional
costs
to
affected
facilities.
A
final
change
has
been
classified
as
part
of
the
baseline
under
the
following
circumstances:

°
If
a
final
revision
makes
explicit
a
requirement
that
is
implicit
in
the
current
regulation,
it
is
considered
a
clarification
of
the
existing
requirements
and
not
a
substantive
change.

°
Changes
in
the
regulatory
language
from
"should"
to
"must"
(i.
e.,
an
activity
"must"
be
taken
instead
of
"should"
be
taken)
are
assumed
to
be
clarifications
of
the
requirements,
rather
than
substantive
changes.

°
Final
revisions
that
require
compliance
with
industry
standards
also
are
classified
as
part
of
the
baseline
because
full
compliance
with
industry
standards
is
assumed.

°
If
the
required
activity
is
a
good
engineering
practice
that
should
be
followed
under
the
existing
regulation,
a
final
revision
is
considered
part
of
the
baseline.
The
existing
regulation
requires
that
all
SPCC
Plans
be
prepared
according
to
good
engineering
practices
(40
CFR
112.7).

When
a
revision
is
not
considered
part
of
the
baseline,
but
is
unlikely
to
result
in
measurable
costs
or
cost
savings,
that
final
revision
is
classified
as
"negligible
increase"
of
"negligible
savings."
Negligible
revisions
have
the
potential
to
require
the
14
regulated
community
to
incur
costs
or
cost
savings,
but
any
such
costs
or
cost
savings
are
judged
either
too
small
to
measure
or
minimal
in
the
aggregate
in
comparison
with
the
total
costs
of
the
non­
negligible
provisions.
One
example
of
a
negligible
revision
is
final
40
CFR
112.4(
a),
which
reduces
the
amount
of
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
an
EPA
Regional
Administrator
in
the
event
of
certain
discharges
and
raises
the
threshold
of
such
discharges
for
reporting
purposes
under
that
section.
This
final
revision
is
classified
as
"negligible
savings"
because
of
the
very
small
probability
that
a
facility
will
experience
a
discharge
reportable
under
§112.4(
a).
In
addition,
final
40
CFR
112.5(
b)
requires
that
the
facility
owner
or
operator
document
both
that
the
fiveyear
SPCC
Plan
review
was
completed
and
whether
the
Plan
was
amended.
This
revision
is
classified
as
a
"negligible
increase"
because
affixing
a
signed
statement
involves
a
minimal
burden
increase
to
the
facility
owner
or
operator.

Revisions
classified
as
"cost
savings"
or
"cost
increases"
are
expected
to
result
in
measurable
costs
or
cost
savings
to
the
regulated
community.
One
such
revision
classified
as
a
"cost
savings"
is
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii).
This
revision
exempts
from
the
SPCC
program
all
facilities
with
an
aggregate
storage
or
use
capacity
of
1,
320
gallons
or
less
of
oil,
and
excludes
containers
of
less
than
55
gallons
from
the
calculation
of
a
facility's
aggregate
storage
capacity.
This
final
revision
will
remove
a
substantial
number
of
facilities
from
the
scope
of
the
SPCC
program,
thereby
offering
substantial
cost
savings
to
the
regulated
community.
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
f)
is
an
example
of
a
revision
classified
as
a
"cost
increase."
The
revision
gives
the
EPA
Regional
Administrator
authority,
when
necessary,
to
require
previously
a
exempted
facility
owner
or
operator
to
prepare
a
total
or
partial
SPCC
Plan.
Quantitative
cost
estimates
are
developed
for
revisions
that
impose
non­
negligible
costs
under
the
final
rule.
15
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
112.1
General
applicability
112.1(
a)

Expands
the
geographic
scope
of
the
rule
to
conform
to
CWA
geographic
scope.

Baseline
Baseline
The
regulatory
change
does
not
affect
the
number
of
facilities
being
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program
because
the
statutory
change
has
already
been
taken
into
account
in
EPA's
previous
economic
analyses.
112.1(
b)

Tracks
amendments
to
the
CWA.

Also
clarifies
that
a
facility
using
oil
may
also
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
rule.

Baseline
Baseline
EPA
is
clarifying
its
existing
interpretation
that
a
facility
using
oil
operationally
may
also
be
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements.
112.1(
b)

Clarifies
the
types
of
oil
storage
containers
that
EPA
is
regulating.

Baseline
Baseline
EPA
is
merely
clarifying
its
existing
interpretation
of
the
rule.
112.1(
b)(
3)

Clarifies
EPA's
definition
of
an
aboveground
container
that
is
regulated,

to
exclude
one
that
is
permanently
closed
Negligible
savings
Negligible
savings
A
few
facilities
with
permanently
closed
containers
may
no
longer
be
regulated.
112.1(
c)

Editorial
changes
to
reflect
deletion
of
§112.6.

None
None
The
revisions
to
this
section
are
merely
editorial
and
reflect
the
deletion
of
§112.6.
112.1(
d)(
1)(
i)
and
(ii)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
These
editorial
changes
do
not
affect
either
burden
or
cost
calculations.
112.1(
d)(
1)(
iii)

Clarifies
that
this
part
does
not
apply
to
a
facility,

equipment,

or
operation
that
is
not
subject
to
EPA
jurisdiction,
including
a
facility
subject
solely
to
DOT
and
DOI
jurisdiction.

Baseline
Baseline
The
change
reflects
jurisdiction
established
by
an
MOU.
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
16
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)

Clarifies
that
a
permanently
closed
container
and
a
completely
buried
tank
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281
(UST
regs)
does
not
count
in
the
calculation
of
the
42,000
gallon
threshold.

Cost
savings
Cost
savings
Certain
facilities
with
USTs
are
no
longer
required
to
comply
with
SPCC
provisions.

Will
have
greater
impact
on
new
facilities
that
have
not
yet
prepared
Plans.

1991
EA
estimated
that
gasoline
service
stations
would
be
most
affected
by
this
rulemaking
and
essentially
drop
out
of
the
SPCC
program.
Could
also
affect:

trucking
and
warehousing,
airports.
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii)

Excludes
a
facility
having
only
aboveground
storage
capacity
in
a
single
container
of
more
than
660
gallons,

as
long
as
the
aggregate
storage
capacity
is
1,

320
gallons
or
less
of
oil.
Also
excludes
a
container
of
less
than
55
gallons
from
the
calculation
of
a
facility's
total
storage
capacity.

Cost
savings
Cost
savings
A
substantial
number
of
facilities
will
drop
out
of
the
SPCC
program
as
a
result
of
the
threshold
revision.

To
a
much
lesser
extent,

a
few
facilities
may
also
drop
out
because
the
exemption
for
a
container
of
less
than
55
gallons
may
cause
the
aggregate
storage
capacity
to
be
1320
gallons
or
less.
112.1(
d)(
3)

Exempts
a
facility
subject
to
MMS
jurisdiction
as
specified
in
the
1993
MOU.

Baseline
Baseline
EPA
has
not
included
these
facilities
in
its
economic
analyses
of
the
program
since
the
MOU
was
signed.
112.1(
d)(
4)

Exempts
a
completely
buried
tank
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281
from
SPCC.

Negligible
savings
Negligible
savings
The
scope
of
some
Plans
will
be
reduced
if
they
no
longer
need
to
include
certain
completely
buried
tanks.
112.1(
d)(
5)

Exempts
bulk
storage
containers
with
a
capacity
of
less
than
55
gallons
of
oil
from
the
program.

Negligible
savings
Negligible
savings
The
scope
of
some
Plans
will
be
reduced
if
they
no
longer
need
to
include
small
containers.
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
17
112.1(
d)(
6)

Exempts
certain
wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
parts
thereof
from
the
rule,

(except
at
oil
production,

oil
recovery,
and
oil
recycling
facilities),

if
used
exclusively
for
wastewater
treatment
and
not
used
to
meet
any
other
requirement
of
part
112.

Cost
savings
Cost
savings
As
a
result
of
the
final
rule,

certain
facilities
will
recalculate
their
storage
capacity
to
exclude
oil
capacity
from
applicable
wastewater
treatment
systems.
Some
facilities
will
no
longer
be
regulated
due
to
a
reduction
in
applicable
storage
capacity.
Initially
or
within
the
first
year,
facilities
will
expend
burden
and
capital
costs
to
assess
and
certify
attainment
of
SPCC
exemption
criteria.
Exempt
facilities
will
realize
cost
savings
in
subsequent
years.
112.1(
e)

Minor
editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.1(
f)

Gives
the
RA
authority
to
require
preparation
of
a
total
or
partial
SPCC
Plan,

for
previously
exempted
facilities,
when
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.

Cost
increase
Cost
increase
1993
NPRM
EIA
estimated
that
about
100
facilities
would
be
affected
annually,

60
small,
30
medium,
and
10
large.
112.2
Definitions
112.2
Expands
the
current
definitions
in
the
SPCC
regulations.

Baseline
Baseline
EPA
is
merely
clarifying
currently
used
terms
and
definitions.
112.3
Requirement
to
prepare
and
implement
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
112.3(
a)

Requires
a
facility
already
in
operation
to
amend
its
Plan,

if
necessary,
within
6
months
of
the
effective
date
of
this
part,
and
to
implement
the
Plan
within
12
months.

Negligible
increase
None
Although
facilities
will
incur
a
burden
to
read
and
understand
the
changes
being
made
to
the
SPCC
rule,
few
facilities
will
need
to
amend
their
Plans
as
a
result
of
the
changes.
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
18
112.3(
b)

Requires
a
new
facility
to
fully
prepare
and
implement
its
Plan
before
beginning
operations.

Negligible
increase
None
In
the
period
between
when
a
facility
is
constructed
and
when
it
begins
operations,
there
should
be
enough
time
to
implement
the
SPCC
Plan.

It
is
unlikely
that
this
provision
would
delay
the
start
of
operations.
112.3(
c)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.3(
d)

Adds
specificity
to
PE
certification
by
requiring
that
the
PE
certify
that
inspection
and
testing
procedures
have
been
established,
industry
standards
have
been
considered,

and
that
the
Plan
is
adequate
for
the
facility.
Allows
the
PE's
agent
to
visit
and
examine
the
facility.

Baseline
None
Although
the
proposed
rule
adds
some
specificity
to
the
PE's
responsibility,
these
requirements
are
not
assumed
to
go
beyond
the
current
requirement
that
a
Plan
shall
be
prepared
in
accordance
with
good
engineering
practices.
112.3(
e)

Lowers
from
eight
to
four
hours
the
minimum
number
of
hours
a
facility
must
be
attended
to
be
required
to
have
a
complete
Plan
on
site
each
day.

Baseline
None
No
net
change
in
the
number
of
Plans.
Some
facility
types,

especially
E&
P,

may
have
to
move
the
Plans
from
field
offices
to
the
facility
if
it
is
attended
more
than
four
hours
a
day.
112.3(
f)

Gives
an
RA
authority
to
grant
an
extension
of
time
for
the
preparation
and
full
implementation
of
a
Plan
or
amendments
and
deletes
current
requirement
that
a
facility
must
submit
a
complete
copy
of
its
Plan
along
with
its
request
to
the
RA.

Negligible
savings
None
Analyses
assume
that
facilities
incur
planning
and
implementation
costs
in
same
year
that
they
become
regulated
and
that,

on
average,
even
with
an
extension,
Plan
preparation
and
implementation
costs
will
still
be
incurred
during
that
year.
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
19
112.4
Amendment
of
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
by
Regional
Administrator
112.4(
a)

Reduces
the
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
an
RA
in
the
event
of
certain
oil
discharges
and
raises
the
threshold
for
the
size
of
discharges
that
trigger
submission.

Negligible
savings
None
Two
areas
of
burden
reduction
result:

1)

only
facilities
that
experience
two
or
more
42­

gallon
discharges
on
a
rolling
basis
(as
opposed
to
two
or
more
reportable
discharges
of
any
size)
must
submit
information
to
RA;
and
2)

the
amount
of
information
that
EPA
is
requiring
facilities
to
submit
is
reduced
­

namely
facilities
no
longer
have
to
submit
the
entire
Plan.

Negligible
cost
savings
because
few
facilities
experience
two
or
more
reportable
discharges
within
these
time
periods.
112.4(
b)

Clarifies
that
facility
need
not
comply
with
§112.4
until
Plan
is
fully
implemented.

Negligible
increase
None
As
stated
in
§112.3(
b),

new
facilities
must
prepare
and
implement
Plans
before
beginning
operations,

so
they
will
be
subject
to
§112.4
(submitting
information
after
certain
discharges)
before
beginning
operations.

But
few
facilities
will
be
affected
by
extended
Plan
preparation
and
implementation
periods.
112.4(
c)

Requires
that
Plans
be
sent
to
appropriate
State
agency(
ies)

in
charge
of
oil
pollution
control
activities.

Negligible
increase
None
In
some
States,

a
facility
may
have
to
send
copies
of
its
Plan
to
more
than
a
single
State
agency
if
State
has
more
than
a
single
agency
in
charge
of
oil
pollution
control
activities.

But
few
facilities
will
be
affected
because
only
a
few
will
have
to
provide
additional
information.
112.4(
d)

Clarifies
that
the
RA
can
require
an
SPCC
Plan
to
be
amended
after
an
on­
site
review.

Baseline
None
The
cost
to
amend
a
Plan
is
not
counted
because
it
is
already
captured
in
the
baseline
under
the
assumption
that
all
SPCC­

regulated
facilities
prepare
complete
Plans.
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
20
112.4(
e)

and
(f)

Several
editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.5
Amendment
of
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
by
owners
or
operators
112.5(
a)

Several
editorial
changes
and
a
change
in
timing
of
Plan
amendment.

Also
provides
examples
of
types
of
facility
changes
that
may
trigger
an
amendment.

Negligible
savings
Negligible
savings
Allows
up
to
12
months,
rather
than
6
months,
to
implement
an
amendment
after
a
material
change
at
the
facility.
112.5(
b)

Changes
period
for
Plan
review
by
owner
or
operator
from
3
to
5
years.
Requires
owner
or
operator
to
document
that
a
review
was
completed
and
whether
the
Plan
was
amended.

Cost
savings
Negligible
increase
None
None
Expanding
the
review
period
from
3
to
5
years
will
reduce
the
annualized
burden
for
review
activities
by
approximately
40%

annually.
Affixing
a
signed
statement
certifying
the
review
has
taken
place
involves
a
minimal
increase
in
the
burden
to
review
a
Plan.
112.5(
c)

Amends
section
to
require
PE
approval
only
for
technical
Plan
amendments.

Negligible
savings
None
Owners
or
operators
no
longer
need
to
obtain
PE
certification
when
making
non­

technical
changes
to
Plan
.
112.7
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
general
requirements
112.7
States
that
a
Plan
must
be
prepared
in
writing
and
in
accordance
with
the
sequence
specified
in
this
section,
unless
an
equivalent
prevention
Plan
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator
has
been
prepared,

in
which
case
it
must
be
supplemented
with
a
cross­

reference.

Cost
savings
Cost
increase
None
Allows
a
facility
to
cross­

reference
similar
SPCC
provisions
in
existing
federal,
State,

or
other
plans
to
reduce
paperwork­
related
burden.

An
"equivalent"
plan
might
include
a
State
plan,
ICP,

or
other
format.
Most
existing
facilities,
however,
will
need
to
supplement
their
Plan
with
a
cross­

reference.

A
cross­

reference
template
is
provided
in
the
preamble,
which
will
keep
burden
increase
to
a
minimum.
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
21
112.7(
a)

Deletes
requirement
that
Plan
must
include
a
description
of
pre­

1974
spill
events.

Negligible
Savings
None
Deleting
requirement
results
in
a
negligible
burden
reduction
because
existing
facilities
would
have
already
included
such
a
description
in
their
Plans.
112.7(
a)(
2)

Editorial
Changes.

Baseline
Baseline
112.7(
a)(
3)

Requires
the
Plan
to
include
a
description
of
the
physical
plant,
other
site
specific
information,
spill
control
information,
and
spill
countermeasure
information.

Also
requires
that
the
Plan
note
the
location
and
contents
of
oil
in
each
container.

Cost
increase
None
Many
facilities
may
already
have
a
diagram,

in
accordance
with
good
engineering
practice.

A
diagram
is
needed
to
project
spill
trajectories,

to
assist
facility
personnel
in
performing
periodic
inspections,
and
to
assist
in
response
efforts.
Some
facilities,
mostly
small
ones,
will
have
to
add
a
diagram
to
their
Plans.
112.7(
a)(
4)

Requires
that
information
in
the
Plan
enable
a
person
reporting
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b)

to
provide
all
relevant
facility
and
spill
information
and
actions
being
used
to
stop,
remove,
and
mitigate
the
effects
of
the
discharge.

Baseline
None
Clarification
of
existing
requirement
that
all
SPCC
Plans
be
prepared
according
to
good
engineering
practice.
112.7(
a)(
5)

Requires
that
portions
of
the
Plan
describing
procedures
used
after
a
discharge
be
organized
in
a
manner
to
make
them
readily
usable.

Baseline
None
The
provision
does
not
go
beyond
the
current
requirement
to
prepare
the
Plan
in
accordance
with
good
engineering
practice.
112.7(
b)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.7(
c)

Requires
secondary
containment
system
to
prevent
a
discharge
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

Baseline
None
Clarification
of
existing
requirement.
This
addition
does
not
necessarily
make
the
regulation
more
stringent
because
it
is
intended
to
reflect
industry
practice.
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
22
112.7(
d)

Requires
that
if
the
installation
of
structures
(e.
g.,

secondary
containment)

or
equipment
listed
in
this
section
is
not
practicable,
the
owner
or
operator
must
explain
such
impracticability
and
conduct
periodic
integrity
tests
of
containers;
and
periodic
integrity
and
leak
testing
of
valves
and
piping.

Requires
a
contingency
plan
and
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment,
and
material
unless
an
FRP
was
submitted.

Negligible
savings
None
For
those
facilities
that
determine
that
such
structures
are
impracticable,
periodic
testing
means
in
accordance
with
industry
standards
(e.
g.,

API
653).

The
provision
does
not
impose
additional
burden
on
facilities
because
they
were
required
to
follow
good
engineering
practices.
Facilities
with
FRPs
no
longer
have
to
have
a
contingency
plan
following
part
109.
112.7(
e)

Allows
use
of
usual
and
customary
business
records
to
serve
when
a
record
of
inspections
or
tests
is
required
pursuant
to
part
112.

Cost
savings
None
By
allowing
usual
and
customary
business
records
to
meet
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
testing,
the
time
spent
by
facilities
to
perform
Plan
maintenance
and
recordkeeping
activities
is
diminished
(e.
g.,
NPDES
records
of
stormwater
bypass
events,
API
653
and
2610).
(Effect
estimated
in
1997
proposed
rule
ICR.)
112.7(
f)(
1)

Requires
an
owner
or
operator
to
train
oil
handling
personnel
in
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
equipment,
discharge
procedure
protocols,
pollution
control
laws,
facility
operations,
and
the
Plan.

Baseline
None
EPA
is
modifying
current
requirement
to
clarify
that
only
oil­

handling
personnel
need
to
be
trained
and
is
specifying
additional
training
subjects.

This
is
merely
a
clarification
of
good
engineering
practice.
112.7(
f)(
2)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.7(
f)(
3)

Requires
an
owner
or
operator
to
schedule
and
conduct
a
discharge
prevention
briefing
for
oil
handling
personnel
at
least
once
a
year.

Baseline
None
Clarifies
existing
rule
to
require
that
discharge
prevention
briefing
must
occur
at
least
yearly.
112.7(
g)(
1)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
23
112.7(
g)(
2)

Mostly
editorial
changes.

None
Negligible
savings
Current
§112.7(
e)(
9)(
2)

requires
locks
on
valves.

Revision
gives
facilities
discretion
of
alternative
security
measures.
112.7(
g)(
3)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.7(
g)(
4)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.7(
g)(
5)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.7(
h)(
1)

Deletes
requirement
to
comply
with
DOT
provisions.

Negligible
decrease
Baseline
Plan
no
longer
needs
to
discuss
this
requirement.
112.7(
h)(
2)

Requires
a
warning
sign
or
other
device
to
prevent
vehicular
departure
before
detachment
of
transfer
lines.

None
Negligible
savings
Additional
allowable
methods
may
lead
to
some
cost
savings
for
a
small
number
of
facilities
having
tank
car
and
tank
truck
loading
and
unloading
racks.

This
is
merely
a
clarification
of
the
existing
requirement.
112.7(
h)(
3)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.7(
i)

Requires
a
field­

constructed
container
to
be
evaluated
for
risk
of
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophic
failure
after
it
undergoes
repair,

alteration,

or
a
change
in
service
that
may
affect
the
risk
of
failure,
and
appropriate
action
must
be
taken.

Cost
increase
Negligible
increase
This
evaluation
applies
only
to
field­

constructed
aboveground
containers..
112.7(
j)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
24
112.8
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
requirements
for
onshore
facilities
(excluding
production
facilities)
112.8(
a)

References
the
general
requirements
all
facilities
must
meet
and
the
specific
requirements
that
facilities
in
this
category
must
meet.

None
None
Re­

organization
of
current
§112.7.
112.8(
b)(
1)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.8(
b)(
2)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.8(
b)(
3)

Requires
that
drainage
systems
from
undiked
areas
that
have
a
potential
for
an
oil
discharge
be
designed
so
that
discharged
oil
flows
into
ponds,

lagoons,

or
catchment
basins
designed
to
hold
the
oil.

Catchment
basins
must
not
be
located
in
areas
subject
to
periodic
flooding.

None
Negligible
savings
Clarifies
that
design
requirements
for
facility
drainage
systems
are
applicable
only
for
those
undiked
areas
susceptible
to
oil
discharges.
112.8(
b)(
4)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
112.8(
b)(
5)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
112.8(
c)(
1)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
112.8(
c)(
2)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
25
112.8(
c)(
3)

Allows
records
required
for
NPDES
permit
regulations
or
other
similar
customary
business
records
to
beused
to
record
stormwaterbypass
events
for
SPCC
purposes.

Cost
savings
None
Owner
or
operator
may
use
records
already
generated
under
NPDES
rules
to
serve
for
SPCC
purposes.

(This
rule
section
is
providing
a
specific
example
of
how
ordinary
business
records
may
suffice
for
records
of
inspections
and
tests
(§

112.7(
e)).

In
the
1997
Economic
Analysis,
EPA
estimated
that
16,300
oil
storage
and
production
facilities
would
be
impacted.
Savings
already
included
under
§112.7(
e).
112.8(
c)(
4)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
112.8(
c)(
5)

Requires
avoiding
the
use
of
partially
buried
or
bunkered
metallic
tanks
for
the
storage
of
oil,
unless
the
buried
section
of
the
shell
is
protected
by
coatings
or
cathodic
protection.

None
Negligible
savings
Clarifies
that
partially
buried
tanks
may
be
protected
by
cathodic
protection,

in
addition
to
coatings.
112.8(
c)(
6)

Requires
that
an
aboveground
container
be
tested
for
integrity
on
a
regular
basis
and
when
material
repairs
are
done.

Testing
must
combine
visual
inspection
along
with
another
testing
technique.
Allows
records
of
inspections
and
tests
kept
pursuant
to
usual
and
customary
business
practices
to
suffice
for
purposes
of
this
section.

None
Cost
savings
Baseline
None
Currently
required
as
part
of
"good
engineering
practice."

API
653,

which
represents
current
industry
standards
for
tank
inspection
and
repair,

already
requires
this.
Savings
already
included
under
112.7(
e).
112.8(
c)(
7)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
112.8(
c)(
8)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.8(
c)(
9)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
26
112.8(
c)(
10)

Requires
that
a
visible
discharge
of
oil
be
promptly
corrected
and
that
any
accumulation
in
a
diked
area
be
promptly
removed.

