­
1­
Response
to
Comments
Extension
of
Compliance
Deadlines
in
the
SPCC
Rule
EPA
received
a
modest
number
of
comments
on
the
proposed
extension
and
carefully
considered
them.
After
reviewing
all
of
the
comments,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines
in
40
CFR
§
§
112.3(
a)
and
(
b).
As
suggested
by
a
commenter,
we
are
also
amending
the
rule
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines
in
§
112.3(
c)
to
enable
mobile
facilities
to
amend
and
implement
their
Plans
in
light
of
the
partial
litigation
settlement.
Many
commenters
agreed
with
the
Agency's
tentative
conclusions
that
the
one­
year
extension
of
compliance
deadlines
is
necessary
to
allow
the
regulated
community
to
understand
and
incorporate
recent
clarifications
of
the
SPCC
rule.
Several
commenters
suggested
extension
time
frames
longer
than
one
year,
specifically
eighteen
months.

We
have
been
persuaded
by
the
comments
that
more
than
one
year
is
appropriate
and
necessary
for
facilities
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
SPCC
amendments.
We
believe
that
an
appropriate
period
is
eighteen
months
for
facilities
to
come
into
compliance,
based
on
the
need
to
amend
and
implement
Plans,
as
necessary,
in
light
of
the
partial
litigation
settlement.

As
discussed
in
today's
preamble,
the
Agency
received
two
comments
that
did
not
support
an
extension.
One
commenter
expressed
a
concern
that
political
interests
motivated
the
Agency's
decision
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines.
Accordingly,
the
commenter
did
not
support
an
extension
and
instead
stated
that
the
compliance
deadline
should
be,
at
the
latest,
January
1,
2005,
although
no
rationale
for
this
date
was
given.
As
stated
earlier,
the
compliance
date
extension
is
intended
to
give
members
of
the
regulated
community
time
to
understand
and
incorporate
recent
clarifications
to
the
SPCC
rule.
Another
commenter
opposed
promulgating
the
extension
of
the
compliance
deadline
and
instead
suggested
that
EPA
withdraw
the
revised
final
SPCC
rule
(
67
FR
47042)
entirely.
The
Agency
does
not
believe
that
his
1The
commenter
suggested
the
proposed
rule
be
withdrawn
because
he
felt:
1)
EPA
failed
to
use
a
single
notice
and
single
comment
rulemaking
procedure
on
the
SPCC
rule,
2)
the
proposed
rule
is
necessitated
by
an
incorrect
economic
analysis
of
the
impact
of
the
2002
amendments,
and
3)
the
proposed
rule
is
flawed
by
lack
of
closure
regarding
the
definition
of
"
navigable
waters."

­
2­
comments1
provide
a
legitimate
justification
for
withdrawing
the
extension.
Moreover,

these
issues
are
not
within
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
Agency
reaffirms
its
belief
that
extending
the
compliance
dates
is
necessary.

Several
commenters
also
provided
a
number
of
other
reasons
for
the
extension.

These
reasons
include
providing
more
time
to
the
regulated
community
to
perform
implementation­
related
activities
such
as
staff
training,
fiscal
budgeting,
obtaining
professional
engineer
certification;
and
to
prevent
a
shortage
of
materials,
equipment
and
technical
expertise
needed
to
implement
plans.
Numerous
commenters
stated
that
additional
time
would
also
be
useful
in
order
to
receive
and
incorporate
additional
clarification
and
guidance
on
the
SPCC
rule
from
EPA.
Several
commenters
suggested
that
a
number
of
issues
regarding
the
SPCC
rule
needed
to
be
clarified
in
guidance
before
the
rule
could
be
properly
implemented.
With
respect
to
guidance,
the
Agency
notes
that
in
an
effort
separate
from
this
rulemaking,
EPA
has
been
working
to
assess
the
need
for
implementation
guidance
in
various
areas
related
to
the
amendments,

particularly
with
respect
to
integrity
testing,
as
we
communicated
at
our
March
31,
2004
public
meeting.
EPA
intends
to
continue
this
process
during
the
18­
month
extension,

as
appropriate.