Negligible
increase
Negligible
increase
Modification
to
existing
requirement
under
present
§112.7(
e)(
2)(
x),

which
only
requires
leaks
causing
accumulations
in
diked
areas
to
be
promptly
corrected.
Correction
of
all
visible
leaks,

however,

is
standard
industry
practice
under
API
653.
112.8(
c)(
11)

Requires
that
mobile
or
portable
oil
storage
container
be
positioned
to
prevent
a
discharge
and
that
a
secondary
means
of
containment,
sufficient
to
contain
the
capacity
of
the
largest
single
compartment
or
container
(plus
freeboard)

be
furnished.

Negligible
savings
Negligible
savings
Modifies
existing
requirement
that
such
facilities
are
no
longer
required
to
be
located
where
they
will
not
be
subject
to
periodic
flooding
and
Plans
no
longer
need
to
address
this.

Sufficient
freeboard
is
part
of
good
engineering
practice.
112.8(
d)(
1)

A
new
or
replaced
buried
piping
installation
must
be
provided
with
a
protective
wrapping
and
coating
and
must
be
cathodically
protected
unless
the
corrosion
protection
standards
in
part
280
of
this
chapter
are
satisfied.

Any
exposed
section
of
a
buried
line
must
be
examined
and
corrective
action
must
be
taken.

Negligible
increase
Negligible
increase
Modification
to
existing
requirement.

New
requirements
are
only
for
new
or
replaced
piping
installations
but
cathodic
protection
applies
to
all
soil
conditions.
112.8(
d)(
2)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.8(
d)(
3)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.8(
d)(
4)

Requires
conducting
integrity
and
leak
testing
of
buried
piping
at
the
time
of
installation,
modification,
construction,
relocation,

or
replacement.

None
Baseline
Considered
a
good
engineering
practice
(e.
g.,
API
2610).
112.8(
d)(
5)

Editorial
Changes.

None
Baseline
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
27
112.9
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
for
onshore
production
facilities
112.9(
a)

References
the
general
requirements
all
facilities
must
meet
as
well
as
the
specific
requirements
facilities
in
this
category
must
meet.

None
None
Reorganization
of
the
rule.
112.9(
b)(
1)

Editorial
changes.

Cost
savings
Baseline
References
§112.8(
c)(
3).

Savings
already
included
under
§112.7(
e).
112.9(
b)(
2)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.9(
c)(
1)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.9(
c)(
2)

Requires
a
secondary
means
of
containment
for
the
entire
contents
of
the
single
largest
tank
in
use
and
sufficient
freeboard
to
allow
for
precipitation.

None
Baseline
Clarifies
an
existing
requirement.
Sufficient
freeboard
falls
under
good
engineering
practices
as
documented
API
Standard
2610,
section
7.
2.
2.
112.9(
c)(
3)

Requires
all
containers
to
be
visually
examined
for
deterioration
and
maintenance
on
a
scheduled
periodic
basis.

The
examination
must
include
the
foundation
and
supports
of
tanks
that
are
on
or
above
the
surface
of
the
ground.

Negligible
increase
Negligible
increase
Clarifies
an
existing
requirement.
Visual
examinations
must
include
foundations
and
supports
of
tanks
that
are
on
the
ground
in
addition
to
those
that
are
above
the
ground.
112.9(
c)(
4)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.9(
d)(
1)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.9(
d)(
2)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.9(
d)(
3)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
Baseline
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
28
112.10
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
requirements
for
onshore
oil
drilling
and
workover
facilities
112.10(
a)

References
the
general
requirements
all
facilities
must
meet
as
well
as
the
specific
requirements
facilities
in
this
category
must
meet.

None
None
Reorganization
of
the
rule.
112.10(
b)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.10(
c)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.10(
d)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Plan
requirements
for
offshore
oil
drilling,

production,

or
workover
facilities.
112.11(
a)

References
the
general
requirements
all
facilities
must
meet
as
well
as
the
specific
requirements
facilities
in
this
category
must
meet.

None
None
Reorganization
of
the
rule.
112.11(
b)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
c)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
d)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
e)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
f)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
g)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
h)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
EXHIBIT
2­
2
CLASSIFICATION
OF
REVISIONS
TO
THE
OIL
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
REGULATION
Final
Section
of
40
CFR
part
112
Final
Rule
Burden
Classification
Capital
Requirements
Comments
29
112.11(
i)

Requires
simulated
spills
for
testing
and
inspecting
human
and
equipment
pollution
control
and
countermeasure
systems.

Baseline
Baseline
Clarification
of
existing
requirement.
Simulated
spill
testing
requirement
is
also
a
clarification
of
existing
practices.
112.11(
j)

Editorial
changes.

Baseline
None
112.11(
k)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
Deletes
present
§112.7(
e)(
7)(

xii),

which
requires
extraordinary
well
control
measures
to
be
provided
should
emergency
conditions
occur.

None
Negligible
savings
This
language
is
being
made
a
preamble
recommendation.
112.11(
l)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
m)

Editorial
changes..

None
Baseline
112.11(
n)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
o)

Editorial
changes.

None
Baseline
112.11(
p)

Requires
sub­

marine
piping
to
be
maintained
in
good
operating
condition
and
tested
or
inspected
on
a
scheduled
periodic
basis.

Such
tests
or
inspections
must
be
documented
and
records
must
be
kept
in
the
facility.

Baseline
Negligible
savings
Clarification
of
existing
requirement,
although
requirement
is
amended
to
allow
testing
instead
of
inspection.
112.12
­

112.15
(Subpart
C)

Repeats
requirements
found
under
§§

112.8

112.11
for
animal
fats
and
vegetable
oils.

Baseline
Baseline
EPA
is
merely
clarifying
the
applicability
of
the
SPCC
rule
for
these
oil
types.
112.20(
h)

Provides
that
a
response
plan
must
follow
the
format
of
the
model
facility­
specific
response
plan
unless
an
equivalent
response
plan
has
been
prepared
that
is
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator.

Baseline
None
Revision
is
intended
to
track
SPCC
language
in
§112.7
and
is
intended
as
an
editorial
change,
not
a
substantive
one.
8
EPA
conducted
the
following
two
surveys
to
determine
the
scope
and
characteristics
of
the
regulated
community:
(1)
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Facilities
Study,
January
1991;
and
(2)
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,
1996.

30
2.4
ESTIMATING
THE
NUMBER
AND
SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
OF
AFFECTED
FACILITIES
Estimating
the
economic
effects
of
the
final
revisions
first
requires
an
assessment
of
the
regulated
community.
Extensive
studies
were
conducted
to
characterize
the
facilities
that
exceed
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
underground
and
aboveground
oil
storage
capacity
thresholds.
8
For
the
purposes
of
this
analysis,
the
results
of
these
studies
are
presented
in
terms
of:

°Thenumber
of
facilities
above
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
oil
storage
capacity
thresholds;

°Thesize
of
these
facilities,
in
terms
of
tank
storage
capacity
and
number
of
containers
at
each
facility;
and
°Thecategory
of
facility.

The
aggregate
effects
of
some
regulatory
revisions
depend
not
only
on
the
total
number
of
facilities
meeting
the
capacity
thresholds,
but
on
other
factors
such
as
facility
size.
Therefore,
data
are
organized
in
a
way
that
facilitates
calculation
of
the
economic
effects
of
the
final
revisions.
The
information
on
the
number,
size,
and
category
of
affected
facilities
is
presented
in
Chapter
3.
The
remainder
of
this
section
presents
the
method
by
which
this
information
is
assembled
and
used
in
the
estimation
of
economic
effects.

Number
of
Facilities.
For
production
and
storage
facilities
in
most
industrial
categories,
the
baseline
number
of
facilities
was
determined
by
the
1995
SPCC
Survey.
To
develop
a
national
estimate
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities,
EPA
applied
standard
statistical
techniques
to
the
results
from
the
1995
SPCC
Survey.
The
1995
Survey
was
designed
to
ensure
that
data
on
the
sampled
facilities
could
be
statistically
extrapolated
to
the
nation
as
a
whole
for
all
facilities
regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
regulation.
To
accomplish
this,
EPA
selected
facilities
in
industries
likely
to
include
regulated
facilities.
Using
several
national
databases,
facilities
were
randomly
selected
to
ensure
that
the
sample
facilities
reflect
the
actual
universe
of
facilities
that
produce,
use,
or
store
oil
products.
EPA's
approach
for
calculating
the
sample
allows
EPA
to
make
statements
about
surveyed
industries
to
within
10
percent
of
their
true
value
and
within
the
90­
percent
confidence
interval.
9
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,
1996.

31
EPA
used
a
two­
stage
cluster
sampling
methodology.
The
first
stage
involved
randomly
selecting
primary
sampling
units
(PSUs)
that
are
representative
of
the
entire
study
population
(e.
g.,
selecting
contiguous
groups
of
counties
that
are
representative
of
all
counties
in
the
United
States).
The
second
stage
involved
randomly
sampling
individual
enumeration
units
(in
this
case
facilities)
from
each
PSU
that
are
representative
of
all
of
the
other
enumeration
units
within
that
PSU.
Enumeration
units
were
then
extrapolated
to
the
PSU,
or
county,
level
and
PSU­
level
estimates
were
extrapolated
to
the
nation
as
a
whole.

As
described
in
the
analysis
titled
"Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,"
however,
a
few
industry
categories
were
not
sampled
or
had
a
response
rate
too
low
to
allow
extrapolation.
9
In
those
industry
categories,
estimates
of
the
number
of
facilities
from
the
1991
SPCC
Facilities
Study
were
used
to
supplement
the
Survey
totals.
As
shown
in
Exhibit
2­
3,
the
1995
Survey
response
rates
for
all
industry
categories
that
were
used
to
estimate
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
were
at
least
50
percent
and
for
some
categories
exceeded
75
percent.
10
Sources:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,
1996.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
SPCC
Survey
Final
Response
Rate
Chart,
1996.

32
EXHIBIT
2­
3
Survey
Response
Rates
for
Industry
Categories
Used
to
Extrapolate
the
Number
of
Facilities
10
Industry
(SIC)
Total
Population
Surveys
Delivered
Responses
Farms
(01/
02)
1,925,300
16,181
9,220
Mining
(12/
14)
7,959
55
38
Oil
Production
210,223
461
305
Contract
Construction
(16)
34,332
265
150
Food
and
Kindred
Products
(20)
21,049
461
293
Chemical
and
Allied
Products
(28)
12,371
336
246
Petroleum
Refining
and
Related
Industries
(29)
2,117
80
57
Primary
Metal
Industries
(33)
6,726
114
90
Other
Manufacturing
328,138
3,684
2,260
Transportation
133,262
2,255
1,315
Electric
Utility
Plants
(491)
5,523
71
65
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
(5171)
11,200
333
225
Gasoline
Service
Stations/
Vehicle
Rental
(554/
751)
111,697
1,478
768
Fuel
Oil
Dealers
(5983)
4,924
122
93
Hospitals/
Colleges/
Other
Education
(806/
821/
822)
27,570
1,669
875
Military
Installations
(97)
5,
472
163
101
33
For
a
few
other
industry
categories,
the
Survey
analysis
was
thought
to
underestimate
the
national
number
of
SPCC
facilities,
while
the
Facilities
Study
was
thought
to
overestimate
these
facilities.
In
these
cases,
the
midpoint
of
Survey
and
Facilities
Study
estimates
for
these
industry
categories
was
selected
for
use
in
calculating
an
adjusted
national
estimate.
Adjustments
to
the
estimate
were
also
made
to
reflect
the
fact
that
the
survey
design
limited
sampling
to
the
48
contiguous
States.
For
each
industry
sector,
EPA
applied
the
proportion
of
regulated
facilities
for
the
contiguous
48
States
to
the
total
number
of
facilities
in
Hawaii.
The
total
number
of
regulated
facilities
in
Alaska
was
based
on
estimates
from
that
State's
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation.
Following
this
adjustment
and
validation
process,
EPA
arrived
at
an
adjusted
national
estimate
of
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation
for
each
industry
category
in
1995.
This
estimate
was
then
inflated
by
a
one
percent
annual
growth
rate
to
yield
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation
prior
to
these
revisions.

Facility
Characteristics.
For
the
purpose
of
this
analysis,
it
is
assumed,
based
on
data
contained
in
the
1991
SPCC
Facilities
Study
that
facilities
in
each
size
category
(prior
to
the
final
revisions)
have
the
following
number
of
oil
storage
containers:

°
Small
facilities
(total
aboveground
storage
capacity
greater
than
1,320
gallons
but
less
than
or
equal
to
42,000
gallons)
–
2
containers;

°
Medium
facilities
(total
storage
capacity
greater
than
42,000
gallons
but
less
than
or
equal
to
one
million
gallons)
–
7
containers;
and
°
Large
facilities
(total
storage
capacity
greater
than
one
million
gallons)
–
17
containers.

Results
of
the
1995
SPCC
Survey
are
consistent
with
these
estimates
of
the
number
of
containers
at
an
average
facility
in
each
size
category.
The
1995
SPCC
Survey
also
subdivides
the
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
by
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(SIC)
code
among
a
wide
variety
of
industry
and
business
types.
However,
for
purposes
of
this
analysis,
facilities
were
grouped
into
two
distinct
categories:
production
facilities
(facilities
whose
operations
and
oil
storage
activities
primarily
involve
oil
production)
and
storage
facilities
(all
other
SPCC­
regulated
facilities).
Also,
facilities
were
divided
into
existing
and
new
facilities.

Facility
Category.
To
facilitate
the
use
of
the
data,
regulated
facilities
were
categorized
into
several
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(NAICS)
categories,
including
those
associated
with
petroleum
production,
processing
(refining),
distribution,
and
consumption.
EPA's
1995
SPCC
Survey
and
the
1991
SPCC
Facilities
Study
determined
that
the
majority
of
regulated
facilities
fall
into
several
11
NAICS
Codes
and
the
corresponding
SIC
codes
can
be
found
in
the
Federal
Register
at
61
FR
57006,
November
5,
1996.

34
industry
sectors.
These
sectors
and
the
corresponding
NAICS
codes
are
presented
in
Exhibit
2­
43.

EXHIBIT
2­
4
Primary
Industry
Sectors
and
NAICS
Codes
Covered
by
the
SPCC
Regulation
11
CATEGORY
NAICS
Codes
Crop
and
Animal
Production
111­
112
Crude
Petroleum
and
Natural
Gas
Extraction
211111
Coal
Mining,
Non­
Metallic
Mineral
Mining
and
Quarrying
2121/
2123/
213114/
213116
Electric
Power
Generation,
Transmission,
and
Distribution
2211
Heavy
Construction
234
Petroleum
and
Coal
Products
Manufacturing
324
Other
Manufacturing
31­
33
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
42271
Gasoline
Stations/
Automotive
Rental
and
Leasing
4471/
5321
Heating
Oil
Dealers
454311
Transportation
(including
Pipelines),
Warehousing,
and
Marinas
482­
486/
488112­
48819/
4883/
48849/
492­
493/
71393
Elementary
and
Secondary
Schools,
Colleges
6111­
6113
Hospitals/
Nursing
and
Residential
Care
Facilities
622­
623
Estimation
of
the
number
of
facilities
by
industry
category
and
size
group
allows
the
economic
analysis
to
reflect
costs
that
vary
by
industry
or
size,
thereby
providing
more
detailed
results.
35
2.
5
UNIT
COST
ESTIMATES
Unit
costs
were
developed
for
the
non­
negligible
final
provisions.
Unit
costs
to
an
existing
facility
for
the
finalized
revisions
and,
where
applicable,
corresponding
provisions
are
given
as
follows:

°
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemption
­
§112.1(
d)(
6);
°
Five­
year
Review
­
§112.5(
b);
°
Oil
Discharge
­
§112.4(
c);
°
Plan
Modification
­
§112.5(
a);
°
Recordkeeping
­
§112.7(
e);
°
Cross­
Reference
Matrix
­
§112.3(
a);
°
Facility
Diagram
­
§112.7(
a)(
3);
°
Brittle
Fracture
Records
­
§112.7(
i);
and
°
Costs
to
Read
and
Understand
the
Rule.

Unit
costs
to
a
new
facility
for
the
finalized
revisions
and,
where
applicable,
corresponding
provisions
are
given
as
follows:

°
New
Plan
­
§112.3(
a);
°
Oil
Discharge
­
§112.4(
c);
°
Plan
Modification
­
§112.5(
a);
and
°
Recordkeeping.

2.
6
TOTAL
COSTS
OF
PROPOSED
REVISIONS
Once
unit
costs
are
established
for
the
final
revisions,
the
total
costs
are
estimated
by
multiplying
unit
costs
estimates
by
the
estimated
number
of
affected
facilities.
For
example,
the
economic
effect
of
a
revision
that
affects
each
facility,
independent
of
facility
size,
is
estimated
by
multiplying
the
unit
costs
of
the
revision
by
the
total
number
of
facilities
affected
by
the
final
rule.
Alternatively,
the
cost
of
a
final
revision
that
depends
on
facility
size
is
estimated
by
multiplying
the
number
of
small,
medium,
and
large
facilities
by
the
respective
unit
costs
that
small,
medium,
and
large
facilities
would
likely
incur
in
complying
with
the
provision.
Chapter
3
presents
the
results
of
the
total
cost
calculations
for
the
final
rule
and
regulatory
alternatives
in
terms
of:

°
First­
year
costs
incurred
by
small,
medium,
and
large
facilities;
°
Subsequent­
year
costs
incurred
by
small,
medium,
and
large
facilities;
and
°
Aggregate
costs.
36
CHAPTER
3
ESTIMATED
UNIT
COSTS
AND
TOTAL
COSTS
OF
COMPLIANCE
This
chapter
presents
estimates
of
the
unit
costs
to
a
facility
of
complying
with
the
final
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
regulation
and
provides
the
corresponding
data
and
assumptions
used
to
derive
these
estimates.
The
unit
costs
estimates
are
developed
according
to
the
general
methodology
described
in
Chapter
2
and
are
combined
with
the
number
of
affected
facilities
estimated
in
Section
3.
4
to
yield
estimates
of
the
total
costs
of
the
final
revisions.

As
described
in
Chapter
2,
for
purposes
of
this
Economic
Analysis,
the
final
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
have
been
classified
into
the
following
five
categories:
baseline,
cost
increase,
negligible
increase,
cost
savings,
or
negligible
savings.
Baseline
provisions
are
assumed
to
represent
current
industry
practices
or
standards
and/
or
good
engineering
practices
already
required
by
the
existing
regulation.
Therefore,
baseline
provisions
are
assumed
to
result
in
neither
incremental
costs
nor
benefits
attributable
to
this
final
rule.
Provisions
classified
as
negligible
increase
or
negligible
savings
are
mandatory
requirements
but
are
assumed
to
impose
costs
on
facilities
that
are
minimal
in
the
aggregate
relative
to
the
total
costs
of
the
non­
negligible
provisions.
Provisions
classified
as
cost
increase
or
cost
savings
are
expected
to
result
in
non­
negligible
costs
or
cost
savings,
and
are
estimated
in
this
chapter.

Because
certain
unit
costs
are
likely
to
vary
by
facility
size,
this
EA
develops
separate
unit
cost
estimates
for
small,
medium,
and
large
facilities,
where
appropriate.
Section
3.
1
outlines
the
data
collection
process
used
to
estimate
costs.
Section
3.
2
presents
the
wage
rates
used
in
the
unit
cost
estimates.
Section
3.3
presents
the
unit
cost
estimates
for
facilities
by
provision.
The
universe
of
regulated
facilities
is
estimated
in
Section
3.4.
Finally,
Section
3.5
details
the
total
costs
incurred
by
regulated
facilities.

3.1
DATA
COLLECTION
To
collect
data
for
the
estimation
of
unit
costs,
selected
EPA
Regional
personnel,
State
officials,
and
contractor
staff
with
experience
in
the
existing
SPCC
program
and
a
knowledge
of
the
costs
and
level
of
effort
involved
in
developing
and
implementing
spill
prevention
programs
and
contingency
plans
were
contacted.
Additionally,
data
from
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
(SPCC)
Facilities
Study
and
a
review
of
SPCC­
related
studies
provided
information
useful
for
the
development
of
the
unit
cost
estimates.
Unit
cost
data
were
obtained
from
various
engineering
cost
documents.
The
collection
of
primary
data
from
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
or
industry
trade
associations
was
beyond
the
scope
of
this
report.
12
United
States
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation,
March
2001.

13
Overhead
costs
were
computed
separately
from
BLS
data
and
were
assumed
to
be
an
additional
17
of
the
total
wage
rate,
which
is
comprised
of
direct
wages
and
salaries
and
employee
benefits,
as
reported
by
BLS.
The
March
2001
wage
estimates
were
adjusted
to
December
2001
estimates
using
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor's
December
2001
Employment
Cost
Index
for
private
industry.
Adjustments
to
wage
rates
for
overhead
costs
are
based
on
the
results
of
several
earlier
Information
Collection
Requests
that
adjusted
BLS
wage
rates
by
an
additional
17
percent
based
on
the
results
of
a
survey
of
chemical
industries
and
trade
associations.
(See,
for
example,
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Report
for
the
Proposed
Lead
Rule,
EPA
ICR
#1363.08.)

37
Given
the
number
and
diversity
of
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements,
developing
a
set
of
unit
cost
estimates
that
accurately
reflects
the
amount
facilities
will
expend
to
comply
with
the
final
revisions
is
difficult.
Unit
compliance
costs
may
vary
not
only
by
size
of
facility
but
also
by
container
configuration,
geographic
location,
industry,
facility
age,
and
other
factors.
In
addition,
for
some
final
revisions
in
which
unit
costs
are
estimated,
a
facility
has
several
alternatives
regarding
how
it
may
comply.
These
compliance
alternatives
will
vary
on
a
facility­
by­
facility
basis.
Thus,
the
data
collected
on
unit
costs
from
regulatory
officials
and
contractor
personnel
often
are
fragmentary
and
subjective.
Developing
a
myriad
of
unit
cost
estimates
that
capture
all
factors
affecting
the
costs
of
compliance
with
each
revision,
however,
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
report.
Hence,
the
unit
cost
estimates
presented
below
should
be
considered
representative
of
the
possible
costs
to
be
incurred
by
facilities,
rather
than
precise
estimates
of
the
actual
costs
that
will
be
incurred.

3.
2
WAGE
RATES
To
determine
the
unit
costs
for
typical
new
and
existing
respondents
in
each
size
category,
the
unit
time
estimates
for
compliance
activities
are
multiplied
by
the
hourly
wage
rates
for
the
appropriate
categories
of
labor
conducting
these
activities.
The
labor
wage
rates
for
private
industry
are
derived
from
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor's
Employment
Cost
Indexes
and
Levels.
12
The
2001
wage
rates
include
wages
and
salaries;
benefit
costs,
including
paid
leave,
supplemental
pay,
insurance,
retirement
and
savings,
legally
required
benefits,
severance
pay,
and
supplemental
unemployment
benefits.
EPA
further
adjusted
these
rates
to
reflect
associated
overhead
costs.
13
These
wage
rates
reflect
private
industry
averages,
which
were
estimated
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(BLS)
based
on
a
survey
of
32,200
occupations
within
7,500
establishments
in
the
private
sector.
These
wage
rates
reflect
industry
averages,
which
may
underestimate
the
actual
wages
received
by
some
SPCC
regulated
facility
personnel
but
overestimate
the
actual
wage
rate
received
by
other
facility
personnel.
The
estimated
wage
rates
used
in
the
analysis
are:
38
Management:
$48.95/
hour;
Technical:
$32.60/
hour;
and
Clerical:
$20.69/
hour.

Overhead
rates
can
be
calculated
using
various
formulas.
The
reasons
for
using
a
17
percent
overhead
rate
are
described
above.
To
see
how
overall
costs
might
change,
we
also
calculated
alternative
overhead
rates
based
on
recommendations
in
Estimating
Costs
for
the
Economic
Benefits
of
RCRA
Noncompliance
(September
1997).
The
guidance
suggests
that
overhead
rates
should
be
calculated
by
adding
50
to
100
percent
of
the
base
salary
and
fringe
benefit
costs.
We
estimate
that
raising
the
overhead
rate
to
50
percent
would
increase
the
wages
listed
above
by
28
percent.
If
a
100
percent
overhead
rate
were
used,
these
wages
would
increase
by
71
percent.
These
alternatives
may
be
high
because
the
rates
include
profit
as
well
as
overhead.
The
alternative
overhead
rate
is
used
to
determine
alternative
total
costs
and
savings
and
is
found
in
the
discussion
of
total
respondent
costs
in
Section
6(
f)
of
the
supporting
statement
to
the
Information
Collection
Request.

3.
3
UNIT
COSTS
The
basis
for
each
unit
cost
estimate
is
explained
in
this
section.
Unit
costs
estimates
are
calculated
for
revised
provisions
that
are
expected
to
affect
the
burden
posed
to
a
facility.
Of
these
revised
provisions,
the
vast
majority
are
intended
to
reduce
the
overall
burden
to
a
regulated
facility.
Specifically,
the
changes
to
the
rule
that
EPA
expects
to
affect
the
burden
of
the
SPCC
program
are:

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
and
112.1(
d)(
4).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
under
the
SPCC
program
a
completely
buried
tank
that
is
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
of
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
a
facility
having
a
single
container
with
a
storage
capacity
greater
than
660
gallons,
but
aggregate
aboveground
storage
capacity
of
1,
320
gallons
or
less
of
oil.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
5).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
any
container
with
a
storage
capacity
of
less
than
55
gallons
of
oil.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
6).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
parts
thereof
(except
at
oil
production,
oil
recovery,
and
oil
recycling
facilities)
used
exclusively
for
wastewater
treatment
and
not
used
to
meet
any
other
requirement
of
part
112.
39
°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
f).
EPA
is
granting
its
Regional
Administrators
the
authority
to
require
any
facility
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
EPA
under
section
311(
j)
of
the
CWA,
but
otherwise
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
prepare
an
SPCC
Plan
under
part
112,
to
prepare
and
implement
a
total
or
partial
SPCC
Plan
where
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.3(
a).
EPA
is
requiring
an
SPCC­
regulated
facility
to
amend
its
SPCC
Plan
to
conform
with
the
new
sequence
and
requirements
of
the
final
rule,
if
necessary,
within
six
months
of
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
and
to
implement
the
Plan
within
12
months.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.3(
e)(
1).
EPA
is
changing
from
eight
hours
to
four
hours
the
minimum
number
of
hours
that
a
facility
must
be
attended
for
it
to
be
required
to
maintain
a
copy
of
an
SPCC
Plan
on
the
premises.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.4(
a).
EPA
is
changing
the
threshold
for
submission
of
information
following
certain
discharges
and
is
reducing
the
amount
of
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
after
such
discharges.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.5(
b)
and
(c).
EPA
is
changing
the
Plan
review
period
from
three
to
five
years
and
is
requiring
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
to
document
the
completion
of
the
review
and
evaluation.
A
Professional
Engineer's
(PE)
certification
of
a
Plan
amendment
will
now
only
be
required
for
technical
changes
made
to
the
Plan.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7.
EPA
is
allowing
an
owner
or
operator
to
use
an
alternate
format
from
that
specified
in
the
rule
if
the
format
is
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator,
meets
all
applicable
rule
requirements
or
is
supplemented
so
that
it
does,
and
is
cross­
referenced
to
those
requirements.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
a)(
2).
EPA
is
allowing
a
facility
to
deviate
from
most
substantive
requirements
if
the
owner
or
operator
explains
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
a)(
3).
EPA
is
requiring
an
SPCC­
regulated
facility
to
include
with
its
Plan
a
facility
diagram,
which
must
mark
the
location
and
contents
of
each
container.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
d).
EPA
is
exempting
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
which
has
submitted
a
Facility
Response
Plan
(FRP)
from
the
requirement
to
provide
a
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment,
and
materials
to
expeditiously
control
and
remove
any
quantity
of
discharged
oil
that
may
be
harmful.
40
°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
e).
EPA
is
allowing
records
of
inspections
and
tests
kept
under
usual
and
customary
business
practices
to
suffice
for
records
of
inspections
and
tests
required
under
part
112.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.7(
i).
EPA
is
requiring
the
owner
or
operator
to
evaluate
a
field­
constructed
aboveground
container
for
risk
of
discharge
or
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe
when
the
container
undergoes
a
repair,
alteration,
or
a
change
in
service
that
might
affect
the
risk
of
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe.

The
effect
that
each
of
these
changes
is
expected
to
have
on
burden
and
costs
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
below.
In
addition
to
these
changes,
EPA
has
also
estimated
the
burden
and
costs
that
will
be
incurred
by
facilities
to
read
and
understand
the
final
rule,
which
is
discussed
at
the
conclusion
of
this
section.

3.3.1
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
and
112.1(
d)(
4)

EPA
has
decided
to
no
longer
regulate,
under
the
SPCC
program,
a
completely
buried
tank
that
is
also
regulated
under
the
UST
program
(40
CFR
part
280
and
or
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281).
This
decision
decreases
both
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
as
well
as
the
overall
burden
for
some
other
facilities
that
will
continue
to
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program.
In
total,
about
26,000
facilities
will
be
affected
by
this
change.
EPA
believes,
based
on
Survey
data,
that
a
little
over
14,
000
facilities
will
no
longer
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program
as
a
result
of
this
change.
These
facilities
represent
those
that
are
SPCC­
regulated
because
they
have
a
completely
buried
storage
capacity
in
excess
of
42,000
gallons
that
is
also
regulated
by
the
UST
program.
The
remaining
12,
000
facilities,
although
they
will
continue
to
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program
due
to
their
aboveground
storage
capacity,
will
experience
a
significant
reduction
in
burden
because
their
Plans
will
no
longer
have
to
include
a
discussion
of
their
completely
buried
tanks.
As
a
result,
the
burden
reduction
to
some
large
facilities
will
make
them
more
similar
to
a
medium
facility
and
some
medium
facilities
will
experience
a
burden
reduction
that
will
make
them
more
like
a
small
facility.
The
effect
that
this
change
is
expected
to
have
on
the
number
and
makeup
of
regulated
facilities
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.
4.
1
of
this
document.

3.3.2
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii)

EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
a
facility
under
the
SPCC
program
merely
because
it
has
a
single
container
with
an
aboveground
storage
capacity
of
greater
than
660
gallons
of
oil.
Instead
a
facility
must
have
an
aggregate
aboveground
capacity
of
greater
than
1,320
gallons
to
be
regulated.
41
Analysis
of
the
Survey
data
showed
that
about
10.5
percent
of
small
facilities
would
no
longer
be
regulated
if
this
option
was
enacted.
As
a
result,
EPA
expects
that
about
39,623
small
facilities
(39,
231
existing
facilities
and
392
new
facilities)
will
no
longer
be
regulated.
Of
this
total,
approximately
70
percent,
or
about
27,700
facilities
are
small
farms.
Other
industries
that
are
likely
to
experience
a
significant
decrease
in
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
include
primary
and
secondary
schools
and
colleges
as
well
as
gasoline
service
stations.
The
remaining
number
of
facilities
are
evenly
distributed
among
the
manufacturing
and
transportation
sectors
of
the
economy.
The
effect
that
this
change
is
expected
to
have
on
the
number
and
makeup
of
regulated
facilities
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.
4.
1
of
this
document.

3.3.3
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
5)

EPA
has
also
decided
to
no
longer
regulate
a
container
having
an
oil
storage
capacity
less
than
55
gallons.
The
55­
gallon
container
is
the
most
widely
used
commercial
bulk
container,
and
is
easily
counted.
Containers
below
55
gallons
in
capacity
are
typically
end­
use
consumer
containers.
Fifty­
five
gallon
containers
are
also
the
lowest
size
bulk
container
that
can
be
handled
by
a
person.
Containers
above
that
size
typically
require
equipment
for
movement
and
handling.
EPA
considered
a
minimum
container
size
of
one
barrel.
However,
though
a
barrel
or
42
gallons
is
a
common
volumetric
measurement
size
for
oil,
it
is
not
a
common
container
size.
Therefore,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
institute
a
42­
gallon
minimum
container
size.
Facilities
are
expected
to
benefit
from
this
change
in
two
ways.
First,
facilities
will
no
longer
have
to
include
a
discussion
of
these
containers
in
their
SPCC
Plans
and
second,
these
containers
will
no
longer
count
in
determining
a
facility's
total
oil
storage
capacity.
EPA
believes
that
in
the
event
of
an
oil
spill,
the
amount
of
oil
that
would
be
spilled
from
containers
of
this
size
poses
a
minimal
threat
to
the
environment,
which
does
not
warrant
the
burden
to
facilities
to
discuss
prevention,
control,
and
countermeasure
procedures
in
their
SPCC
Plans.

As
a
result
of
this
change,
some
facilities
may
no
longer
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program.
These
facilities
most
likely
are
retail
establishments
that
sell
large
quantities
of
oil
in
small
containers
(e.
g.,
quarts
of
motor
oil).
While
relatively
few
of
these
facilities
were
likely
to
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program,
EPA
realized
the
potential
that
some
could
have
been
regulated
due
to
their
large
volumes
of
inventory
and
thus
has
modified
the
rule
to
no
longer
regulate
such
facilities.

Many
other
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
are
also
likely
to
benefit
from
this
change
as
they
no
longer
must
include
a
discussion
in
their
SPCC
Plans
on
the
procedures
and
equipment
used
to
prevent
the
discharge
of
oil
from
small
containers.
This
would
primarily
affect
new
facilities
as
existing
facilities
would
have
already
incurred
the
burden
to
discuss
these
containers
in
their
Plans.
Existing
facilities
would
benefit
during
their
formal
SPCC
five­
year
review
as
they
no
longer
would
have
to
update
their
42
discussion
of
these
containers.
Because
only
a
small
number
of
facilities
enter
the
SPCC
program
each
year
and
because
only
a
fraction
of
these
facilities
would
expend
a
significant
portion
of
their
burden
preparing
an
SPCC
Plan
to
discuss
small
containers,
EPA
has
chosen
not
to
quantify
the
burden
reduction
associated
with
this
rulemaking
to
avoid
overestimating
the
effects.

3.3.4
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
6)

Section
112.1(
d)(
6)
states
that
wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
parts
thereof
(except
at
oil
production,
oil
recovery,
and
oil
recycling
facilities)
used
exclusively
for
wastewater
treatment
and
not
used
to
meet
any
other
requirement
of
part
112
are
exempted
from
part
112.
Facilities
or
parts
thereof
used
solely
for
the
purpose
of
storing
or
using
oil
are
not
exempted,
and
their
capacity
must
be
counted
as
part
of
the
storage
capacity
of
the
facility.
Any
oil
storage
capacity
associated
with
or
incidental
to
such
facilities
continues
to
be
subject
to
part
112.
At
permitted
wastewater
treatment
facilities,
storage
capacity
includes
bulk
storage
containers,
hydraulic
equipment
associated
with
the
wastewater
treatment
process,
containers
used
to
store
oil
which
feed
an
emergency
generator
associated
with
wastewater
treatment,
and
slop
tanks
or
other
containers
used
to
store
product
resulting
from
wastewater
treatment.

EPA
anticipates
that
section
112.1(
d)(
6)
will
require
certain
facilities
to
recalculate
their
storage
capacity
to
exclude
wastewater
treatment
systems.
As
a
result,
some
facilities
may
no
longer
meet
the
criteria
for
preparing
an
SPCC
plan
or
FRP
and,
thus,
may
no
longer
be
covered
by
the
part
112
regulations.
These
facilities
avoid
the
costs
of
an
existing
facility,
but
incur
some
costs
in
reading
and
understanding
the
exemption
and
in
recalculating
their
storage
capacity
to
determine
if
they
qualify
(see
Exhibit
3­
1).

For
other
facilities
that
still
meet
SPCC/
FRP
criteria
after
recalculating
their
storage
capacity
to
exclude
applicable
treatment
systems,
they
must
amend
their
SPCC
plan
and
FRP
and
have
the
plans
certified
by
a
Professional
Engineer,
pursuant
to
section
112.5.
Exhibit
3­
1
illustrates
the
expected
burden
and
labor
cost
to
facilities
that
meet
the
wastewater
treatment
exemption
criteria
and
subsequently
must
modify
their
SPCC
plan
accordingly.

Exhibit
3­
1
Facility
Unit
Burden
and
Labor
Cost
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemption
Matrix
Type
of
Facility
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
Labor
Cost
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
No
Longer
Meet
Criteria
0.5
1.
3
0.0
1.
8
$65
43
Meet
Criteria
0.0
4.
5
1.0
5.
5
$167
3.3.5
40
CFR
112.3(
a)

EPA
is
requiring
an
SPCC­
regulated
facility
to
amend
its
SPCC
Plan
to
conform
with
the
new
sequence
and
requirements
of
the
rule
within
six
months
of
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
and
another
six
months
to
implement
any
amendments
made
to
the
Plan.
EPA
had
originally
proposed
to
allow
facilities
60
days
from
the
date
of
the
final
rule
to
maintain
and
prepare
a
fully
implemented
SPCC
Plan,
but
was
persuaded
by
commenters
to
extend
this
period.

Because
the
format
and
sequence
of
the
rule
has
changed
substantially
and
because
many
facilities
will
find
that
their
existing
SPCC
Plan
no
longer
follows
the
new
sequence
of
the
rule,
EPA
is
providing
a
cross­
reference
template
for
facilities.
This
template
is
found
in
the
preamble
to
the
rule
and
lists
each
requirement
in
the
final
rule,
provides
the
corresponding
paragraph
of
the
previous
rule,
and
leaves
a
space
where
a
facility
can
display
the
location
of
the
provision
in
its
Plan.

While
some
facilities
may
need
to
make
minor
amendments
to
their
Plan
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule,
the
majority
of
facilities
most
likely
will
not
need
to
make
any
significant
revisions
beyond
preparing
the
cross­
referencing
matrix
as
it
is
assumed
that
these
facilities
already
have
SPCC
Plans
in
good
standing.
New
facilities
are
not
expected
to
incur
this
burden
as
it
is
expected
that
they
will
prepare
their
Plans
in
accordance
with
the
new
sequence
of
the
rule.

Exhibit
3­
2
summarizes
the
estimated
burden
likely
to
be
incurred
by
each
type
of
model
facility
to
complete
the
cross­
reference
matrix
and
append
it
to
their
existing
SPCC
Plan.
The
exhibit
shows
that
it
will
require
approximately
one­
half
hour
of
a
technical
person's
time
to
complete
the
matrix
and
attach
it
to
his
facility's
Plan.
The
burden
associated
with
this
activity
is
not
expected
to
vary
significantly
among
different
types
of
model
facilities
because
this
activity
is
more
closely
related
to
the
sequence
of
the
new
rule
and
format
of
the
existing
Plan
and
not
to
the
total
storage
capacity
of
a
facility.
44
Exhibit
3­
2
Facility
Unit
Burden
and
Cost
Cross­
Reference
Matrix
Type
of
Facility
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
Labor
Cost
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Small
0.0
0.
5
0.0
0.
5
$16
Medium
0.0
0.
5
0.0
0.
5
$16
Large
0.0
0.
5
0.0
0.
5
$16
EPA
understands
that
some
facilities
may
elect
to
reorganize
their
Plans
to
follow
the
new
sequence
of
the
rule.
However,
EPA
believes
that
most
of
these
facilities
would
only
elect
to
undergo
this
additional
burden
if
other
significant
amendments
need
to
be
made
to
the
Plan.
Such
an
activity
would
likely
occur
during
a
formal
review
period
of
the
Plan,
in
which
case,
the
burden
associated
with
reorganizing
the
Plan
would
be
incidental
to
the
baseline
burden
associated
with
making
amendments.

3.3.6
40
CFR
112.3(
e)(
1)

EPA
has
changed
from
eight
hours
to
four
hours
the
minimum
number
of
hours
that
a
facility
must
be
attended
for
it
to
be
required
to
maintain
a
copy
of
an
SPCC
Plan
on
the
premises.
In
the
event
that
a
facility
is
manned
less
than
four
hours
a
day,
the
Plan
must
be
kept
at
the
nearest
field
office.

EPA
has
made
this
change
because
the
Agency
believes
that
it
is
important
to
have
a
copy
of
the
Plan
located
at
the
facility
in
the
event
of
an
oil
discharge
and
because
a
small
number
of
facilities
mistakenly
believed
that
they
did
not
need
to
keep
a
copy
of
the
SPCC
Plan
at
the
facility
if
the
facility
was
manned
by
an
individual
working
seven
and
one­
half
hours
at
the
facility
with
an
additional
one­
half
hour
for
lunch.
While
EPA
has
amended
the
rule
to
clarify
that
a
copy
of
the
Plan
must
be
kept
at
a
facility
unless
it
is
principally
unmanned
during
the
day,
this
amendment
will
have
relatively
little
effect
on
the
overall
burden
of
the
SPCC
program
because
the
Plan
previously
must
have
been
kept
and
maintained
at
the
nearest
field
office
if
not
at
the
facility.

3.3.7
40
CFR
112.4(
a)

EPA
is
reducing
the
information
that
a
facility
owner
or
operator
must
submit
to
the
Agency
after
certain
discharges
as
well
as
raising
the
threshold
for
the
size
of
discharges
that
trigger
submission
under
§112.4(
a).
To
begin,
EPA
had
required
that
an
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
subject
to
the
SPCC
rule
provide
certain
information
to
45
EPA
after
a
discharge
of
1,000
gallons
of
oil
into
or
upon
the
navigable
waters
of
the
United
States
or
adjoining
shorelines
in
a
single
event,
or
when
two
reportable
spills
occur
within
any
twelve
month
period.
Reportable
discharges
are
defined
at
40
CFR
110.3.
The
information
EPA
required
includes:

°
The
name
of
the
facility;
°
Name(
s)
of
the
owner
or
operator
of
the
facility;
°
Location
of
the
facility;
°
Date
and
year
of
initial
facility
operations;
°
Maximum
storage
or
handling
capacity
of
the
facility
and
normal
daily
throughput;
°
Description
of
the
facility,
including
maps,
flow
diagrams,
and
topographic
maps;
°
A
complete
copy
of
the
SPCC
Plan
with
any
amendments;
°
The
cause(
s)
of
such
spill,
including
a
failure
analysis
of
system
or
subsystem
in
which
the
failure
occurred;
°
The
corrective
actions
and/
or
countermeasures
taken,
including
an
adequate
description
of
equipment
repairs
and/
or
replacements;
°
Additional
preventive
measures
taken
or
contemplated
to
minimize
the
possibility
of
recurrence;
and
°
Such
other
information
as
the
Regional
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
pertinent
to
the
Plan
or
spill
event.

EPA
is
revising
this
list
of
information,
to
be
provided
to
the
RA
in
the
event
of
a
reportable
discharge
under
§112.4(
a),
to
no
longer
include
a
complete
copy
of
the
SPCC
Plan
in
the
report.
Furthermore,
EPA
has
clarified
in
the
final
rule
that
a
facility
must
only
include
maps,
flow
diagrams,
and
topographic
maps
as
necessary
to
describe
the
facility
and
discharge.
In
some
instances,
a
facility
may
still
need
to
submit
this
information
if
the
RA
deems
it
appropriate.

EPA
is
also
raising
the
threshold
for
the
size
of
discharges
that
trigger
submission
under
the
final
rule.
First,
EPA
is
establishing
a
de
minimis
spill
volume
of
42
U.
S.
gallons
for
a
facility
to
use
in
determining
whether
or
not
a
discharge
reportable
to
the
National
Response
Center
under
40
CFR
part
110
counts
towards
one
of
the
two
discharges
under
1,000
gallons
also
reportable
to
EPA.
EPA
is
also
clarifying
in
the
final
rule
that
facilities
are
subject
to
a
"rolling
basis"
for
purposes
of
tracking
discharges
under
§112.4(
a).
Under
a
rolling
basis,
each
reportable
discharge
under
§112.4(
a)
triggers
the
start
of
a
new
twelve
month
reporting
period.

While
EPA
believes
that
these
changes
to
the
rule
will
cause
many
facilities
that
experience
discharges
to
incur
less
of
a
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden,
the
remote
possibility
that
any
one
particular
facility
would
experience
either
a
1,
000
gallon
discharge
or
two
reportable
discharges
under
§112.4(
a)
within
a
twelve
month
period
is
14
The
rule
suggests
the
facility
owner
or
operator
use
following
statement
to
fulfill
the
requirement:
"I
have
completed
review
and
evaluation
of
the
SPCC
Plan
for
(name
of
facility)
on
(date)
and
will
(will
not)
amend
the
Plan
as
a
result."

46
so
small
that
the
cumulative
information
burden
that
would
be
reduced
by
these
changes
for
the
entire
regulated
universe
of
facilities
is
negligible.

3.3.8
40
CFR
112.5(
b)
and
(c)

EPA
has
extended
the
period
in
which
an
owner
or
operator
must
review
and
evaluate
a
facility's
SPCC
Plan
from
three
to
five
years.
EPA
is
making
this
change
because
it
believes
that
an
extension
of
the
review
period
will
reduce
the
information
collection
burden,
while
causing
little
or
no
increased
risk
to
the
environment.

EPA
is
also
requiring
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
document
when
a
review
of
the
Plan
has
been
completed
and
to
state
whether
the
Plan
was
amended
as
a
result
of
the
review.
This
requirement,
however,
does
not
add
to
the
burden
of
the
SPCC
program
as
defined
by
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
because
it
falls
outside
the
definition
of
information
found
at
5
CFR
part
1320.
14
In
any
event,
the
requirement
represents
a
negligible
increase
to
the
time
needed
to
review
the
Plan.

EPA
has
also
amended
the
SPCC
rule
under
40
CFR
112.5(
c)
to
provide
that
a
Professional
Engineer
need
only
certify
technical
amendments
made
to
the
SPCC
Plan.
This
also
is
expected
to
result
in
a
minor
burden
reduction
for
facilities
as
the
rule
previously
stated
that
any
amendment
needed
to
be
certified
by
a
PE.
However,
EPA
believes,
for
purposes
of
this
analysis,
that
the
effect
of
this
change
on
the
cumulative
burden
of
the
program
will
be
minimal
and
therefore
did
not
quantify
this
effect
to
avoid
overstating
burden
reduction.