Several
commenters
expressed
strong
support
for
the
extension,
but
did
not
provide
a
rationale
for
their
support.
Other
commenters
suggested
time
frames
other
than
a
12­
month
extension.
These
suggestions
ranged
from
18
months
to
two
years
to
"
a
much
greater
time"
for
facilities
to
amend
and/
or
implement
their
Plan.
Some
commenters
were
specifically
concerned
about
the
number
and
scope
of
technical
issues
that
EPA
plans
to
clarify,
and
suggested
that
more
than
12
months
would
be
necessary
for
EPA
to
develop
guidance
and
for
facilities
to
make
appropriate
changes
to
their
plans.
Given
the
record
before
the
Agency
at
this
time
on
the
issues
raised
by
­
3­
the
commenters,
the
Agency
concludes
that
a
one­
year
extension
is
generally
inadequate
for
the
regulated
community
to
come
into
compliance
with
the
SPCC
amendments
in
light
of
the
partial
litigation
settlement.
Where
a
facility
believes
that
additional
time
over
the
eighteen
months
extension
is
needed,
the
facility
may
seek
an
extension
pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
112.3(
f),
where
appropriate.
Should
additional
facts
develop
on
these
issues
in
the
future,
the
Agency
will
consider
requests
that
it
take
appropriate
action.

Numerous
commenters
raised
substantive
issues
regarding
the
rule
that
were
not
associated
with
the
issue
of
whether
to
extend
the
compliance
deadlines
in
the
July
2002
rule,
as
revised
in
April
2003.
In
particular,
many
commenters
called
for
modifications,
interpretations,
or
clarifications
of
the
amended
SPCC
rule,
including
issues
surrounding
the
small
business
initiative,
Professional
Engineer
certification,

integrity
testing,
oil­
filled
electrical
and
other
operational
equipment,
process
vessels,

motive
power,
produced
water,
secondary
containment
requirements
for
loading
racks
and
piping,
definitions
of
"
oil"
and
"
waters
of
the
U.
S.,"
oil
in
wastewater
treatment,

vehicle
mounted
and
mobile
containers,
and
fencing
and
monitoring.
Except
for
extending
the
compliance
deadlines
for
mobile
facilities,
EPA
did
not
consider
these
comments
because
they
were
outside
the
scope
of
today's
rulemaking.

Miscellaneous
Issues
°
One
commenter
was
concerned
that
an
interim
final
rule
extending
the
compliance
deadlines
did
not
accompany
the
proposed
one­
year
extension.
The
commenter
questioned
when
the
final
rule
would
be
published
and
if
the
regulated
community
would
have
30­
days
notice.
Without
a
30­
day
notice,
the
commenter
was
concerned
about
the
resources
required
to
prepare
individual
extension
requests
per
§
112.3(
f)
for
his
facilities.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
either
publish
a
final
rule
extending
the
deadlines
by
July
17,
2004
or
issue
an
interim
final
rule
by
that
date
extending
the
deadlines
as
long
as
necessary
to
finalize
this
proposed
rule.
EPA
is
aware
of
the
scheduling
concerns
regarding
the
extension
of
compliance
deadlines
and
believes
it
has
­
4­
issued
its
final
rule
such
that
the
regulated
community
will
not
be
burdened
with
preparing
individual
extension
requests.

°
One
commenter
suggested
that
if
EPA
adheres
to
its
proposal
for
no
more
than
a
one­
year
extension,
the
rule
should
delegate
to
the
EPA
Administrator
or
his
designee
the
authority
to
further
extend
the
compliance
deadline
in
light
of
pending
administrative
proceedings
without
having
to
initiate
another
round
of
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking.
Any
general
extension
for
all
facilities
would
require
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.
The
rule
already
provides
for
the
Regional
Administrator
to
authorize
extensions
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
pursuant
to
§
112.3(
f).

°
A
commenter
asked
EPA
to
reaffirm
the
statement
that
the
Agency
made
in
the
preamble
to
the
April
17,
2003
final
rule.
Accordingly,
EPA
restates
that
to
the
extent
that
the
July
2002
rule
imposes
new
or
more
stringent
compliance
obligations
than
did
the
1973
SPCC
rule,
the
deadlines
in
40
CFR
112.3(
a)

and(
b)
for
fulfillment
of
those
obligations
are
again
extended
under
today's
final
rule.
The
compliance
deadline
for
40
CFR
112.3(
c)
is
also
amended.
A
provision
that
provides
regulatory
relief
in
the
revised
rule
is
not
affected
by
today's
compliance
deadline
extensions
because
such
provisions
are
not
addressed
by
40
CFR
112.3(
a),
(
b),
or
(
c);
these
are
not
provisions
for
which
it
would
be
``
necessary''
to
amend
existing
Plans
``
to
ensure
compliance
with''
the
July
2002
amendments.