The
overall
effect
of
expanding
the
review
period
from
once
every
three
years
to
once
every
five
years
is
expected
to
reduce
the
annual
unit
burden
associated
with
the
review
process
by
0.
6
hours
for
an
average
small
facility,
0.
9
hours
for
a
medium
facility,
and
1.
3
hours
for
a
large
facility.
These
estimates
were
derived
by
dividing
the
estimated
unit
burden
associated
with
performing
a
review
by
five,
rather
than
three,
to
estimate
the
average
annual
burden
per
facility.
EPA
notes
that
no
facility
owner
or
operator
will
have
to
perform
the
five­
year
review
in
the
first
two
years
following
the
implementation
of
this
rulemaking.
This
results
from
the
fact
that
all
existing
facilities
are
assumed
to
have
performed
a
review
within
the
past
three
years
to
comply
with
the
previous
requirements
of
this
rule.
Exhibit
3­
3
presents
the
estimated
burden
reduction
for
an
average
small,
medium,
and
large
facility
to
complete
this
activity
in
the
first
and
second
years
following
the
rulemaking
as
well
as
in
subsequent
years.
47
EXHIBIT
3­
3
Estimated
Reduction
in
Unit
Burden
Hours
and
Unit
Costs
Five­
Year
Review
Average
Facility
(First
and
Second
Years
/
Subsequent
Years)

Type
of
Facility
Annual
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
O&
M
Costs
Unit
Cost
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Small
(0.
3)
/
(0.
1)
(1.0)
/
(0.4)
(0.
2)
/
(0.
1)
(1.5)
/
(0.6)
($
5)
/
($
3)
($
57)
/
($
23)

Medium
(0.
3)
/
(0.
1)
(1.6)
/
(0.7)
(0.
3)
/
(0.
1)
(2.3)
/
(0.9)
($
3)
/
($
2)
($
79)
/
($
32)

Large
(0.
3)
/
(0.
1)
(2.7)
/
(1.1)
(0.
3)
/
(0.
1)
(3.4)
/
(1.3)
($
2)
/
($
1)
($
113)
/
($
45)

3.3.9
40
CFR
112.7
EPA
has
amended
the
definition
of
an
acceptable
SPCC
Plan
to
include
a
plan
that
deviates
from
the
sequence
of
the
rule.
Such
plans
may
include
State
plans,
Integrated
Contingency
Plans,
and
any
other
formats
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator.
When
such
plans
are
substituted
for
a
formal
SPCC
Plan
(i.
e.,
one
that
follows
the
sequence
of
the
rule)
it
must
include
a
cross­
reference
to
identify
the
provisions
of
the
plan
to
the
requirements
listed
in
the
SPCC
rule.
All
of
the
requirements
in
the
SPCC
rule
must
be
addressed.
If
they
are
not
all
addressed
in
the
equivalent
plan,
then
the
plan
must
be
supplemented
to
include
unaddressed
requirements.

To
develop
burden
reduction
estimates
associated
with
allowing
the
use
of
a
plan
prepared
to
meet
State
requirements,
EPA
conducted
an
analysis
that
compared
State
regulations
to
SPCC
requirements
at
40
CFR
part
112.
The
analysis
revealed
that
19
States
had
prevention
planning
requirements
pursuant
to
State
law.
In
certain
cases,
State
law
closely
tracks
or
incorporates
by
reference
Federal
SPCC
requirements.
In
other
cases,
the
degree
of
overlap
is
less
complete
but
is
still
substantial.
Based
on
a
careful
comparison
of
State
regulations
with
a
list
of
major
SPCC
planning
requirements,
EPA
divided
the
19
States
into
three
overlap
groups
(complete,
substantial,
or
partial),
depending
on
the
degree
of
overlap
between
the
Federal
and
State
requirements.

Another
factor
that
EPA
considered
is
that
many
State
prevention
planning
regulations
apply
to
a
smaller
universe
of
facilities
than
is
regulated
by
the
SPCC
program.
Using
data
on
oil
production
wells,
farms,
and
U.
S.
Census
establishments
in
each
State,
the
Agency
estimated
the
fraction
of
Federal
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
nationwide
that
were
in
each
overlap
group.
The
analysis
took
into
account
specific
limits
and
exemptions
in
State
programs
when
estimating
the
size
of
the
regulated
15
To
incorporate
the
overlap
between
State
and
Federal
requirements
into
this
analysis,
the
unit
burden
estimates
were
revised
downwards
to
account
for
the
overlap.
Additional
changes
to
the
estimates
were
then
incorporated
to
create
unit
burden
estimates
averaged
for
all
regulated
facilities
and
to
eliminate
the
possibility
of
double­
counting
benefits
or
costs.
These
average
estimates
were
then
multiplied
by
the
universe
of
regulated
facilities
to
obtain
total
industry
costs.

48
community.
The
Agency
made
separate
estimates
for
production
and
storage
facilities
in
the
small,
medium,
and
large
categories.
These
estimates
are
presented
in
Exhibit
3­
4.
Overall,
5.
9
percent
of
facilities
are
regulated
by
both
EPA
and
the
State
in
the
group
of
States
with
complete
overlap
(an
estimated
six
States),
about
5.6
percent
in
the
group
with
substantial
overlap
(an
estimated
six
States),
and
about
5.7
percent
in
the
group
with
partial
overlap
(an
estimated
seven
States).

EXHIBIT
3­
4
Estimated
Number
and
Percentage
of
Existing
Facilities
With
Overlap
Between
Federal
and
State
Requirements
(First
Year)

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Complete
Overlap
4.4%
11.2%
15.1%
5.9%

Substantial
Overlap
4.1%
10.4%
14.4%
5.6%

Partial
Overlap
4.1%
10.5%
15.1%
5.7%

Total
12.7%
32.1%
44.6%
17.2%

Finally,
to
develop
the
estimates
of
reduced
regulatory
burden,
EPA
multiplied
the
baseline
hours
burden
by
both
the
percentage
of
facilities
in
each
overlap
category
and
the
degree
of
overlap
(i.
e.,
100
percent
for
complete
overlap,
75
percent
for
substantial
overlap,
and
50
percent
for
partial
overlap).
EPA
recognizes
that
the
burden
reduction
is
offset
somewhat
by
the
need
to
develop
a
cross­
reference
and
adjusted
its
estimate
of
burden
reduction
appropriately.
Thus,
the
burden
after
the
regulatory
change
reflects
both
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
in
the
affected
States
and
the
amount
of
similarity
between
the
State
and
Federal
regulatory
requirements.
Exhibit
3­
5
shows
the
total
number
of
burden
reduction
hours
that
EPA
expects
to
realize
as
part
of
this
expansion
of
the
definition
of
an
acceptable
SPCC
Plan.
15
49
EXHIBIT
3­
5
Total
Number
of
Hours
Estimated
to
be
Spent
by
SPCC­
Regulated
Facilities
Complying
with
Similar
State
Requirements
(First
Year)

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Existing
Facilities
174,401
144,894
58,626
377,922
New
Facilities
14,020
12,130
4,281
30,431
Total
188,422
157,024
68,908
408,354
These
estimates
represent
approximations
in
order
to
account
for
the
burden
reduction
that
might
result
from
this
regulatory
action.
EPA
recognizes
that
other
States
are
in
the
process
of
developing
prevention
planning
rules
and
the
Agency
will
revise
estimates
at
a
future
point
in
time
to
account
for
such
new
developments.
In
addition,
the
Agency
notes
that
the
ultimate
determination
of
whether
a
plan
prepared
pursuant
to
State
regulations
is
acceptable
as
an
SPCC
Plan
will
be
made
by
EPA
Plan
reviewers
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
On
average,
EPA
believes
that
the
estimate
provided
as
part
of
this
analysis
is
a
reasonable
indicator
of
the
degree
of
burden
reduction
that
is
afforded
by
this
added
flexibility.
The
Agency
intends
to
develop
guidance
for
Regional
personnel
to
facilitate
the
review
of
plans
prepared
pursuant
to
State
regulations
and
promote
the
use
and
acceptance
of
alternate
formats.

It
is
important
to
note
that
the
definition
of
"SPCC
Plan"
to
include
State
"SPCC"
plans
would
not
reduce
the
actual
universe
of
regulated
facilities.
Facilities
with
such
State
plans
would
not
be
exempt
from
the
regulation;
however,
because
the
information
collection
burden
associated
with
preparing
these
plans
would
be
imposed
regardless
of
Federal
requirements,
it
has
not
been
included
as
part
of
this
EA.

3.3.10
40
CFR
112.7(
a)(
2)

EPA
is
allowing
a
deviation
from
most
of
the
rule's
substantive
requirements
provided
that
equivalent
environmental
protection
is
provided
and
that
the
Plan
contains
a
reason
for
nonconformance
with
the
requirement(
s).
This
revision
explicitly
allows
deviations
for
SPCC
requirements
other
than
just
secondary
containment,
which
most
likely
will
decrease
the
capital­
related
costs
for
some
facilities.
This
revision
arguably
provides
the
greatest
flexibility
for
facilities
in
complying
with
the
requirements
of
this
rule.
The
paperwork
burden
remains
the
same
because
the
owner
or
operator
now
has
the
same
flexibility
in
the
current
rule
for
the
application
of
good
engineering
practice.

3.3.11
40
CFR
112.7(
a)(
3)
50
EPA
has
added
a
new
requirement
requiring
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
describe
the
physical
layout
of
the
facility
and
to
include
a
facility
diagram
in
the
Plan.
This
facility
diagram
must
include
the
location
and
contents
of
all
containers
above
the
de
minimis
container
size,
including
completely
buried
tanks
that
are
exempt
from
other
SPCC
requirements.
The
diagram
must
also
include
all
facility
transfer
stations
and
connecting
pipes.

EPA
is
requiring
this
information
because
it
is
used
for
effective
prevention,
planning,
management
(e.
g.,
inspections),
and
response
considerations.
It
is
also
necessary
for
all
facilities,
large
or
small,
because
container­
specific
information
helps
an
inspector
to
verify
whether
a
Plan
is
needed
(by
evaluating
whether
the
product
stored
is
oil);
to
verify
capacity
calculations;
and
to
formulate
contingency
planning
calculations
if
such
planning
is
necessary.

Although
there
is
no
specific
counterpart
in
the
previous
version
of
the
rule,
the
previous
version
has
required
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
include
in
his
Plan
a
prediction
of
the
direction,
rate
of
flow,
and
total
quantity
of
oil,
which
could
be
discharged
from
the
facility
as
a
result
of
each
major
type
of
failure
(40
CFR
part
112.7(
b)).
To
comply
with
this
requirement,
many
facilities
have
needed
to
prepare
facility
diagrams.
The
rule
has
also
required
a
facility
to
conduct
periodic
integrity
testing
of
aboveground
storage
tanks
(40
CFR
part
112.7(
e)(
2)(
D)),
which
would
require
a
facility
diagram
to
assist
inspectors
in
locating
such
tanks.

EPA
has
observed,
based
on
facility
inspections,
that
many
facilities
have
already
prepared
and
use
such
diagrams.
This
is
especially
true
for
the
larger
and
more
complex
facilities.
For
these
facilities,
it
would
entail
minimal
burden
to
formally
incorporate
an
existing
facility
diagram
into
their
Plan.
EPA
believes
that
it
will
require
such
a
facility
only
about
15
minutes
of
clerical
time
to
include
a
previously
prepared
diagram
in
their
SPCC
Plan.
This
estimate
is
based
on
the
time
required
to
either
copy
the
diagram
or
print
out
an
electronic
copy
and
place
it
in
the
Plan
and
update
the
table
of
contents.

EPA
is
aware,
however,
that
many
facilities,
especially
smaller
facilities,
most
likely
have
not
prepared
such
diagrams
as
part
of
their
normal
business
operations.
As
a
result,
EPA
has
calculated
the
burden
for
facilities
to
prepare
these
diagrams
and
include
them
in
their
SPCC
Plans.
For
a
small
model
facility
having
two
containers,
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
require
approximately
one
hour
of
technical
time
and
one­
half
hour
of
clerical
time
to
mark
the
location
and
contents
of
the
containers
at
the
facility
including
the
facility's
transfer
stations
and
connecting
pipes.
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
25
percent
of
the
total
number
of
small
facilities
have
already
prepared
facility
diagrams,
so
only
75
percent
of
the
small
facilities
would
incur
this
burden.
51
For
a
medium
model
facility,
having
seven
containers,
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
require
approximately
two
hours
of
technical
time
and
one­
half
hour
of
clerical
time
to
develop
such
a
diagram.
EPA
estimates
that
about
one­
half
of
the
medium
facilities
have
already
prepared
diagrams
and
only
need
to
place
a
copy
of
the
diagram
in
the
SPCC
Plan.
For
large
facilities,
EPA
believes
that
it
is
most
likely
that
all
of
these
facilities
have
previously
prepared
diagrams.
As
a
result,
large
facilities,
in
addition
to
small
and
medium
facilities
that
have
already
prepared
a
diagram,
will
require
only
about
15
minutes
of
clerical
time
to
include
the
diagram
in
their
SPCC
Plan.
Exhibit
3­
6
summarizes
EPA's
weighted
average
estimate
of
the
burden
likely
to
be
incurred
by
facilities
to
prepare
this
information
based
on
the
percentages
of
facilities
in
each
category
likely
to
have
previously
prepared
facility
diagrams.

EXHIBIT
3­
5
Estimated
Weighted
Burden
Associated
with
Preparing
Facility
Diagrams
Type
of
Facility
Annual
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
Unit
Cost
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Small
0.0
0.
8
0.4
1.
2
$34
Medium
0.0
1.
0
0.3
1.
4
$39
Large
0.0
0.
0
0.25
0.25
$6
3.3.12
40
CFR
112.7(
d)

EPA
has
revised
this
section
to
require
a
facility
that
has
determined
it
is
not
practicable
to
install
the
structures
or
equipment
listed
in
§§
112.7(
c),
112.8(
c)(
2),
112.9(
c)(
2),
112.10(
c),
112.12(
c)(
2),
112.12(
c)(
11),
112.13(
c)(
2),
and
112.14(
c)
to
conduct
periodic
integrity
testing
of
the
affected
containers,
and
periodic
integrity
and
leak
testing
of
valves
and
piping.
While
the
previous
section
of
this
rule
did
not
explicitly
require
facilities
to
conduct
periodic
integrity
testing
of
equipment
affected
by
part
112,
EPA
has
defined
periodic
integrity
testing
to
mean
in
accordance
with
industry
standards
(e.
g.,
API
653).
As
a
result,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
this
additional
language
constitutes
an
additional
recordkeeping
burden
on
facilities
as
it
is
merely
codifying
usual
and
customary
business
practices.

EPA
is
exempting
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
facility
which
has
submitted
a
Facility
Response
Plan
(FRP)
from
the
requirement
to
provide
a
contingency
plan
and
a
written
commitment
of
manpower,
equipment,
and
materials
to
expeditiously
control
and
remove
any
quantity
of
discharged
oil
that
may
be
harmful.
EPA
believes
that
this
exemption
will
result
in
negligible
cost
savings
to
facilities
due
to
both
the
low
number
of
FRP
facilities
and
the
minor
unit
cost
savings.
52
3.3.13
40
CR
112.7(
e)

EPA
has
revised
the
rule
to
explicitly
allow
the
use
of
records
of
inspections
and
tests
kept
pursuant
to
usual
and
customary
business
practices
to
suffice
for
records
of
inspections
and
tests
that
must
be
performed
and
maintained
in
accordance
with
written
procedures
developed
for
the
facility.
The
rule
also
allows
for
these
records
to
be
kept
separately
from
the
SPCC
Plan.
EPA
believes
that
these
revisions
will
eliminate
a
facility's
practice
of
keeping
duplicate
records
for
purposes
of
the
SPCC
rule.

Examples
of
records
of
inspections
and
tests
may
include
records
of
stormwater
bypass
events
that
are
required
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
122.
Part
122
contains
the
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
program
rules,
promulgated
pursuant
to
Clean
Water
Act
authority.
Among
other
requirements,
the
NPDES
rules
require
documentation
of
a
discharge
of
rainwater
from
a
diked
area
into
a
storm
drain
or
an
effluent
discharge
that
empties
into
an
open
water
course,
lake,
or
pond,
and
bypasses
the
in­
plant
treatment
system.
The
NPDES
rules
serve
the
same
objective
as
the
SPCC
requirement
formerly
at
§112.7(
e)(
2)(
iii)(
D),
and
would
therefore
be
acceptable
to
satisfy
the
SPCC
requirement.
This
is
now
explicitly
stated
in
the
final
rule
under
§112.8(
c)(
3).
At
facilities
where
an
owner
or
operator
maintained
the
NPDES
records
in
lieu
of
records
maintained
specifically
for
purposes
of
the
SPCC
rule,
therefore,
the
information
collection
burden
would
be
attributable
to
the
NPDES
program,
and
not
to
part
112.

EPA
has
issued
general
permits
for
stormwater
discharges
covered
by
the
NPDES
stormwater
program
in
1992
(baseline
general
permit)
and
in
1995
(multisector
general
permit),
see
57
FR
44446
(September
25,
1992)
and
60
FR
51215
(September
29,
1995).
The
Agency
estimated
that
about
100,000
facilities
nationwide
discharge
stormwater
associated
with
industrial
activity,
not
including
oil
and
gas
exploration
and
production
operations,
and
many
of
these
facilities
are
in
industrial
categories
(such
as
mining,
manufacturing,
and
transportation)
that
include
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
U.
S.
Census
data
indicate
that
there
are
slightly
more
than
500,000
facilities
in
these
industrial
categories,
so
this
analysis
assumes
that
about
20
percent
of
industrial
facilities
are
subject
to
the
NPDES
stormwater
permits.

There
are
approximately
58,000
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
in
the
industrial
categories
that
are
also
regulated
under
the
NPDES
program,
so
about
12,000
of
these
facilities
(about
20
percent)
are
assumed
to
be
subject
to
the
permits.
For
purposes
of
the
burden
reduction
analysis,
these
12,000
facilities
are
assumed
to
be
medium
and
large
oil
storage
facilities
and
represent
approximately
22
percent
of
the
baseline
16
EPA
is
assuming,
for
the
purposes
of
this
analysis,
that
it
is
unlikely
that
a
significant
number
of
small
facilities
would
also
be
subject
to
the
NPDES
program
because
of
the
low
number
of
small
industrial
facilities
and
the
increased
likelihood
that
these
facilities
are
connected
to
a
municipal
wastewater
service.

53
estimate
of
medium
and
large
oil
storage
facilities.
16
Although
EPA
has
not
estimated
the
number
of
oil
production
facilities
subject
to
NPDES,
this
analysis
assumes
that
22
percent
of
the
medium
and
large
production
facilities
are
also
subject
to
the
permits
and
would
similarly
have
a
reduced
recordkeeping
burden.
EPA
estimates
that
each
facility
subject
to
the
NPDES
regulations
would
experience
approximately
one
hour
of
technical
recordkeeping
reduction
as
a
result
of
complying
with
the
NPDES
standards.
However,
because
not
all
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
experience
this
reduced
recordkeeping
burden,
the
estimate
must
be
weighted
to
reflect
the
decrease
that
would
occur,
on
average,
at
all
facilities.
The
corresponding
weighted
decrease
in
unit
burden
for
both
an
average
medium
facility
and
an
average
large
facility
is
therefore
estimated
to
be
about
0.2
technical
hours.
Exhibit
3­
7
shows
the
estimated
burden
reduction
associated
with
this
proposed
change
for
an
average
small,
medium,
and
large
facility,
respectively.

EXHIBIT
3­
7
Estimated
Weighted
Reduction
in
Unit
Burden
Hours
and
Unit
Costs
NPDES
Average
Facility
Type
of
Facility
Annual
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
Unit
Cost
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Small
0.0
0.
0
0.0
0.
0
$0
Medium
0.0
(0.2)
0.0
(0.2)
($
7)

Large
0.0
(0.2)
0.0
(0.2)
($
7)

Another
example
of
usual
and
customary
business
records
are
records
of
inspections
and
tests
kept
by
a
facility
following
standard
industrial
practices,
such
as
the
American
Petroleum
Institute's
(API)
Standards
653
and
2610.
EPA
believes
that
these
standards
represent
usual
and
customary
business
practices
for
certain
facilities
in
the
petroleum
industry
and
that
the
burden
associated
with
developing
and
maintaining
such
records
should
no
longer
be
attributed
to
the
SPCC
burden.

Specifically,
§112.8(
c)(
6)
requires
periodic
integrity
testing
of
an
aboveground
container's
shell,
tank
supports,
and
foundations
taking
into
account
tank
design
(floating
roof,
etc.)
using
a
non­
destructive
shell
testing
technique
combined
with
a
visual
inspection.
An
owner
or
operator
is
required
to
keep
comparison
records
of
these
events
for
a
period
of
at
least
three
years.
54
However,
this
requirement
is
similar
to
the
recommended
practices
suggested
in
the
following
two
industry
standards:


API
653
­­
Tank
Inspection,
Repair,
Alteration
and
Reconstruction.
API
653
is
considered
the
predominant
standard
for
tank
inspection
and
its
provisions
are
based
on
the
tank
design
principles
found
in
API
620
and
650.
API
653
calls
for
owners
or
operators
of
tanks
and
associated
systems
to
maintain
a
complete
record
file
consisting
of
construction,
repair/
alteration
history,
and
inspection
history
records.
Inspection
history
includes
all
measurements
taken,
the
condition
of
all
parts
inspected,
and
a
record
of
all
examinations
and
tests.


API
2610
­­
Design,
Construction,
Operation,
Maintenance,
and
Inspection
of
Terminal
and
Tank
Facilities.
API
2610
incorporates
the
requirements
of
many
different
standards
for
tanks
into
one
document.
The
standard
recommends
that
periodic
inspection
and
preventive
maintenance
be
conducted
on
all
transfer
systems
to
control
leaks
and
that
complete
maintenance
records
should
be
maintained
by
the
operator
for
all
equipment
within
a
terminal.

To
estimate
the
reduction
in
SPCC
recordkeeping
burden
as
a
result
of
the
overlap
with
these
industry
standards,
EPA
assumed
that
all
production
facilities
and
the
following
types
of
petroleum­
industry
storage
facilities
comply
with
API
standards:


Bulk
stations
and
terminals;


Gasoline
service
stations;


Fuel
oil
dealers;
and

Petroleum
refiners.

The
estimated
reduction
in
recordkeeping
burden
for
such
facilities
varies
according
to
the
size
and
type
of
the
facility.
Exhibit
3­
8
presents
the
reduction
in
the
recordkeeping
unit
burden
estimate
by
facility
type
for
facilities
that
follow
industry
guidelines
that
are
similar
to
certain
SPCC
recordkeeping
provisions.
Only
technical
recordkeeping
time
is
assumed
to
be
affected
by
the
rule
change.
17
1997
Proposed
Rule
ICR
(EPA
#0328.06,
10/
20/
97)

55
EXHIBIT
3­
8
Estimated
Reduction
in
Unit
Recordkeeping
Burden
for
API
Complying
Facilities
Type
of
Facility
Reduction
in
Technical
Burden
Hours
Small
(1.
0)

Storage
Medium
(3.
0)

Large
(7.
5)

Small
(1.
5)

Production
Medium
(1.
5)

Large
(1.
5)

Again,
because
not
all
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
follow
the
industry
standards
discussed
previously,
the
burden
reduction
estimates
must
be
weighted
to
reflect
the
decrease
that
would
occur,
on
average,
at
all
facilities.
Approximately
136,400
small
facilities
(36
percent
of
all
small
facilities),
41,
600
medium
facilities
(51
percent
of
all
medium
facilities),
and
2,
900
large
facilities
(23
percent
of
all
large
facilities)
are
expected
to
be
affected
by
the
rule
change.
17
The
weighted
unit
burden
reduction
is
therefore
calculated
to
be
0.
0
to
1.5
hours
for
an
average
small
facility,
1.
0
to
1.
5
hours
for
an
average
medium
facility,
and
1.
4
to
1.
5
hours
for
an
average
large
facility.
Exhibit
3­
9
presents
the
estimated
weighted
burden
reduction
for
an
average
small,
medium,
and
large
storage
and
production
facility,
respectively.
56
EXHIBIT
3­
9
Estimated
Weighted
Reduction
in
Unit
Burden
Hours
and
Unit
Costs
API
Standards
Average
Facility
Annual
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
Unit
Cost
Type
of
Facility
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Small
0.0
0.
0
0.0
0.
0
$0
Storage
Medium
0.0
(1.0)
0.0
(1.0)
($
33)

Large
0.0
(1.4)
0.0
(1.4)
($
46)

Small
0.0
(1.5)
0.0
(1.5)
($
49)

Production
Medium
0.0
(1.5)
0.0
(1.5)
($
49)

Large
0.0
(1.5)
0.0
(1.5)
($
49)

3.3.14
40
CFR
112.7(
i)

EPA
is
requiring
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
regulated
facility
to
evaluate
a
fieldconstructed
container's
potential
for
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe
whenever
the
facility
conducts
major
repairs
or
alterations
to
its
tanks
or
modifies
the
service
of
its
tanks.
Field­
constructed
storage
containers
are
typically
larger
than
20,000
gallons,
and,
therefore,
no
small
facilities
are
expected
to
evaluate
their
containers.
Based
on
the
expert
judgment
of
engineers
knowledgeable
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities,
it
is
estimated
that
five
percent
of
all
medium
and
large
storage
facilities
will
be
required
to
evaluate
their
containers
each
year
(2,
801
medium
and
586
large
facilities).
It
is
estimated
that
medium
and
large
storage
facilities
that
test
their
containers
for
brittle
fracture
will
require
four
and
twelve
hours,
respectively,
to
document
records
of
tests
and
inspections.
This
recordkeeping
burden
is
estimated
to
require
an
equal
amount
of
technical
and
clerical
time
(see
Exhibit
3­
10).
57
EXHIBIT
3­
10
Unit
Burden
Brittle
Fracture
Testing
Recordkeeping
Requirements
*

Annual
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
Unit
Cost
Type
of
Facility
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Small
0.0
0.
0
0.0
0.
0
$0
Storage
Medium
0.0
0.
1
0.1
0.
1
$3
Large
0.0
0.
3
0.3
0.
6
$15
Small
0.0
0.
0
0.0
0.
0
$0
Production
Medium
0.0
0.
0
0.0
0.
0
$0
Large
0.0
0.
0
0.0
0.
0
$0
*
The
numbers
in
this
exhibit
may
not
add
precisely
due
to
rounding.

3.3.15
Reviewing
and
Understanding
the
Final
Rule
In
addition
to
the
burden
incurred
by
a
facility
related
to
the
above
changes
in
the
rule,
all
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
are
expected
to
incur
an
additional
burden
associated
with
the
time
required
to
read
and
understand
the
revisions
being
made
to
the
SPCC
rule
(see
Exhibit
3­
11).
Based
on
a
review
of
other
information
collection
requests
for
rules
of
a
similar
magnitude,
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
require
approximately
3.
5
hours
per
facility
to
review
the
final
rule
and
to
become
familiar
with
the
major
changes
being
made
in
addition
to
the
revised
sequence
of
the
rule.

To
ease
this
burden,
EPA
has
published
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
a
matrix
identifying
the
major
changes
to
the
rule.
The
matrix
describes,
in
plain
English,
the
previous
requirements
of
the
rule,
what
is
being
revised,
and
any
additional
comments
clarifying
EPA's
intentions.
This
burden
is
estimated
to
affect
only
existing
facilities
as
they
will
need
to
be
aware
of
the
changes
being
made.
The
burden
incurred
by
new
facilities
to
read
and
understand
the
rule
is
already
incorporated
into
the
baseline
burden
associated
with
preparing
a
new
Plan.

Although
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
is
lengthy,
the
vast
majority
of
facilities
will
be
affected
by
very
few
substantive
changes.
With
the
inclusion
of
the
summary
matrix
in
the
preamble,
it
is
not
necessary
for
everyone
to
read
the
entire
rule.
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
small
facility
with
an
SPCC
Plan
can
determine
by
reading
the
first
few
pages
of
the
Federal
Register
notice
that
either
the
rule
no
longer
applies
to
the
facility,
the
owner
or
operator
must
prepare
a
facility
diagram
(if
the
Plan
does
not
already
have
one)
and
a
cross­
reference
table
(to
ensure
that
each
applicable
provision
of
the
revised
rule
is
addressed
in
the
Plan),
Plan
review
is
required
less
frequently,
and
records
kept
under
usual
and
customary
business
practices
will
suffice
18
EPA
examined
ICR
#820.07,
Hazardous
Waste
Generator
Standards,
ICR
#801.12,
Hazardous
Waste
Manifest,
and
ICR
#261.13,
Hazardous
Waste
Notification.

19
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,
1996.

58
for
SPCC
recordkeeping.
Reading
the
matrix
of
major
changes
near
the
beginning
of
the
preamble
will
take
owners
and
operators
of
most
facilities
much
less
than
3.
5
hours.

For
comparison,
EPA
examined
other
information
collection
requests
with
large
numbers
of
affected
facilities.
18
EPA
believes
that
the
burden
for
reading
and
understanding
those
regulations
is
similar
to
the
SPCC­
rule
burden
because
the
regulations
are
similar
in
length
to
the
revisions
to
the
rule
that
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
will
have
to
read.
EPA
found
that
the
burden
per
respondent
to
review
and
understand
the
rule
in
each
of
these
ICRs
was
lower
than
3.5
hours.

EXHIBIT
3­
11
Burden
Associated
with
Reviewing
and
Understanding
the
Final
Rule
Type
of
Facility
Annual
Burden
Hours
Unit
Burden
Hours
Unit
Cost
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Small
1.0
2.
5
0.0
3.
5
$130
Medium
1.0
2.
5
0.0
3.
5
$130
Large
1.0
2.
5
0.0
3.
5
$130
3.
4
ESTIMATED
NUMBER
OF
REGULATED
FACILITIES
This
section
describes
the
universe
of
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation.
To
determine
the
scope
of
production
facilities
and
storage
facilities
in
most
industrial
categories,
the
baseline
number
of
facilities
was
determined
in
the
1995
SPCC
Survey.
As
described
in
the
analysis
titled
"Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,"
however,
a
few
industry
categories
were
not
sampled
or
had
a
response
rate
too
low
to
allow
for
extrapolation.
19
For
those
industry
categories,
estimates
of
the
number
of
facilities
from
the
1991
SPCC
Facilities
Study
were
used
to
supplement
the
Survey
totals.

For
a
few
other
industry
categories,
the
Survey
analysis
was
thought
to
underestimate
the
national
number
of
SPCC
facilities,
while
the
Facilities
Study
was
thought
to
overestimate
these
facilities.
In
these
cases,
the
midpoint
of
Survey
and
20
Use
of
this
estimate
may
lead
to
a
slight
overestimate
in
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
paperwork
requirements
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
because
it
includes
a
small
number
of
Federal
facilities,
which
are
not
defined
as
"persons"
under
OMB's
final
rule
on
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
(60
FR
44978).

21
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce,
County
Business
Patterns
(annual
editions
for
years
1976­
1986),
1978­
1988.

22
Facilities
ceasing
operations
were
primarily
small
facilities
from
the
farming
and
oil
production
sectors
of
the
SPCC­
regulated
universe.
For
farms,
the
average
annual
decrease
in
the
number
of
farms
from
1983
to
1992
was
approximately
1.4
percent
of
the
total
number
of
farms
(Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States,
1993).
For
production
facilities,
the
number
of
stripper
wells
decreased
by
2.
1
percent
from
1992
to
1993
(1994
API
Oil
Data
Book).
This
analysis
assumes
that
these
overall
rates
of
decrease
apply
proportionately
to
those
facilities
within
these
sectors
that
are
SPCC­
regulated.
Because
small
farms
and
production
facilities
represent
approximately
60
percent
of
all
SPCC­
regulated
facilities,
EPA
anticipates
59
Facilities
Study
estimates
for
these
industry
categories
was
selected
for
use
in
calculating
an
adjusted
national
estimate.
Adjustments
to
the
estimate
were
also
made
to
reflect
that
the
survey
design
limited
sampling
to
the
48
contiguous
States.
Following
this
adjustment
and
validation
process,
EPA
arrived
at
an
adjusted
national
estimate
of
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation
for
each
industry
category.
An
estimated
437,700
facilities
in
total
were
regulated
by
the
SPCC
Program
in
1995.
20
Additionally,
EPA
assumes
the
annual
number
of
new
SPCC
facilities
equals
one
percent
of
the
number
of
existing
facilities.
The
estimate
of
the
total
number
of
existing
and
new
facilities
was
inflated
by
a
one
percent
annual
growth
rate
to
yield
an
estimated
473,966
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation
prior
to
these
revisions.

This
estimate
is
composed
of
a
total
of
469,274
existing
facilities
for
the
first
year
following
the
regulation's
implementation.
The
breakdown
by
facility
size
was
estimated
to
be
372,286
small
facilities,
87,
495
medium
facilities,
and
14,
185
large
facilities.
The
one
percent
annual
growth
rate
is
assumed
to
continue
for
the
duration
of
the
rule's
existence.

To
develop
the
one
percent
annual
growth
rate
figure,
U.
S.
Census
data
on
the
number
of
manufacturing
establishments
were
reviewed.
21
These
data
indicate
that
the
number
of
manufacturing
establishments
in
the
U.
S.
increased
by
an
average
of
1.4
percent
annually
over
the
10­
year
period
from
1976­
1986.
This
number
pertains
to
the
net
annual
increase
in
the
number
of
establishments
(new
establishments
less
establishments
closed).
However,
an
estimate
of
the
annual
number
of
new
establishments
(without
closings
subtracted
out)
is
needed.
Therefore,
based
on
professional
judgment,
the
1.4­
percent
figure
was
adjusted
upward
to
2
percent
to
better
reflect
the
addition
of
new
facilities
(and
the
resumption
of
operations
at
facilities
that
had
been
closed).
This
growth
trend,
however,
is
offset
to
some
extent
by
recent
declines
in
the
number
of
farms
and
production
facilities,
which
represent
a
large
percentage
of
all
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
22
that
these
losses
partially
offset
the
overall
projected
growth
in
the
SPCC
universe.

60
Analysis
of
data
from
the
1995
SPCC
Survey,
showed
that
a
decrease
in
the
total
number
of
farms
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
number
of
SPCC­
regulated
farms
is
decreasing.
This
is
true
because
the
average
acreage
per
farm
is
increasing,
so
that
much
of
the
decrease
in
the
number
of
farms
probably
comes
from
small
farms
that
did
not
have
sufficient
oil
storage
capacity
to
be
subject
to
the
SPCC
regulation.
It
is
assumed
that
roughly
one­
half
of
the
regulated
facilities
are
in
categories
such
as
farms
that
showed
no
growth
and
the
other
half
are
in
categories
like
manufacturing
establishments
that
had
a
2
percent
growth,
therefore
the
overall
growth
rate
for
all
facilities
is
about
1
percent.

The
SPCC­
regulated
community
is
very
diverse,
and
different
categories
of
facilities
will
have
different
growth
rates
from
year
to
year,
so
the
1
percent
rate
represents
only
a
rough
approximation.
Other
broad
data,
however,
support
a
growth
rate
of
approximately
1
percent.
For
example,
the
1999
Annual
Energy
Outlook
from
DOE's
Energy
Information
Administration
shows
that
consumption
of
petroleum
products
increased
from
36.03
quadrillion
Btus
in
1996
to
36.49
quadrillion
Btus
in
1997.
Exhibit
3­
12
illustrates
the
estimated
baseline
number
of
existing
and
new
SPCC
facilities.

EXHIBIT
3­
12
Baseline
Number
of
Existing
and
New
Facilities
(First
Year)

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Storage
240,802
60,040
13,723
314,565
Existing
Production
127,799
26,589
322
164,709
Total
168,600
86,629
14,045
469,274
Storage
2,408
600
137
3,146
New
Production
1,278
266
3
1,
547
Total
3,686
866
140
4,693
Total
372,286
87,495
14,185
473,966
*
The
numbers
in
this
exhibit
may
not
add
precisely
due
to
rounding.

3.4.1
Adjusting
Universe
Estimates
23
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,
1996.

61
Several
of
the
revisions
being
made
to
the
SPCC
program
will
affect
the
number
of
facilities
currently
regulated
under
the
program.
For
the
purposes
of
this
EA,
EPA
has
quantified
the
effects
of
the
four
major
revisions
that
will
affect
the
number
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities.
These
revisions
are:


Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
6).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
parts
thereof
(except
at
oil
production,
oil
recovery,
and
oil
recycling
facilities)
used
exclusively
for
wastewater
treatment
and
not
used
to
meet
any
other
requirement
of
part
112.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
and
112.1(
d)(
4).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
under
the
SPCC
program
a
completely
buried
tank
that
is
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
of
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii).
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
a
facility
having
a
single
container
with
a
storage
capacity
greater
than
660
gallons,
but
aggregate
aboveground
storage
capacity
of
1,
320
gallons
or
less
of
oil.

°
Final
40
CFR
112.1(
f).
EPA
is
granting
its
Regional
Administrators
the
authority
to
require
any
facility
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
EPA
under
section
311(
j)
of
the
CWA,
but
otherwise
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
prepare
an
SPCC
Plan
under
part
112,
to
prepare
and
implement
a
total
or
partial
SPCC
Plan
where
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.

The
effects
that
the
above
changes
will
have
on
the
number
of
SPCC­
regulated
entities
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
below.

Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
6).

EPA
estimates
that
there
are
approximately
469,274
existing
SPCC
facilities.
Of
these,
154,709
facilities
(33
percent)
involve
operations
and
oil
storage
activities
exclusively
limited
to
oil
production.
Such
facilities
are
specifically
excluded
from
the
exemption
under
section
112.1(
d)(
6).

According
to
the
1995
SPCC
Survey
23
,
approximately
10
percent
of
all
existing
SPCC
oil
storage
facilities
are
associated
with
the
petroleum
industry
(e.
g.,
gasoline
stations,
bulk
stations,
bulk
terminals,
pipelines,
and
heating
oil
distributors).
If
EPA
assumes
that
these
storage
facilities
are
unlikely
to
have
wastewater
treatment
systems
covered
by
the
exemption,
then
10
percent
of
the
314,565
storage
facilities,
or
31,
457
24
EPA
assumes
that
10
percent
of
storage
facilities
from
each
size
category
will
be
associated
with
the
petroleum
industry.
Insufficient
data
are
available
to
determine
whether
there
are
differences
among
the
categories.

25
All
of
the
farms
were
subtracted
from
the
small
facility
category,
consistent
with
results
of
the
1995
SPCC
Survey
(Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Analysis
of
the
Number
of
Facilities
Regulated
by
EPA's
SPCC
Program,
1996),
which
determined
that
all
SPCC­
related
farm
storage
of
oil
occurs
at
small
facilities.

62
facilities,
would
not
be
affected
by
section
112.1(
d)(
6)
due
to
their
focus
on
petroleum
products.
24
Storage
facilities
also
include
174,972
farms,
or
56
percent
of
all
storage
facilities.
For
this
analysis,
EPA
assumes
that
farms
are
unlikely
to
have
wastewater
treatment
systems
covered
by
section
112.1(
d)(
6).

Subtracting
oil
production,
petroleum
industry,
and
farm
facilities
from
the
universe
of
SPCC
facilities
leaves
108,136
facilities
potentially
affected
by
section
112.5(
d)(
6).
These
remaining
facilities
are
associated
with
the
following
industries
identified
in
Exhibit
1:

°
Coal
mining,
non­
metallic
mineral
mining
and
quarrying;
°
Electric
power
generation,
transmission,
and
distribution;
°
Heavy
construction;
°
Other
manufacturing;
°
Transportation
(excluding
pipelines),
warehousing,
and
marinas;
°
Elementary
and
secondary
schools,
colleges;
and
°
Hospitals/
nursing
and
residential
care
facilities.

These
facilities
are
arrayed
across
the
size
categories
as
follows:
41,749
small,
54,036
medium,
and
12,351
large.
25
For
the
purposes
of
evaluating
the
potential
impact
of
section
112.1(
d)(
6),
EPA
assumes
that
10
percent
(or
4,
175)
of
small
facilities,
50
percent
(or
27,018)
of
medium
facilities,
and
75
percent
(or
6,
175)
of
large
facilities
have
wastewater
treatment
systems
that
are
covered
by
the
exemption.
This
assumption
reflects
a
situation
where
the
chances
of
having
on­
site
wastewater
treatment
increases
with
the
size
of
a
facility.

One
outcome
of
the
wastewater
treatment
exemption
is
that
a
facility's
SPCCrelated
storage
capacity
could
decrease.
As
a
result,
some
facilities
may
no
longer
need
an
SPCC
plan,
while
some
medium
and
large
facilities
might
shift
to
the
next
lower
size
category.
Although
EPA
believes
that
larger
facilities
are
more
likely
to
have
applicable
wastewater
treatment
systems,
such
facilities
are
expected
to
have
more
oil
storage
and,
therefore,
are
less
likely
to
fall
below
SPCC
capacity
thresholds.
If
EPA
assumes
that
50
percent
of
the
small
facilities,
5
percent
of
the
medium
facilities,
and
1
percent
of
the
large
facilities
with
applicable
wastewater
treatment
systems
leave
the
SPCC
universe,
then
approximately
3,
500
existing
facilities
would
no
longer
be
63
required
to
maintain
SPCC
plans
–
although
EPA
assumes
they
would
incur
some
costs
in
reviewing
the
final
rule
and
calculating
their
wastewater
treatment
capacity
to
determine
their
new
status.
If
EPA
assumes
that
20
percent
of
medium
and
large
facilities
with
applicable
wastewater
treatment
systems
shift
to
the
next
lower
size
category,
6,639
facilities
would
experience
a
change
in
their
costs
of
maintaining
SPCC
plans.
EPA
assumes
that
section
112.1(
d)(
6)
will
result
in
all
facilities
with
applicable
wastewater
treatment
systems
and
still
in
the
SPCC
universe
–
33,868
facilities
–
will
need
to
amend
their
plans.

Exhibit
3­
13
shows
the
resulting
distribution
of
existing
and
new
SPCC
facilities
among
the
size,
production,
and
storage
categories
after
adjusting
for
the
possible
impact
of
section
112.1(
d)(
6).
EPA
assumes
that
additional
three
revisions
to
the
number
of
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
will
be
incremental
to
the
figures
in
Exhibit
3­
13.

EXHIBIT
3­
13
Number
of
Existing
and
New
Facilities
after
Applying
Section
112.1(
d)(
6)
(First
Year)

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Storage
244,118
54,520
12,426
311,064
Existing
Production
127,799
26,589
322
154,709
Total
371,916
81,109
12,748
465,774
Storage
2,441
545
124
3,111
New
Production
1,278
266
3
1,
547
Total
3,719
811
127
4,658
Total
375,635
81,920
12,876
470,431
In
addition
to
reducing
burden
and
costs
to
SPCC
facilities,
EPA
expects
the
wastewater
treatment
exemption
will
also
affect
the
number
of
facilities
that
require
an
FRP.
The
FRP
rule
(40
CFR
112.20­
21)
requires
that
owners
or
operators
of
facilities
that
could
cause
"substantial
harm"
to
the
environment
by
discharging
oil
into
navigable
waters
or
adjoining
shorelines
prepare
plans
for
responding,
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
to
a
worst
case
discharge
of
oil,
to
a
substantial
threat
of
such
a
discharge,
and,
as
appropriate,
to
discharges
smaller
than
worst
case
discharges.
All
facilities
subject
to
this
requirement
must
submit
their
plans
to
EPA.
In
turn,
EPA
reviews
and
approve
plans
submitted
by
facilities
identified
as
"significant
and
substantial
harm"
to
the
environment
from
oil
discharges.
Other
facilities
are
not
required
to
prepare
FRPs
but
are
required
to
document
their
determination
that
they
do
not
meet
the
"substantial
harm"
criteria.
64
Prior
to
the
final
rulemaking,
EPA
estimated
that
large
facilities
would
require
between
99
and
132
hours
and
that
medium
facilities
would
require
between
26
and
46
hours
to
comply
with
the
annual,
subsequent­
year
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
of
the
FRP
rule.
EPA
also
estimated
that,
prior
to
the
final
rulemaking,
newly
regulated
large
and
medium
facilities
would
require
between
253
and
293
hours
and
109
and
142
hours,
respectively,
to
prepare
a
plan
in
the
first
year.
Absent
the
wastewater
treatment
exemption,
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
number
FRP
facilities
affected
in
the
first
year
would
have
been
6,000
existing
and
70
new
facilities.

Exhibit
3­
14
illustrates
the
expected
change
in
the
number
of
FRP
facilities
that
could
be
affected
by
the
final
SPCC
rule.
Based
on
information
received
from
Regional
personnel,
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
2.
5
percent
of
existing
FRP
facilities
may
include
wastewater
treatment
(144
facilities).
Of
these
facilities,
EPA
assumes
60
percent
of
the
medium
facilities
(11
facilities)
and
20
percent
of
the
large
facilities
(24
large
facilities)
would
no
longer
be
required
to
comply
with
FRP
requirements.
EPA
also
assumes
that
30
percent
of
large
facilities
(38
facilities)
with
wastewater
treatment
would
now
be
considered
medium­
sized
facilities,
due
to
a
recalculation
of
capacity
to
exclude
applicable
wastewater
treatment.

Through
the
final
rulemaking
the
estimated
number
of
facilities
required
to
maintain
FRP
plans
is
reduced
to
5,965.
With
the
final
SPCC
rule,
EPA
assumes
that
approximately
six
fewer
new
facilities
would
be
added
each
year
due
to
the
overall
reduction
in
the
SPCC
regulated
universe.
The
number
of
new
facilities
affected
by
the
wastewater
exemption
at
section
112.1(
d)(
6)
is
negligible
–
EPA
assumes
that
approximately
1
facility
every
four
years
would
no
longer
be
covered
by
FRP
regulations
because
of
the
exemption.
The
reduction
in
the
number
of
facilities
required
to
prepare,
submit,
and/
or
maintain
an
FRP
would
result
in
an
average
annual
information
collection
burden
reduction
of
8,513
hours
a
year,
yielding
a
total
of
25,538
hours.
65
EXHIBIT
3­
14
Baseline
and
Adjusted
Number
of
Existing
and
New
FRP
Facilities
(First
Year)

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Existing
0
1,
020
4,980
6,000
Baseline
New
0
125870
Total
0
1,
032
5,038
6,070
Existing
0
1,
046
4,919
5,965
Adjusted
New
0
115364
Total
0
1,
057
4,972
6,029
Existing
0
26
(61)
(35)

Difference
New
0
(1)
(5)
(6)

Total
0
25
(66)
(41)

Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i)
and
112.1(
d)(
4)

To
estimate
the
burden
reduction
associated
with
eliminating
completely
buried
tanks
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
of
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281,
from
the
SPCC
program,
EPA
conducted
the
analysis
in
two
separate
steps.
First,
EPA
determined
the
total
number
of
facilities
in
the
Survey
that
were
regulated
solely
because
of
their
completely
buried
tanks
and
extrapolated
this
number
to
the
universe
of
regulated
facilities
to
determine
the
national
estimate
of
facilities
that
would
drop
out
of
the
program
due
to
a
completely
buried
tank
exemption.
Second,
EPA
estimated
the
number
of
facilities
that
would
experience
a
significant
decrease
in
burden
because
they
would
no
longer
have
to
include
their
completely
buried
tanks
in
their
SPCC
Plan.
To
estimate
this
number,
EPA
relied
on
a
model
facility
approach.

The
model
facility
approach
characterizes
the
universe
in
terms
of
small,
medium,
and
large
facilities,
which
is
dependent
on
a
facility's
number
of
tanks
and
estimated
storage
capacity.
Some
facilities,
as
a
result
of
a
completely
buried
tank
exemption,
would
have
their
facility
classification
change
from
a
medium
to
a
small
facility
due
to
a
change
in
their
regulated
storage
capacity.
EPA
estimated
the
number
of
facilities
that
would
change
classification
by
screening
Survey
data
and
extrapolating
the
findings
to
derive
a
national
estimate.
While
these
facilities
would
still
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program,
their
annual
paperwork
burden
would
be
significantly
reduced
to
warrant
a
re­
classification
because
of
a
change
in
their
regulated
storage
26
EPA
conducted
this
analysis
using
a
1,
320
gallon
or
less
aboveground
storage
capacity
threshold
to
avoid
a
possible
double
counting
of
the
number
of
facilities
that
may
be
affected
under
both
revisions.

27
Some
facilities
could
have
aboveground
storage
capacity
between
these
thresholds
but
still
be
regulated
under
this
rule
if
the
facility
had
greater
than
42,
000
gallons
of
completely
buried
storage
capacity.
To
estimate
the
burden
reduction
effects
of
this
option,
EPA
did
not
include
facilities
with
greater
than
42,
000
gallons
completely
buried
storage
capacity
in
their
burden
reduction
estimate.

66
capacity.
In
reality,
all
facilities
with
regulated
completely
buried
tanks
would
experience
a
decrease
in
burden
and
capital
costs
so
it
is
likely
that
EPA's
estimate
understates
the
true
effect.

Based
on
an
analysis
of
Survey
results,
EPA
estimates
that
about
51,000
facilities
will
be
affected
by
this
revision.
26
Out
of
this
total,
about
14,000
facilities
–
the
majority
of
which
are
likely
to
be
gasoline
service
stations
–
will
no
longer
be
regulated
under
part
112.
The
other
facilities
will
likely
experience
a
reduction
in
burden,
even
though
they
will
remain
regulated,
as
their
SPCC
Plans
will
no
longer
need
to
discuss
a
completely
buried
tank
regulated
under
40
CFR
part
280.
This
revision
will
decrease
aggregate
capital­
costs
for
regulated
facilities
because
of
the
reduced
number
of
such
facilities.
The
effects
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.
5.
1
of
this
analysis.

Final
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii)

EPA
is
revising
the
rule
to
no
longer
regulate
a
facility
having
a
single
container
with
a
storage
capacity
greater
than
660
gallons,
but
aggregate
aboveground
storage
capacity
of
1,
320
gallons
or
less
of
oil.
To
estimate
the
number
of
facilities
that
would
benefit
from
this
regulatory
threshold
change,
EPA
analyzed
Survey
results
for
the
number
of
facilities
with
a
total
aboveground
oil
storage
capacity
between
660
and
1,320
gallons
in
a
single
tank.
27
Analysis
of
the
Survey
data
showed
that
about
10.5
percent
of
small
facilities
would
no
longer
be
regulated
if
this
option
was
enacted.
As
a
result,
EPA
expects
that
about
39,231
small
facilities
will
no
longer
be
regulated
(38,839
existing
facilities
and
392
new
facilities).
Of
this
total,
approximately
70
percent,
or
about
27,500
facilities
are
small
farms.
Other
industries
that
are
likely
to
experience
a
significant
decrease
in
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
include
primary
and
secondary
schools
and
colleges
as
well
as
gasoline
service
stations.
The
remaining
number
of
facilities
are
evenly
distributed
among
the
manufacturing
and
transportation
sectors
of
the
economy.
This
revision
will
decrease
aggregate
capital­
costs
for
regulated
facilities
because
of
the
reduced
number
of
such
facilities.
The
effects
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.
5.1
of
this
analysis.

Final
40
CFR
112.1(
f)
28
1993
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
Economic
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
Regulation.

67
EPA
is
granting
its
Regional
Administrators
the
authority,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
require
any
facility
subject
to
CWA
section
311(
j)
to
prepare
and
implement
a
total
or
partial
SPCC
Plan
where
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.
This
provision
will
apply
to
any
facility
that
would
otherwise
be
exempted
from
compliance
with
the
regulation
(such
as
a
facility
with
a
completely
buried
tank
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281
that
will
be
exempted
under
40
CFR
112.1(
d)(
4)).

An
otherwise
exempted
facility
that
is
required
to
prepare
a
total
or
partial
Plan
will
incur
costs
to
prepare
that
Plan
and
fulfill
all
other
SPCC
requirements,
including
all
rule
revisions.
The
main
compliance
activities
are:


Prepare
the
SPCC
Plan
(40
CFR
112.7);


Submit
information
in
the
event
of
certain
discharges
of
oil
(40
CFR
112.4);


Revise
the
SPCC
Plan
following
modification
of
the
facility
(40
CFR
112.5(
a));
and

Maintain
the
SPCC
Plan
and
keep
records
(40
CFR
112.3
and
112.7).

The
RAs
are
expected
to
exercise
their
authority
only
in
unusual
circumstances
on
a
facility­
by­
facility
basis.
The
number
of
affected
facilities
has
been
estimated
by
Regional
personnel
at
10
facilities
or
fewer
per
Region.
This
estimate
is
used
for
purposes
of
this
analysis.
The
average
calculated
cost
per
affected
facility
to
comply
with
all
the
SPCC
paperwork­
related
requirements
is
the
same
as
the
average
unit
cost
for
a
new
facility.
EPA
assumes
that
out
of
the
approximately
100
facilities
each
year
that
will
be
affected
by
this
provision,
60
percent
will
be
small
facilities,
30
percent
will
be
medium
facilities,
and
10
percent
will
be
large
facilities.
28
This
revision
will
increase
aggregate
capital­
costs
for
regulated
facilities
because
of
the
increased
number
of
such
facilities.
The
effects
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
Section
3.
5.
1
of
this
analysis.

Exhibit
3­
15
summarizes
the
effects
that
the
above
three
revisions
will
have
on
the
number
of
SPCC
regulated
facilities.
The
exhibit
shows
that
approximately
51,398
facilities,
representing
nearly
11
percent
of
the
entire
SPCC­
regulated
universe,
will
no
longer
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
SPCC
rule.
Of
this
total,
approximately
36,
000
are
small
facilities
and
approximately
14,500
are
medium
facilities.
The
facilities
most
likely
to
be
affected
by
these
changes
are
farms
due
to
the
change
in
the
minimum
aboveground
storage
capacity
threshold
and
gasoline
service
stations
due
to
the
exemptions
of
completely
buried
tanks
that
are
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
EPA's
UST
program.
68
29
From
the
1997
Screening
Analysis
of
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
Program
Impacts
on
Small
Entities.
The
dollar
values
in
the
report
were
updated
to
2001
dollars
in
Exhibit
3­
15.

69
EXHIBIT
3­
15
Adjusted
Number
of
Existing
and
New
Facilities
(First
Year)

Small
Medium
Large
Total
Storage
224,231
41,191
11,587
277,012
Existing
Production
117,388
20,088
300
137,773
Total
341,619
61,279
11,887
414,785
Storage
2,282
432
126
2,837
New
Production
1,194
211
3
1,
411
Total
3,476
643
129
4,248
Total
345,095
61,922
12,016
419,033
3.
5
TOTAL
COSTS
This
section
presents
the
estimated
total
costs
to
small,
medium,
and
large
facilities
of
complying
with
the
revisions
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation.
The
revisions
to
the
final
rule
will
affect
both
the
capital
costs
to
facilities
and
their
paperwork
burden.
Both
effects
are
detailed
below.

3.5.1
CAPITAL
COSTS
Four
of
the
revisions
to
the
final
rule
are
expected
to
result
in
decreased
aggregate
capital
costs
to
facilities.
Specifically,
provisions
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i),
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii),
112.1(
d)(
6),
and
112.1(
f)
will
alter
the
universe
of
regulated
facilities,
thereby
changing
the
total
capital
costs
to
regulated
facilities.
Three
of
the
provisions
–
112.1(
d)(
2)(
i),
112.1(
d)(
2)(
ii),
and
112.1(
d)(
6)
–
will
decrease
the
number
of
regulated
facilities,
and
thus
reduce
the
aggregate
capital
costs
posed
to
the
regulated
community.
Only
provision
112.1(
f)
will
act
to
increase
aggregate
capital
costs.
Exhibit
3­
16
shows
the
estimated
unit
capital
costs
(the
non­
paperwork­
related
annual
compliance
costs)
to
both
existing
and
new
storage
and
production
facilities
in
each
size
category.
29
Existing
facilities
that
will
now
become
exempt
from
the
SPCC
rule
will
save
about
$191
to
$1,743
per
year
on
recurring
equipment
maintenance,
drainage
system
upkeep,
and
training
costs.
New
facilities
that
will
not
be
subject
to
the
revised
rule
also
will
save
initial
costs
of
about
$3,136
to
$165,464
to
purchase
and
install
30
ibid.

70
equipment.
30
The
four
provisions'
cumulative
effects
on
the
universe
of
facilities
following
the
first
year
after
the
final
rule
revisions
is
presented
in
Exhibit
3­
17.

EXHIBIT
3­
16
Estimated
Capital­
Related
Annual
Compliance
Cost
per
Model
Facility
Type
of
Facility
Small
Medium
Large
Existing
Storage
$191
$616
$1,743
Production
$191
$555
$1,505
New
Storage
$3,136
$40,190
$165,464
Production
$3,136
$37,185
$153,447
EXHIBIT
3­
17*
Change
in
the
Size
of
the
Regulated
Community
Due
to
Final
Rule
Revisions
(First
year)

Type
of
Facility
Small
Medium
Large
Total
Existing
Storage
(16,570)
(18,849)
(2,136)
(37,553)

Production
(10,411)
(6,501)
(22)
(16,936)

New
Storage
(126)
(168)
(12)
(309)

Production
(83)
(55)
0
(136)

Total
(27,191)
(25,573)
(2,170)
(54,933)

*The
numbers
in
this
exhibit
are
approximations
due
to
rounding.

To
determine
the
total
change
in
capital
costs,
the
change
in
the
regulated
community
was
multiplied
by
the
estimated
capital­
related
compliance
costs.
The
results
are
presented
in
Exhibit
3­
18.
In
total,
the
final
rule
revisions
are
expected
to
provide
the
regulated
community
with
a
first­
year
capital­
cost
savings
of
approximately
$29.47
million.
71
EXHIBIT
3­
18*
Change
in
Aggregate
Capital
Costs
Due
to
Final
Rule
Revisions
(Million
$)

Type
of
Facility
Small
Medium
Large
Total
Existing
Storage
($
3.89)
($
8.37)
($
1.45)
($
13.71)

Production
($
1.84)
($
3.34)
($
0.03)
($
5.21)

New
Storage
($
0.37)
($
6.26)
($
1.78)
($
8.41)

Production
($
0.24)
($
1.90)
$0.00
($
2.14)

Total
Capital
Costs
Change
($
6.34)
($
19.86)
($
3.26)
($
29.47)

*The
numbers
in
this
exhibit
may
not
add
precisely
due
to
rounding.

3.
5.
2
PAPERWORK
BURDEN
The
revisions
to
the
final
rule
are
expected
to
reduce
the
total
paperwork
cost
burden
posed
to
SPCC
and
FRP
facilities
in
each
size
category.
These
reductions
are
presented
in
Exhibit
3­
19.
Total
costs
increase
by
about
$24.40
million
for
existing
facilities
during
the
first
year
following
the
regulation's
implementation,
but
decreases
by
approximately
$57.71
million
in
the
second
year
and
$42.50
million
per
year
in
subsequent
years.
For
new
facilities,
total
costs
decrease
by
over
$2.
46
million
during
the
first
year,
$2.
50
million
in
the
second
year,
and
over
$2.
53
million
per
year
in
subsequent
years.

Regulated
facilities
will
experience
an
increase
in
total
paperwork
costs
in
the
first
year
of
the
regulation's
implementation
of
about
$21.93
million.
This
increase
is
primarily
associated
with
the
one­
time
burden
to
read
and
understand
the
revisions
being
made
to
the
SPCC
rule,
along
with
a
slight
increase
in
burden
associated
with
two
other
one­
time
activities:
1)
supplementing
existing
SPCC
Plans
with
a
crossreference
matrix,
and
2)
adding
a
facility
diagram
to
the
Plan.
In
addition,
certain
facilities
will
recalculate
their
storage
capacity
to
exclude
applicable
wastewater
treatment
systems
and,
therefore,
must
amend
and
certify
their
plans
if
the
storage
capacity
threshold
is
still
met.
In
certain
cases,
however,
the
treatment
system
provision
in
section
112.1(
b)(
6)
will
result
in
a
facility
no
longer
being
subject
to
the
any
Part
112
requirements.
EPA
also
expects
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
facilities
required
to
prepare
and
maintain
a
facility
response
plan.
During
the
second
year,
total
paperwork
cost
burden
will
decrease
by
about
$60.21
million
and
beginning
in
the
third
year
following
the
rulemaking,
the
total
paperwork
cost
burden
to
all
regulated
facilities
will
decrease
by
about
$45.03
million.
72
3.
5.
3
AGGREGATE
SAVINGS
The
reduction
in
size
of
the
regulated
community
due
to
final
rule
revisions
will
lead
to
a
capital­
cost
savings
of
approximately
$29.47
million
per
year.
During
the
first
year,
regulated
facilities
will
experience
an
increase
in
total
paperwork
cost
burden
of
$21.93
million
due
primarily
to
the
need
to
read
the
rule.
However,
during
the
second
year,
total
paperwork
cost
burden
will
decrease
by
about
$60.21
million
and
beginning
in
the
third
year
following
the
rulemaking,
the
total
paperwork
cost
burden
to
all
regulated
facilities
will
decrease
by
about
$45.03
million.
The
result
is
an
aggregate
cost
savings
of
about
$7.56
million
during
the
first
year,
$89.69
million
during
the
second
year,
and
$74.51
million
during
subsequent
years.
73
EXHIBIT
3­
19
*

ESTIMATED
TOTAL
FIRST­
YEAR
AND
SUBSEQUENT­
YEAR
COSTS
OF
THE
FINAL
REVISIONS
(Million
$)

Provision
or
Activity
First
Year
Second
Year
Each
Subsequent
Year
**

Existing
Facilities
Five­
Year
Review
­
§112.5(
b)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
($
21.19)
($
6.84)
($
1.58)
($
29.61)
($
21.19)
($
6.84)
($
1.58)
($
29.61)
($
9.41)
($
3.93)
($
0.78)
($
14.12)

Oil
Discharge
­
§112.4(
c)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total



0.01)



0.01)



0.01)

Plan
Modification
­
§112.5(
a)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
($
2.34)
$2.24
$0.69
$0.59
($
4.01)
($
2.19)
($
0.25)
($
6.45)
($
4.04)
($
2.21)
($
0.25)
($
6.51)

Recordkeeping
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
($
10.95)
($
8.15)
($
2.56)
($
21.66)
($
11.06)
($
8.23)
($
2.58)
($
21.87)
($
11.16)
($
8.31)
($
2.61)
($
22.08)

Cross­
Reference
­
§112.3(
a)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
$5.57
$1.00
$0.19
$6.76







Facility
Diagram
­
§112.7(
a)(
3)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
$11.27
$2.41
$0.06
$13.74






Provision
or
Activity
First
Year
Second
Year
Each
Subsequent
Year
**

74
Brittle
Fracture
Records
­
§112.7(
i)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total

0.22
$0.19
$0.40

0.22
$0.19
$0.41

0.22
$0.19
$0.41
Read
and
Understand
Rule
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
$44.79
$7.99
$1.55
$54.34







FRP
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemption
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total

0.02
($
0.18)
($
0.15)

0.02
($
0.19)
($
0.17)

0.02
($
0.21)
($
0.19)

Total
Costs
To
Existing
Facilities
$24.40
($
57.71)
($
42.50)

New
Facilities
New
Plan
­
§112.3(
a)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
($
1.07)
($
0.92)
($
0.14)
($
2.14)
($
1.09)
($
0.93)
($
0.16)
($
2.17)
($
1.09)
($
0.79)
($
0.12)
($
2.00)

Oil
Discharge
­
§112.4(
c)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total










Plan
Modification
­
§112.5(
a)
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
($
0.03)
($
0.02)


0.05)
($
0.03)
($
0.02)


0.05)
($
0.03)
($
0.02)


0.05)

Recordkeeping
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total
($
0.11)
($
0.09)
($
0.02)
($
0.22)
($
0.11)
($
0.09)
($
0.02)
($
0.22)
($
0.11)
($
0.09)
($
0.02)
($
0.22)
Provision
or
Activity
First
Year
Second
Year
Each
Subsequent
Year
**

75
FRP
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemption
Small
Facilities
Medium
Facilities
Large
Facilities
Total

0.00)
($
0.04)
($
0.05)

0.00)
($
0.05)
($
0.06)

0.00)
($
0.05)
($
0.06)

Total
Costs
To
New
Facilities
($
2.
46)
($
2.
50)
($
2.
53)

All
Facilities
Total
Costs
To
All
Facilities
$21.93
($
60.21)
(45.03)

*
The
numbers
in
this
exhibit
may
not
add
precisely
due
to
rounding.

**
The
figures
presented
here
are
minimum
estimates.
Costs
and
cost
savings
are
expected
to
grow
over
time
as
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
grows.

Note:
Facility
size
categories
are
defined
as
follows:
a
small
facility
is
assumed
to
have
aboveground
storage
capacity
greater
than
1,320
gallons
total
but
less
than
or
equal
to
42,000
gallons;
a
medium
facility
is
assumed
to
have
total
storage
capacity
greater
than
42,000
gallons
but
less
than
or
equal
to
one
million
gallons;
a
large
facility
is
assumed
to
have
total
storage
capacity
greater
than
one
million
gallons.
76
CHAPTER
4
PUBLIC
HEALTH
AND
WELFARE,
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
4.
1
INTRODUCTION
Discharges
of
both
petroleum
and
non­
petroleum
oils
into
the
nation's
marine
and
freshwater
environments
have
the
potential
to
cause
damages
to
public
health
and
welfare,
and
to
the
environment.
Discharges
from
SPCC
facilities
can
occur
whenever
oil
is
handled
or
stored
during
production,
transfer,
use,
or
disposal.
Causes
of
discharges
include
human
error
(e.
g.,
improper
reaction
conditions
and
overfilling
tanks
during
transfer
operations),
equipment
failure
(e.
g.,
deteriorated
seals
and
ruptured
pipes
or
tanks),
and
improper
storage
or
abandonment.

4.
2
EFFECTS
OF
OIL
DISCHARGES
INTO
MARINE
OR
FRESHWATER
ENVIRONMENTS
Studies
have
documented
nature's
ability
to
recover
over
time
from
the
damage
caused
by
a
large
oil
discharge.
Nevertheless,
the
impact
of
such
large
discharges
into
either
the
marine
or
freshwater
environment
can
be
devastating
in
the
short­
term,
and
some
of
the
effects
may
last
for
years
or
even
decades.
Both
the
extent
of
biological
damage
caused
by
a
discharge
and
the
speed
of
recovery
depend
on
many
factors,
including
the
following:
geographic
location,
quantity
of
oil
spilled,
characteristics
of
the
area
affected,
oceanographic
conditions,
weather
conditions,
the
season,
the
type
of
oil,
and
the
nature
of
the
response.

Physical,
chemical,
and
biological
transformations
of
discharged
oil
begin
immediately
upon
introduction
to
marine
or
freshwater
environments.
The
rate
and
degree
of
transformation
depend
on
several
factors
related
to
advective
and
spreading
processes.
Advection
is
caused
by
the
influence
of
overlying
winds
and
underlying
currents
on
the
oil,
while
spreading
results
from
the
interplay
among
the
forces
of
gravity,
inertia,
friction,
viscosity,
and
surface
tension.
These
two
processes
cause
a
rapid
increase
in
the
exposure
area
of
the
oil
to
subsequent
"weathering."
Oil
spreads
on
the
surface
of
water,
forming
a
"slick"
that
tends
to
move
or
drift
with
waves,
currents,
and
wind.
The
rate
of
spreading
depends
on
the
type
of
oil,
its
volume,
wind
and
sea
conditions,
and
the
amount
of
weathering
that
occurs.
A
thicker
region
of
an
oil
slick
will
drift
more
rapidly
than
a
thinner
one,
so
that
thicker
regions
tend
to
accumulate
at
the
leading
edge
of
a
drifting
slick.

The
toxicity
of
the
discharge
depends
on
oil
type.
Freshly
discharged
crude
is
more
acutely
toxic
than
weathered
oil
because
of
the
presence
of
the
more
toxic
volatile
constituents,
which
quickly
evaporate
or
dissolve.
Similarly,
lighter
refined
31
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Report
to
Congress
on
Candidate
Sites
for
Expansion
of
the
Strategic
Petroleum
Reserve
to
One
Billion
Barrels,
Office
of
Strategic
Petroleum
Reserve,
March
1991,
Document
Number
DOE/
FE­
0221P.

77
products
(e.
g.,
diesel
fuel
and
gasoline)
are
more
acutely
toxic
than
crude
but
dissipate
more
rapidly.

The
specific
properties
of
the
discharged
oil
(e.
g.,
density
and
viscosity)
determine
the
susceptibility
of
a
spill
to
weathering.
Weathering
processes
include
evaporation,
dissolution,
vertical
dispersion,
emulsification,
and
sedimentation.
Emulsification
in
particular
can
expand
the
initial
discharge
volume
considerably
as
oil
and
water
mix
to
form
a
mousse.
For
persistent
oils,
emulsification
can
increase
initial
spill
volume
by
a
factor
of
2
to
3,
depending
on
the
type
of
oil.
The
longer
the
discharged
oil
remains
in
rough
seas,
the
greater
the
likelihood
of
a
mousse
occurring.
A
mousse
may
also
occur
in
quiescent
waters.

The
viscosity
of
oil
also
changes
as
the
oil
is
exposed
to
these
weathering
processes.
High
viscosity
oils
are
more
difficult
to
recover
mechanically
(e.
g.,
pump)
and
disperse
than
low
viscosity
oils.
Weathering
processes
tend
to
increase
the
viscosity
and
may
make
mechanical
recovery
and
removal
of
spilled
oil
from
water
more
difficult.
Over
time,
the
discharge
spreads
into
a
thin
layer
and
continues
to
break
down,
fragmenting
into
smaller
patches.
These
patches
may
cover
even
larger
surface
areas
than
the
initial
discharge
due
to
drifting.

Depending
on
the
location
of
the
discharge,
as
well
as
weather
and
oceanographic
conditions,
some
of
the
oil
may
affect
shoreline
areas.
Unlike
ocean
spills
that
are
dispersed
by
wind
and
wave
action,
oil
discharged
near
the
shoreline
typically
concentrates
and
mixes
with
near­
shore
waters
or
collects
along
shorelines.
As
a
result,
wetlands,
seagrass
beds,
beaches,
rocky
habitats,
coral
reefs,
intertidal
areas,
and
terrestrial
ecosystems
may
be
damaged.

Oil
deposited
in
near­
shore
sediments
persists
longer
than
in
ocean
sediments.
Oil
is
particularly
persistent
in
low­
energy,
wetland
habitats.
31
High­
energy,
rocky
shores
tend
to
self­
clean
within
a
matter
of
months,
whereas
soft­
sediment
lagoons,
marshes,
and
mangrove
swamps
act
as
long­
term
petroleum
sinks.
Pools
of
oil
may
collect
between
rocks
and
remain
essentially
unchanged
for
a
long
time.

On
cobble
and
sandy
beaches,
oil
can
sink
deeply
into
the
sediments
and
remain
longer
than
on
bare
rocks.
Sediment
grain
size
and
compaction
determine
the
rate
of
penetration.
In
muddy
sediments,
only
the
upper
few
centimeters
are
32
National
Research
Council,
Oil
in
the
Sea:
Inputs,
Fates,
and
Effects,
National
Academy
Press,
Washington,
D.
C.,
1985.

33
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Report
to
Congress
on
Candidate
Sites
for
Expansion
of
the
Strategic
Petroleum
Reserve
to
One
Billion
Barrels,
Office
of
Strategic
Petroleum
Reserve,
March
1991,
Document
Number
DOE/
FE­
0221P.

34
National
Research
Council,
Oil
in
the
Sea:
Inputs,
Fates,
And
Effects,
National
Academy
Press,
Washington,
D.
C.,
1985.

78
penetrated.
However,
because
little
physical
weathering
occurs
in
these
environments,
stranded
oil
can
persist
for
decades.
32
Heavy
oiling
of
the
shore
zone
causes
immediate,
widespread
death
of
plants
and
animals
due
to
smothering
and
toxic
effects.
The
long­
term
effects
are
more
variable
and
subtle,
and
depend
on
the
type
of
petroleum
discharged,
climate,
weather,
resilience
of
the
affected
ecosystem,
and
numerous
other
factors.

Attempts
to
clean
beaches
of
oil
may
actually
cause
further
ecological
damage.
The
extent
of
possible
additional
damage
depends
on
the
cleanup
technology
used
(e.
g.,
hot­
and
cold­
water
washing,
backhoeing
and
tilling,
and
manual
oil
removal).
Hot­
water
washing
may
destroy
any
surviving
marine
organisms
in
areas
where
the
technique
is
applied.
Additionally,
the
high
pressure
used
in
both
hot­
and
cold­
water
washing
can
destabilize
gravel
and
sand
beaches.
Shifting
sediments
then
suffocate
marine
organisms
that
inhabit
these
areas,
impeding
recolonization.
Furthermore,
manual
removal
may
damage
some
ecosystems
more
than
if
natural
degradation
of
the
oil
were
allowed
to
occur.
Excessive
removal
of
oiled
sediments
can
also
result
in
the
disturbance
of
physical
and
ecological
equilibrium.

To
varying
degrees,
coastal
marine
environments
throughout
the
United
States
serve
as
breeding
and
nursing
areas
for
resident
and
migratory
species
of
fish
and
aquatic
birds.
Fish
can
be
affected
through
ingestion
of
oil
or
oiled
prey
and
uptake
of
dissolved
petroleum
compounds
through
the
gills,
or
by
changes
in
the
ecosystem.
Damage
to
fish
eggs
and
larvae
also
may
occur.
The
sensitivity
of
fish
to
oil
spills
varies
by
species
and
age
class.
In
general,
fish
are
very
sensitive
to
short­
term
acute
exposures,
but
are
able
to
metabolize
sub­
lethal
intakes.
Fish
in
older
age
classes
are
able
to
avoid
heavy
contamination
and
have
a
mucous
coating
that
helps
them
resist
contact
with
toxic
oil
constituents.
The
youngest
age
classes
are
most
vulnerable
to
oil
spills.
Oil
may
smother
eggs,
interfere
with
hatching
success,
or
cause
developmental
abnormalities.
33
Many
physiological,
histological,
and
behavioral
abnormalities
caused
by
exposure
to
crude
oil
have
been
documented.
34
Aquatic
birds,
especially
diving
birds,
are
highly
vulnerable
to
oil
spilled
in
coastal
areas.
Feathers
that
are
coated
with
oil
become
water­
logged
and
lose
their
35
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Report
to
Congress
on
Candidate
Sites
for
Expansion
of
the
Strategic
Petroleum
Reserve
to
One
Billion
Barrels,
Office
of
Strategic
Petroleum
Reserve,
March
1991,
Document
Number
DOE/
FE­
0221P.

36
National
Research
Council,
Oil
in
the
Sea:
Inputs,
Fates,
And
Effects,
National
Academy
Press,
Washington,
D.
C.,
1985.

79
insulating
properties.
As
a
result,
birds
may
drown
or
die
of
hypothermia.
Oil
also
may
be
ingested
by
birds
as
they
preen.
Birds
suffer
stress­
related
effects
as
they
attempt
to
detoxify
the
ingested
oil.
35
Ingested
oil
can
temporarily
depress
egg
laying
and
reduce
the
hatching
success
of
those
eggs
that
are
laid.
36
Disturbance
of
valuable
habitats
or
resources
also
could
indirectly
affect
birds
through
increased
competition.
Many
waterfowl
and
shorebirds
flock
on
salt
marshes
and
mud
flats
(which
tend
to
recover
more
slowly)
and
would
be
vulnerable
if
their
feeding
habitats
were
contaminated
by
oil
spills.

Oil
discharges
may
also
disrupt
the
structure
and
function
of
marine
ecosystems.
Differential
rates
of
mortality
resulting
from
oil
spills
shift
food
web
relationships.
The
results
for
individual
organisms
are
changes
in
resource
availability,
competition,
and
predation.
On
the
population
level,
species
that
are
dependent
on
affected
prey
or
habitats
will
decline
while
opportunistic
species
may
increase.
Rare
species,
small
local
populations,
or
species
that
are
seasonally
concentrated
in
the
impacted
habitat
are
the
most
likely
to
decline
as
a
result
of
an
oil
discharge.

In
addition
to
adverse
effects
on
fish,
aquatic
birds,
and
marine
ecosystems,
human
health
may
be
at
risk
as
a
consequence
of
oil
pollution
of
water.
The
main
concern
regarding
the
risk
to
humans
is
the
known
carcinogenicity
of
several
of
the
oil
components
and
exposure
to
toxic
elements
in
oil
through
direct
exposure
or
through
oil­
tainted
food.
Human
health
risks
also
include
hazards
encountered
by
workers
during
cleanup
operations.

4.
3
INCREMENTAL
EFFECTS
OF
THE
PROPOSED
RULEMAKING
ON
MARINE
AND
FRESHWATER
ENVIRONMENTS
This
economic
analysis
assumes
that
the
revision
to
the
Oil
Pollution
Prevention
regulation
will
have
a
minimal
effect
on
the
above
risks.
Rather,
the
final
changes
to
the
rule
will
lessen
the
burden
to
the
regulated
community
while
maintaining
a
commensurate
level
of
protection
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
revisions
will
affect
regulated
facilities
in
two
manners.
First,
several
of
the
final
changes
will
reduce
the
number
of
facilities
regulated
by
the
SPCC
program.
The
other
revisions
to
the
rule
are
designed
to
lessen
the
regulatory
burden
of
paperwork­
related
activities
required
of
regulated
facilities.
Each
of
these
effects
and
how
the
final
changes
to
the
rule
would
affect
human
health
or
welfare
or
the
environment
is
discussed
below.
80
4.
3.
1
REDUCING
THE
NUMBER
OF
REGULATED
FACILITIES
EPA
is
reducing
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
program
by
altering
the
criteria
for
SPCC
program
applicability
and
dropping
from
the
program
completely
buried
containers
currently
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281.
Under
the
final
rule,
any
facility
having
an
aboveground
storage
capacity
of
1,
320
gallons
or
less
of
oil
will
no
longer
be
regulated,
nor
will
a
completely
buried
container
subject
to
all
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
of
a
State
program
approved
under
part
281.
Under
the
final
rule,
Regional
Administrators
may
require
any
facility
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
EPA
under
section
311(
j)
of
the
CWA
but
otherwise
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
prepare
a
Plan
under
part
112
to
prepare
and
implement
a
total
or
partial
SPCC
Plan
where
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
CWA.
EPA
expects
this
provision
to
slightly
increase
the
number
of
regulated
facilities.
In
aggregate,
however,
the
size
of
the
regulated
community
will
be
reduced,
with
those
facilities
posing
the
least
amount
of
environmental
risk
–
the
smallest
facilities
and
facilities
currently
regulated
under
other
programs
–
being
excluded
from
the
SPCC
program.

4.
3.
2
REDUCING
PAPERWORK­
RELATED
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
REGULATED
FACILITIES
In
addition
to
the
Agency's
revisions
to
reduce
the
number
of
facilities
subject
to
the
program,
the
Agency
has
also
changed
the
existing
rule
language
in
several
areas
with
the
primary
goal
of
reducing
the
paperwork
burden
to
facilities
that
still
must
comply
with
the
SPCC
regulation.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
effect
of
these
changes,
in
terms
of
increasing
discharge
risk,
is
negligible
because
prevention
planning
and
recordkeeping
activities
would
still
be
conducted
in
full
in
accordance
with
other
standards
(i.
e.,
industry,
State,
or
other
Federal
standards)
or
because
the
changes
do
not
alter
the
basic
objectives
or
intent
of
the
regulation
but
only
affect
minor
recordkeeping
provisions.

Three
of
the
proposed
rule
changes
are
designed
to
increase
the
level
of
flexibility
in
formatting
plans
and
in
the
manner
in
which
records
are
created
and
maintained
without
compromising
protection
to
public
health
or
welfare,
or
the
environment.
First,
by
allowing
facilities
to
deviate
from
the
Plan
format
specified
in
the
rule
–
as
long
as
an
equivalent
plan
is
prepared,
meets
all
the
applicable
requirements
listed
in
the
rule,
is
appropriately
cross­
referenced,
and
is
acceptable
to
the
Regional
Administrator
–
the
Agency
is
giving
facility
owners
or
operators
flexibility
to
use
alternate
formats.
Similarly,
EPA
is
allowing
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
deviate
from
most
of
the
rules'
substantive
requirements
if
he
explains
his
reasons
for
nonconformance
and
provides
equivalent
environmental
protection.
An
owner
or
operator
may
deviate
from
the
requirement
to
install
secondary
containment
structures
81
or
equipment
if
not
practicable,
provides
a
contingency
plan
following
40
CFR
part
109,
conducts
periodic
integrity
testing
of
containers,
and
periodic
integrity
and
leak
testing
of
valves
and
piping.
Again,
the
Agency
is
allowing
flexibility
in
conforming
with
the
rule's
requirements
while
ensuring
that
equivalent
environmental
protection
is
maintained.
Finally,
records
of
inspections
and
tests
maintained
in
accordance
with
usual
and
customary
business
practices,
such
as
API
653
and
2610,
will
no
longer
have
to
be
replicated
for
purposes
of
the
SPCC
Plan.

The
Agency
is
also
allowing
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
submit
less
information
in
the
event
of
a
reportable
discharge
under
§112.4(
a).
In
these
rare
instances,
the
discharge
would
already
have
occurred
and
the
effect
of
the
Agency's
rule
change
would
simply
alter
the
amount
of
information
that
a
facility
owner
or
operator
is
compelled
to
submit.
The
Agency,
however,
would
still
reserve
the
right
to
request
additional
information
from
the
owner
or
operator
if
the
Regional
Administrator
deems
it
necessary.
Additionally,
EPA
is
extending
the
period
of
time
that
a
facility
has
to
conduct
a
self
review
and
evaluation
of
its
Plan
from
three
to
five
years.
The
Agency
does
not
believe
that
this
rule
change
would
significantly
increase
the
risk
of
discharges
as
a
facility
would
still
be
required
to
amend
its
SPCC
Plan
under
§112.5(
a)
whenever
there
is
a
change
in
facility
design,
construction,
operation,
or
maintenance
that
materially
affects
the
facility's
potential
for
the
discharge
of
oil
as
described
in
§112.1(
b).

Two
revisions
to
the
SPCC
rule
will
decrease
both
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
as
well
as
the
overall
burden
for
other
facilities
that
will
continue
to
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program.
EPA
is
no
longer
regulating
under
the
SPCC
program
a
completely
buried
container
that
is
subject
to
all
of
the
technical
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
280
or
of
a
State
program
approved
under
40
CFR
part
281.
The
Agency
is
also
no
longer
regulating
any
bulk
storage
container
with
a
storage
capacity
of
less
than
55
gallons
of
oil.
Facilities
are
expected
to
benefit
from
these
revisions
because
facility
owners
or
operators
will
no
longer
have
to
include
a
discussion
of
the
aforementioned
containers
in
their
SPCC
Plans.
These
revisions
may
also
enable
some
facilities
to
no
longer
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program;
however,
EPA
notes
that
these
facilities
will
either
be
regulated
under
other
Agency
programs
or
do
not
pose
significant
threat
to
the
environment
due
to
the
nature
of
the
facility.

The
Agency
has
also
finalized
a
few
revisions
that
may
increase
the
burden
to
a
regulated
facility,
but
will
likely
decrease
the
risk
that
regulated
facilities
pose
to
the
environment.
EPA
is
requiring
a
facility
owner
or
operator
to
include
with
his
Plan
a
facility
diagram,
which
must
mark
the
location
and
contents
of
each
container.
This
change
will
assist
response
personnel
in
to
plan
for
emergencies.
Additionally,
fieldconstructed
aboveground
containers
must
be
evaluated
for
risk
of
discharge
or
failure
due
to
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe
when
such
a
container
undergoes
a
repair,
82
alteration,
or
a
change
in
service
that
might
affect
the
risk
of
a
brittle
fracture
or
other
catastrophe.
This
change
will
reduce
the
risk
of
container
failure
from
brittle
fracture
and
other
catastrophes.
The
increased
level
of
burden
posed
by
these
revisions
is
expected
to
be
minor
in
comparison
to
the
burden
savings
offered
by
other
finalized
revisions.
The
revision
that
changes
from
eight
to
four
the
minimum
hours
that
a
facility
must
be
attended
to
be
required
to
maintain
a
complete
copy
of
an
SPCC
Plan
on
the
premises
is
expected
to
result
in
a
negligible
burden
increase
because
the
Plan
previously
must
have
been
kept
and
maintained
at
the
nearest
field
office
if
not
at
the
facility.

Finally,
EPA
is
requiring
all
SPCC­
regulated
facilities
to
amend
their
SPCC
Plans
to
conform
with
the
new
sequence
and
requirements
of
the
final
rule,
if
necessary,
within
six
months
of
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
and
implement
the
Plan
within
12
months.
Because
the
format
and
sequence
of
the
rule
has
changed
substantially
and
because
many
facilities
will
find
that
their
existing
SPCC
Plan
no
longer
follows
the
new
sequence
of
the
rule,
the
Agency
has
provided
a
crossreference
template
for
facilities.
The
template
is
intended
to
make
it
easier
for
facilities
to
fulfill
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
112.3(
a),
which
will
in
turn
pose
a
minor
burden
increase
to
regulated
facilities
but
will
not
compromise
protection
to
public
health
or
welfare,
or
the
environment.
83
CHAPTER
5
SMALL
BUSINESS
ANALYSIS
The
purpose
of
this
chapter
is
to
determine
whether
the
changes
being
made
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(EPA)
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
(SPCC)
requirements
will
likely
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
EPA
is
finalizing
many
of
the
changes
proposed
in
1991,
1993,
and
1997.
The
proposals
and
the
changes
being
finalized
that
affect
small
entities
regulated
by
the
rule
are
summarized
below,
along
with
the
effect
these
changes
are
expected
to
have
on
small
entities.

5.
1
REQUIREMENTS
OF
THE
REGULATORY
FLEXIBILITY
ACT
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA)
requires
federal
agencies
to
determine
whether
their
regulatory
actions
will
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
If
an
agency
does
not
or
cannot
certify
that
a
proposed
regulation
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
it
must
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
and
examine
alternatives
to
the
proposed
regulation
that
may
reduce
adverse
economic
effects
on
significantly
impacted
small
entities.

In
1996,
Congress
enacted
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(SBREFA),
which
amended
the
RFA
to
strengthen
its
analytical
and
procedural
requirements
and
to
expedite
Congressional
review
of
rules.
SBREFA
amended
the
RFA
to
reference
the
definition
of
a
"small
entity"
found
in
the
Small
Business
Act,
which
itself
authorizes
the
Small
Business
Administration
(SBA)
to
further
define
"small
business"
by
regulation.
The
SBA's
small
business
definitions
are
codified
at
13
CFR
121.601
and
the
SBA
reviews
and
reissues
these
definitions
every
year.
37
Screening
Analysis
of
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasures
Program
Impacts
on
Small
Entities,
Oil
Spill
Program
Center,
U.
S.
EPA,
1997.

38
American
Petroleum
Institute.
1989
Aboveground
Storage
Tank
Survey,
April
1989;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Spill
Prevention,
Control,
and
Countermeasure
Facilities
Study,
January
1991;
Weiner,
J.
L.
Nutshell
Summary
of
EPA's
National
Survey
of
Oil
Storage
Facilities,
1997
International
Oil
Spill
Conference.

39
This
estimate
includes
1,
000
military
installations
and
2,
300
facilities
in
Alaska
and
Hawaii.
Military
installations
are
federal
facilities
and
therefore
not
covered
as
"persons"
by
the
RFA.
Also,
the
1995
Survey
did
not
extend
to
facilities
in
Alaska
or
Hawaii.
The
estimates
given
in
the
adjusted
national
estimate
were
derived
from
other
sources
and
are
not
included
in
this
analysis.
However,
impacts
on
facilities
in
these
states
are
expected
to
be
similar
to
those
on
facilities
in
other
states.

84
5.
2
CHARACTERIZING
ENTITIES
REGULATED
UNDER
THE
SPCC
PROGRAM
EPA
conducted
a
screening
analysis
of
the
effects
of
the
existing
SPCC
rule
on
small
businesses
in
1997.
37
Based
on
the
results
of
that
analysis,
EPA
determined
that
the
SPCC
rule
did
not
have
significant
adverse
impacts
on
small
businesses
because
many
small
businesses
had
a
total
oil
storage
capacity
that
was
less
than
the
minimum
threshold
requirements
to
be
regulated
by
the
rule
and
because
the
estimated
cost
of
compliance
for
the
remaining
facilities
did
not
constitute
a
significant
percentage
of
a
firm's
total
revenues.

The
1997
screening
analysis
relied
on
the
results
of
several
previous
studies
and
analyses
to
characterize
the
entities
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program.
These
studies
include
the
American
Petroleum
Institute's
1989
survey
of
facilities
with
aboveground
storage
tanks,
EPA's
1991
Facilities
Study,
and
EPA's
1995
Survey.
38
The1995
national
survey
of
oil
storage
and
production
facilities
was
used
by
EPA
in
part
to
estimate
the
number
of
these
facilities
subject
to
EPA's
SPCC
program.
EPA
compared
the
results
of
the
SPCC
Survey
to
previous
government
and
industry
studies
and
calculated
a
1996
adjusted
national
estimate,
which
represented
EPA's
best
approximation
of
the
number
of
facilities
regulated
by
the
SPCC
program.
In
1996,
EPA
indicated
that
approximately
438,000
facilities
had
oil
storage
capacity
great
enough
to
be
regulated
under
the
SPCC
program.
39
Assuming
a
one­
percent
annual
growth
rate
in
the
number
of
facilities,
EPA
estimates
the
number
of
regulated
facilities
to
have
grown
by
about
36,000,
yielding
a
current
total
estimate
of
474,000
facilities.

These
facilities
are
predominantly
found
in
seventeen
industry
sectors.
Exhibit
5­
1
presents
a
breakdown
by
SIC
code
and
corresponding
NAICS
code
of
the
different
industry
sectors
that
contain
the
majority
of
SPCC
facilities,
as
well
as
the
distribution
of
facilities
by
industry
sector.
The
figures
represent
the
1996
adjusted
national
85
estimates
increased
by
the
one­
percent
annual
growth
rate.
EPA
estimates
that
most
SPCC
facilities
are
located
in
either
the
agricultural
sector
of
the
economy
(174,973
facilities)
or
the
oil
production
sector
of
the
economy
(154,709
facilities).
According
to
these
figures,
these
sectors
together
account
for
about
70
percent
of
the
total
number
of
SPCC
facilities.
86
EXHIBIT
5­
1
PRIMARY
INDUSTRY
SECTORS,
SIC
CODES,
CORRESPONDING
NAICS
CODES,
AND
ESTIMATED
NUMBER
OF
SPCC
FACILITIES
Industry
Standard
Industrial
Classification
Code
(SIC)
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(NAICS)
Estimated
Number
of
Regulated
SPCC
Facilities
(CY
2002)
Farms
01
111
174,973
Coal
Mining,
Nonmetallic
Mining
12/
14
2121,
2123,
2131
54136
1,930
Oil
Production
131
211111
154,709
Contract
Construction
16
2341,
2349
7,719
Food
and
Kindred
Products
20
311,
3121
4,610
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
28
2111,
3119,
325,
3313
3,538
Petroleum
Refining
and
Related
Industries
29
3241
1,716
Primary
Metals
33
3241,
331,
332,
3359
751
Other
Manufacturing
20­
39
31­
33
16,618
Transportation
401/
411/
413/
4
14/
417/

42/
449/
458
4821,
484
­5,
4871,
488,
4922,
4931,
5311,
5324,
56172,
5621,
6219,
7139
17,691
Pipelines
46
4861,
4869
644
Electric
Utility
Plants
491
2211
3,967
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
5171
4543,
4227
10,293
Gasoline
Service
Stations/
Vehicle
Rental
554/
751
4471,
5321
13,938
Fuel
Oil
Dealers
5983
4543
4,181
Health
Care/
Education
801/
802/
803/
8
04/
805/
806/
80
7/
821/
822
3391,
61111,
61131,
61121,
621,
623
5,575
Other
Commercial
Facilities
NA
NA
42,885
Military/
AK/
HI
NA
NA
3,
538
Total
NA
NA
469,274
40
SBA
has
revised
the
definition
of
small
business
and
published
a
new
table
of
small
business
size
standards
based
on
industries
as
they
are
defined
by
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(NAICS).
The
outcome
of
this
analysis,
while
it
depends
on
SIC
based
definitions,
would
not
change
noticeably
if
it
used
NAICS­
based
definitions.
For
further
information
about
why
the
analysis
is
not
expected
to
change,
please
refer
to
the
memo
in
the
SPCC
docket
titled,
Effects
of
Revisions
to
the
Definition
of
small
business
on
EPA's
SPCC
Analyses.
For
reference
purposes,
Exhibit
5­
1
shows
SIC
codes,
their
corresponding
NAICS
codes,
and
the
number
of
SPCC
facilities.
At
the
level
of
detail
used
in
this
analysis,
the
SBA
definition
provided
in
Exhibit
5­
2
captures
most
of
the
same
facilities
whether
they
are
classified
by
SIC
or
NAICS.

87
The
industry
sectors
identified
in
the
1996
adjusted
national
estimate
and
listed
above
were
developed
based
on
EPA's
1991
Facilities
Study
and
the
1995
SPCC
Survey.
To
determine
the
industry
sectors
containing
potentially
regulated
facilities,
EPA's
1991
Facilities
Study
examined
several
state
databases
of
facilities
that
store
oil.
All
of
the
databases
included
the
facility
name
and
storage
capacity,
and
some
databases
also
had
the
SIC
Code
or
other
industrial
classification
for
the
facility.
Using
this
information,
EPA
identified
the
industry
sectors
containing
facilities
that
met
the
SPCC
storage
capacity
thresholds.
For
each
industry
sector
in
each
of
the
states
examined,
EPA
divided
the
number
of
potentially
regulated
facilities
by
the
total
number
of
facilities
in
that
industry
sector
in
that
state,
determined
from
Census
data.
These
fractions
were
applied
to
the
national
totals
from
the
Census
to
obtain
estimates
of
the
total
number
of
potentially
regulated
facilities
in
each
industry
sector.
Similarly,
EPA's
1995
SPCC
Survey
determined
the
fraction
of
potentially
regulated
facilities
in
each
industry
sector
sampled
and
extrapolated
the
results
to
obtain
national
estimates.

The
total
number
of
entities
in
each
industry
sector
was
determined
using
data
from
the
1992
U.
S.
Census
at
the
four­
digit
SIC­
code
level.
Census
data
were
obtained
to
some
degree
for
all
industry
sectors
except
electric
utility
plants.
This
industry
is
unique
in
that
the
SBA
defines
small
electric
utilities
in
terms
of
megawatt
hours
of
output,
rather
than
number
of
employees
or
annual
revenues.
Because
the
Census
does
not
aggregate
data
for
this
industry
in
terms
of
megawatt
hours,
a
different
data
source,
the
Energy
Information
Administration's
(EIA)
1995
Form
861
data,
was
used.
The
EIA
provides
both
output
and
revenue
data
at
the
individual
utility
level
for
virtually
all
private
and
public
utilities
in
the
U.
S.

Next,
the
number
of
affected
small
entities
was
estimated
using
the
SBA
definition
of
a
small
business.
40
SBA
defines
a
small
business
as
one
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
Depending
on
the
industry,
size
standard
eligibility
is
based
on
the
average
number
of
employees
for
the
preceding
12­
months
or
on
sales
volume
averaged
over
a
three­
year
period.
88
Exhibit
5­
2,
below,
presents
the
SBA
definitions
that
were
used
in
the
1997
screening
analysis
to
identify
small
businesses
for
the
main
industry
sectors
affected
under
the
SPCC
program.
Although
these
definitions
may
now
be
different,
they
are
presented
here
to
be
consistent
with
other
data
used
in
the
1997
analysis.
Any
new
definitions
are
not
expected
to
affect
the
general
conclusion
that
the
revisions
will
have
negligible
adverse
impacts
on
small
entities.

Exhibit
5­
3
compares
the
total
number
of
small
entities
within
each
category
to
the
total
number
of
entities
identified
by
the
1992
Census.
The
exhibit
shows
that
the
SBA
definition
of
small
entities
used
in
the
1997
screening
analysis
encompassed
94
percent
or
more
of
the
total
number
of
firms
or
establishments
identified
by
the
1992
Census.
89
EXHIBIT
5­
2
SBA
DEFINITION
OF
SMALL
ENTITY
FOR
PRIMARY
SPCC
INDUSTRY
SECTORS
USED
IN
THE
1997
SCREENING
ANALYSIS
Industry
SBA
Definition
of
Small
Entity
Farms
$0.
5
million
Coal
Mining/
Nonmetallic
Mining
500
employees
Oil
Production
500
employees
Contract
Construction
$17.0
million
Food
and
Kindred
Products
500
employees
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
500
employees
Petroleum
Refining
and
Related
Industries
500
employees
Primary
Metals
500
employees
Other
Manufacturing
500
employees
Transportation
$5.
0
million
Pipelines
1,500
employees
Electric
Utility
Plants
4
million
MWh
(total
output)
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
100
employees
Gasoline
Service
Stations/
Vehicle
Rental
$6.
5
million/$
18.5
million
Fuel
Oil
Dealers
$9.
0
million
Health
Care/
Education
$5.
0
million
Other
Commercial
Facilities
$5.
0
million
90
EXHIBIT
5­
3
NUMBER
AND
PERCENTAGE
OF
SMALL
ENTITIES
IN
PRIMARY
SPCC
INDUSTRY
SECTORS
(1992
ESTIMATES)

Industry
U.
S.
Census
Estimate
of
the
Total
Number
of
Firms/
Estab.
s
Approximate
Number
of
SBA­
Defined
Small
Entities
Percentage
of
Firms/
Estabs.
Defined
as
Small
Entities
Farms
1,
925,300
1,878,386
98%
Coal
Mining/
Nonmetallic
Mining
8,
873
8,
821
99%
Oil
Production
7,616
7,592
100%
Contract
Construction
37,180
37,180
100%
Food
and
Kindred
Products
20,798
20,240
97%
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
12,004
11,699
97%
Petroleum
Refining
and
Related
Industries
2,124
2,077
98%

Primary
Metals
6,
501
6,286
97%
Other
Manufacturing
329,485
325,929
99%
Transportation
99,536
95,463
96%
Pipelines
86
86
100%
Electric
Utility
Plants
3,
215
3,
029
94%
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
7,871
7,755
99%

Gasoline
Service
Stations/
Vehicle
Rental
59,075
56,972
96%

Fuel
Oil
Dealers
4,
156
4,019
97%
Health
Care/
Education
382,813
372,734
97%
Other
Commercial
Facilities
2,
669,972
2,543,529
95%
Total
5,
576,605
5,381,797
97%

5.
3
THE
EFFECTS
OF
THE
RULEMAKING
ON
SMALL
ENTITIES
To
assess
the
impacts
on
small
entities
affected
by
the
SPCC
rulemaking
revisions,
EPA
developed
a
more
detailed
characterization
of
small
entities
within
the
main
SPCC
industry
sectors,
because
using
a
single
industry
average
to
characterize
all
small
entities
within
a
single
industry
sector
could
possibly
overlook
significant
impacts
on
the
smallest
of
the
small
entities.
Specifically,
in
1997,
EPA
subdivided
91
each
industry
into
several
size
categories,
based
on
the
SBA
definition
of
a
small
entity
for
that
industry.
EPA
obtained
the
number
of
firms
in
each
size
category
and
the
total
revenue
for
all
firms
in
that
category
from
the
1992
Census.
The
Agency
then
estimated
the
average
revenue
for
a
firm
within
each
group
by
dividing
the
total
revenue
for
each
group
by
the
total
number
of
firms.
Because
a
firm
could
be
associated
with
several
SPCC
facilities,
EPA
determined
the
likely
number
and
types
of
model
facilities
that
a
firm
in
each
industry
and
size
category
may
own.

EPA
has
estimated
the
unit
costs
of
the
revised
provisions
in
the
final
rule
that
may
increase
burden
on
facilities
subject
to
the
SPCC
requirements.
EPA
calculated
the
cost
to
firms
based
on
model
facility
cost
estimates.
In
most
cases,
especially
when
the
number
of
firms
in
an
industry
exceeded
the
number
of
SPCC
facilities,
the
Agency
assumed
that
each
firm
was
associated
with
at
most
a
single
SPCC
facility.

To
determine
the
likelihood
of
an
adverse
impact
on
a
typical
firm
within
each
size
category,
EPA
compared
the
estimated
costs
of
the
revisions
–
in
2001
dollars
–
to
the
1992
average
annual
revenue
for
a
firm
in
that
category.
EPA
assumes
that
this
approach
will
overestimate
the
potential
impacts
for
individual
firms.
To
estimate
the
total
number
of
small
entities
affected,
EPA
assumes
that
the
estimated
impact
on
the
average
firm
within
a
given
size
category
represents
the
potential
impact
on
each
firm
in
that
size
category.

Exhibit
5­
4
shows
the
cost
associated
with
the
main
revisions
that
could
increase
burden.
These
estimates
are
based
on
the
exhibits
in
Section
3.3.
Of
course,
most
of
the
regulatory
changes
will
reduce
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burdens.
Nevertheless,
those
provisions
have
not
been
included
in
this
analysis
to
determine
whether
the
rulemaking
may
produce
a
significant
adverse
impact.

EXHIBIT
5­
4
Estimated
Annual
Costs
from
Key
Revisions
That
Increase
Burden
Annual
Cost
per
Facility
(2001
dollars)

Costs
Small
Medium­
Large
Large
Cross­
Reference
$16
$16
$16
Facility
Diagram
$33
$39
$5
Brittle
Fracture
Records
$0
$4
$16
Read
and
Understand
Rule
$130
$130
$130
92
Total
$180
$190
$168
For
each
main
industry
sector,
EPA
presents
information
from
the
1997
screening
analysis
on
the
number
of
firms
that
were
under
the
SBA
definition
of
a
small
business
and
the
average
revenue
per
firm
within
several
revenue
or
employment
size
categories
as
of
the
1992
Census.
The
number
of
SPCC
facilities,
if
any,
that
the
Agency
believed
were
likely
to
be
associated
with
firms
in
each
size
category
(as
of
the
1997
screening
analysis)
are
also
shown.
For
those
firms
identified
in
1997
as
likely
to
be
regulated,
average
revenues
(1992
dollars)
are
compared
to
the
estimated
cost
(2001
dollars)
of
the
final
rulemaking
revisions
for
a
firm
to
estimate
a
percentage
impact
per
SPCC­
regulated
firm.

Generally,
the
smallest
firms
are
expected
to
have
little
or
no
oil
storage
capacity,
while
the
larger
firms
are
expected
to
have
greater
amounts
of
oil
storage
capacity.
Within
some
size
categories,
a
range
of
estimates
is
given,
because
it
is
likely
that
SPCC­
regulated
firms
are
associated
with
more
than
one
type
of
model
facility.
For
most
industry
sectors,
EPA
determined
the
distribution
of
small,
medium,
and
large
model
facilities
based
on
the
total
number
of
firms
reported
by
Census
and
the
total
number
of
SPCC
facilities
as
determined
in
previous
Agency
analyses.
Industry­
specific
assumptions
made
by
the
Agency
concerning
the
estimation
of
impacts
are
discussed
for
each
industry.
This
section
only
examines
the
impacts
to
small
businesses
relative
to
a
base
year
of
1992
and
does
not
address
impacts
to
larger
businesses.
93
EXHIBIT
5­
5
Distribution
of
Farms
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Agricultural
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Codes
01/
02)

Total
Number
of
Farms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Farms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Farm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Farm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Farm
Sales
<
$1,000
212,580
0
$57,709
$0.27
$0
0.00%

Sales
$1,000
­
$2,499
210,187
0
$353,403
$1.68
$0
0.00%

Sales
$2,500
­
$4,999
231,867
0
$835,832
$3.60
$0
0.00%

Sales
$5,000
­
$9,999
251,883
0
$1,796,553
$7.13
$0
0.00%

Sales
$10,000
­
$19,999
232,067
0
$3,291,314
$14.18
$0
0.00%

Sales
$20,000
­
$24,999
69,737
0
$1,549,347
$22.22
$0
0.00%

Sales
$25,000
­
$39,999
134,582
0
$4,259,990
$31.65
$0
0.00%

Sales
$40,000
­
$49,999
60,772
0
$2,706,693
$44.54
$0
0.00%

Sales
$50,000
­
$99,999
187,760
0
$13,516,761
$71.99
$0
0.00%

Sales
$100,000
­
$249,999
208,405
102,118
$32,710,764
$156.96
$180
0.11%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
78,546
38,488
$26,914,023
$342.65
$180
0.05%
94
EXHIBIT
5­
6
Distribution
of
Establishments
in
the
Coal
and
Nonmetallic
Mining
Industries
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Employment
Size
(SIC
Codes
12/
14)

Total
Number
of
Estab.
s
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Estab.
s)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Estab.

('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Estab.

(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Estab.

Coal
Mining
0
­
4
employees
830
0
$565,800
$682
$0
0.
00%

5
­
9
employees
419
0
$419,900
$1,002
$0
0.00%

10
­
19
employees
582
0
$1,554,800
$2,671
$0
0.00%

20
­
49
employees
652
447
$4,331,700
$6,644
$180
­
$190
0.00%

50
­
499
employees
560
384
$17,069,000
$30,480
$180
­
$190
0.00%

Nonmetallic
Mining
0
­
19
employees
4,418
0
$3,211,400
$727
$0
0.
00%

20
­
249
employees
1,357
931
$7,694,200
$5,670
$180
­
$190
0.00%

250
­
499
employees
3
2
$295,588
$92,062
$180
­
$190
0.00%

EXHIBIT
5­
7
Distribution
of
Firms
in
the
Oil
Production
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Employment
Size
(SIC
Code
131)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
0
­
9
employees
6,216
6,216
$2,632,100
$423
$180
0.04%

10
­
19
employees
600
2,091
$1,623,800
$2,706
$627
0.02%

20
­
49
employees
500
4,439
$3,671,000
$7,342
$1,598
­
$1,687
0.02%

50
­
99
employees
200
6,284
$5,811,800
$29,059
$5,656
­
$5,970
0.02%

100
­
249
employees
32
2,822
$2,698,400
$84,325
$14,816
­
$16,756
0.02%

250
­
499
employees
44
7,584
$8,420,200
$191,368
$28,957
­
$32,749
0.02%
95
EXHIBIT
5­
8
Distribution
of
Establishments
in
the
Construction
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Code
16)

Total
Number
of
Estab.
s
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Estab.
s)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Estab.

('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Estab.

(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Estab.

Sales
<
$100,000
6,291
0
$318,057
$51
$0
0.00%

Sales
$100,000
­
$249,999
7,078
0
$1,183,140
$167
$0
0.00%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
6,299
0
$2,259,805
$359
$0
0.00%

Sales
$500,000
­
$999,999
5,134
1,939
$3,637,836
$709
$180
0.03%

Sales
$1,000,000
­
$2,499,999
5,651
2,134
$8,834,980
$1,563
$180
0.01%

Sales
$2,500,000
­
$4,999,999
2,920
1,103
$10,356,805
$3,547
$180
0.00%

Sales
$5,000,000
­
$9,999,999
1,903
1,012
$13,359,385
$7,020
$168
­
$190
0.00%

Sales
>=
$10,000,000
1,904
1,013
$58,578,174
$30,766
$168
­
$190
0.00%

EXHIBIT
5­
9
Distribution
of
Establishments
in
the
Food
and
Kindred
Products
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Employment
Size
(SIC
Code
20)

Total
Number
of
Estab.
s
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Estab.
s)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Estab.

('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Estab.

(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Estab.

1
­
4
employees
5,767
0
$2,046,000
$355
$0
0.00%

5
­
9
employees
2,886
826
$3,793,400
$1,314
$180
0.01%

10
­
19
employees
2,816
806
$8,304,600
$2,949
$180
0.01%

20
­
49
employees
3,569
1,021
$30,301,600
$8,490
$180
0.00%

50
­
99
employees
2,147
614
$46,984,400
$21,884
$180
­
$190
0.00%

100
­
249
employees
2,139
612
$97,147,900
$45,417
$180
­
$190
0.00%

250
­
499
employees
916
262
$82,756,800
$90,346
$168
­
$190
0.00%
96
EXHIBIT
5­
10
Distribution
of
Establishments
in
the
Chemicals
and
Allied
Products
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Employment
Size
(SIC
Code
28)

Total
Number
of
Estab.
s
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Estab.
s)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Estab.

('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Estab.

(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Estab.

1
­
4
employees
3,102
0
$1,703,200
$549
$0
0.00%

5
­
9
employees
1,937
718
$3,386,200
$1,748
$180
0.01%

10
­
19
employees
1,921
712
$7,122,400
$3,708
$180
0.00%

20
­
99
employees
3,469
1,286
$48,277,000
$13,917
$180
­
$190
0.00%

100
­
249
employees
920
341
$50,976,600
$55,409
$168
­
$190
0.00%

250
­
499
employees
350
130
$54,197,000
$154,849
$168
0.00%

EXHIBIT
5­
11
Distribution
of
Establishments
in
Petroleum
Refining
and
Related
Industries
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Employment
Size
(SIC
Code
29)

Total
Number
of
Estab.
s
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Estab.
s)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Estab.

('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Estab.

(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Estab.

1
­
4
employees
700
527
$913,600
$1,305
$180
­
$190
0.01%

5
­
9
employees
442
333
$1,196,400
$2,707
$190
0.01%

10
­
19
employees
294
221
$1,349,400
$4,590
$190
0.00%

20
­
49
employees
317
239
$4,169,200
$13,152
$168
­
$190
0.00%

50
­
99
employees
146
110
$4,914,500
$33,661
$168
0.00%

100
­
249
employees
123
93
$18,055,800
$146,795
$168
0.00%

250
­
499
employees
55
41
$46,949,811
$853,633
$168
0.00%
97
EXHIBIT
5­
12
Distribution
of
Establishments
in
the
Primary
Metals
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Employment
Size
(SIC
Code
33)

Total
Number
of
Estab.
s
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Estab.
s)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Estab.

('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Estab.

(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Estab.

1
­
4
employees
1,270
0
$622,488
$490
$0
0.00%

5
­
9
employees
760
102
$372,512
$490
$180
0.04%

10
­
49
employees
2,206
295
$7,566,500
$3,430
$180
­
$190
0.01%

50
­
249
employees
1,685
225
$35,521,900
$21,081
$190
0.00%

250
­
499
employees
365
49
$26,767,200
$73,335
$190
0.00%

EXHIBIT
5­
13
Distribution
of
Other
Establishments
in
the
Manufacturing
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Employment
Size
(SIC
Codes
20­
39)

Total
Number
of
Estab.
s
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Estab.
s)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Estab.

('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Estab.

(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Estab.

1
­
4
employees
118,255
0
$21,291,512
$180
$0
0.00%

5
­
9
employees
60,021
4,404
$34,785,288
$580
$180
0.03%

10
­
249
employees
141,542
10,386
$742,914,200
$5,249
$180
­
$190
0.00%

250
­
499
employees
6,111
448
$271,092,589
$44,361
$168
­
$190
0.00%
98
EXHIBIT
5­
14
Distribution
of
Firms
in
the
Transportation
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Codes
411/
413/
414/
417/
42/
449/
458)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
Sales
<
$100,000
20,173
0
$1,209,005
$60
$0
0.
00%

Sales
$100,000
­
$249,999
26,897
5,592
$4,391,119
$163
$180
0.11%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
18,581
3,863
$6,576,471
$354
$180
0.05%

Sales
$500,000
­
$999,999
13,863
2,882
$9,709,760
$700
$180
­
$190
0.
03%

Sales
$1,000,000
­
$2,499,999
11,354
2,361
$17,602,357
$1,550
$190
0.01%

Sales
$2,500,000
­
$4,999,999
4,595
955
$15,892,677
$3,459
$190
0.01%

EXHIBIT
5­
15
Distribution
of
Firms
in
the
Pipeline
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Code
46)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
0
­
9
employees
31
31
$150,888
$4,867
$180
0.00%

10
­
19
employees
10
10
$34,498
$3,450
$180
0.00%

20
­
49
employees
3
4
$24,166
$8,055
$240
0.00%

50
­
99
employees
10
38
$258,358
$25,836
$684
0.00%

100
­
249
employees
11
65
$433,023
$39,366
$1,064
0.00%

250
­
499
employees
6
84
$1,787,777
$297,963
$2,520
­
$2,660
0.00%

500
­
999
employees
12
310
$3,230,336
$269,195
$4,340
­
$4,908
0.00%

1,000
or
more
employees
3
58
$1,128,968
$376,323
$3,248
0.00%
99
EXHIBIT
5­
16
Distribution
of
Electric
Utilities
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Code
4911)

Total
Number
of
Utilities
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Utilities)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Utility
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Utility
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Utility
0.0
­
0.1
million
MWh
1,707
1,707
$4,229,382
$2,478
$180
0.01%

0.1
­
1.0
million
MWh
1,145
1,145
$22,735,357
$19,856
$180
0.00%

1.0
­
4.0
million
MWh
177
177
$17,848,257
$100,838
$180
0.00%

EXHIBIT
5­
17
Distribution
of
Firms
in
the
Petroleum
Bulk
Station
and
Terminal
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Code
5171)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCC­
Regulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
0
­
4
employees
2,429
2,429
$4,137,395
$1,703
$180
­
$190
0.01%

5
­
9
employees
2,241
2,241
$11,092,383
$4,950
$190
0.00%

10
­
19
employees
1,765
1,765
$16,307,761
$9,240
$190
0.00%

20
­
49
employees
1,036
2,072
$20,842,729
$20,118
$380
0.00%

50
­
99
employees
284
568
$13,833,068
$48,708
$336
­
$380
0.00%
100
EXHIBIT
5­
18
Distribution
of
Firms
in
the
Gasoline
Service
Station
and
Vehicle
Rental
Industries
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Codes
554/
751)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
Gasoline
Service
Stations
Sales
<
$250,000
8,253
0
$1,184,947
$144
$0
0.00%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
9,358
2,437
$3,443,224
$368
$180
0.05%

Sales
$500,000
­
$999,999
11,942
3,109
$8,683,722
$727
$180
­
$190
0.03%

Sales
$1,000,000
­
$2,499,999
17,286
4,501
$27,262,533
$1,577
$190
0.01%

Sales
$2,500,000
­
$4,999,999
5,006
1,303
$16,794,841
$3,355
$190
0.01%

Sales
$5,000,000
­
$6,499,999
433
113
$2,935,738
$6,782
$168
­
$190
0.00%

Vehicle
Rental
Sales
<
$100,000
893
0
$49,577
$56
$0
0.00%

Sales
$100,000
­
$249,999
1,042
271
$172,145
$165
$180
0.11%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
872
227
$313,020
$359
$180
0.05%

Sales
$500,000
­
$999,999
739
192
$510,392
$691
$180
­
$190
0.03%

Sales
$1,000,000
­
$2,499,999
668
174
$1,040,266
$1,557
$190
0.01%

Sales
$2,500,000
­
$4,999,999
261
68
$912,764
$3,497
$190
0.00%

Sales
$5,000,000
­
$9,999,999
170
44
$1,166,011
$6,859
$190
0.00%

Sales
$10,000,000
­
$18,499,999
49
13
$727,354
$14,925
$168
­
$190
0.00%
101
EXHIBIT
5­
19
Distribution
of
Firms
in
the
Fuel
Oil
Dealer
Industry
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Code
5983)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
Sales
<
$250,000
495
465
$72,499
$146
$180
0.11%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
679
637
$254,251
$374
$180
0.04%

Sales
$500,000
­
$999,999
1,065
999
$775,040
$728
$180
­
$190
0.02%

Sales
$1,000,000
­
$2,499,999
1,211
1,136
$1,903,389
$1,572
$190
0.01%

Sales
$2,500,000
­
$4,999,999
431
404
$1,447,285
$3,358
$190
0.01%

Sales
$5,000,000
­
$8,999,999
138
130
$943,029
$6,814
$168
­
$190
0.00%

EXHIBIT
5­
20
Distribution
of
Firms
in
the
Health
Care
and
Education
Industries
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Codes
801/
802/
803/
804/
805/
806/
807)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
Sales
<
$100,000
38,331
0
$2,450,771
$64
$0
0.00%

Sales
$100,000
­
$249,999
112,109
1,692
$19,552,771
$174
$180
0.10%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
115,694
1,746
$40,932,245
$354
$180
0.05%

Sales
$500,000
­
$999,999
63,069
952
$43,104,472
$683
$180
0.03%

Sales
$1,000,000
­
$2,499,999
32,910
497
$49,866,711
$1,515
$180
­
$190
0.01%

Sales
$2,500,000
­
$4,999,999
10,621
160
$36,507,348
$3,437
$190
0.01%
102
EXHIBIT
5­
21
Distribution
of
Other
Commercial
Firms
Classified
as
Small
Businesses
by
Revenue
Size
(SIC
Codes
50­
89,
excluding
SIC
Codes
5171,
554,
5983,
751,
and
801­
807)

Total
Number
of
Firms
(1992)
Number
of
SPCCRegulated
Facilities
(1996)
Total
Revenue
(Firms)

('000
dollars,
1992)
Average
Revenue
per
Firm
('000
dollars,
1992)
Cost
of
Revisions
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
(2001)
%Impact
per
SPCCRegulated
Firm
Sales
<
$250,000
1,307,107
0
$152,478,332
$117
$0
0.00%

Sales
$250,000
­
$499,999
505,076
14,824
$177,619,257
$352
$180
0.05%

Sales
$500,000
­
$999,999
360,813
10,590
$250,677,354
$695
$180
0.03%

Sales
$1,000,000
­
$2,499,999
266,512
7,822
$401,805,824
$1,508
$180
0.01%

Sales
$2,500,000
­
$4,999,999
104,021
3,053
$348,644,995
$3,352
$180
0.00%

5.
4
CONCLUSION
Overall,
the
Agency
does
not
find
the
SPCC
rulemaking
revisions
to
cause
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
firms.
Based
on
1992
U.
S.
Census
data
and
2001
cost
estimates
for
the
revisions,
the
Agency
did
not
find
a
significant
economic
impact
on
any
single
group
of
small
businesses
within
any
industry
category
identified
as
being
subject
to
the
SPCC
program.
In
all
cases
the
total
cost
of
the
revisions
was
estimated
to
be
less
than
two­
tenths
of
one
percent
of
the
revenue
of
the
firm.
