COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT 

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE

Extension of Compliance Dates

FINAL RULEMAKING

40 CFR Part 112

May 10, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Emergency Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Comment and Response Document for the Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure, Extension of Compliance Dates Final Rulemaking

Introduction

Summary of Comments

EPA Response

Comment Excerpts

Support

Oppose

Suggested Alternate Dates

I.	INTRODUCTION

Purpose of This Document

On December 26, 2006, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to
amend the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (40
CFR part 112), promulgated under the Clean Water Act.  This action
proposed to extend the compliance dates for owners and operators of
facilities to prepare or amend and implement SPCC Plans from October 31,
2007 to July 1, 2009.   The Agency expects to propose further revisions
to the SPCC rule in 2007, and the proposed extension would allow the
Agency the time to promulgate further regulatory revisions before the
compliance dates.  These further amendments would address additional
areas where regulatory reform may be appropriate, including but not
limited to, oil and natural gas exploration and production, farms,
animal fats and vegetable oils, and a subset of qualified facilities.

The purpose of this document is to summarize comments and provide
responses to comments for the 2006 proposal (71 FR 77357, December 26,
2006) to extend the compliance dates for the Oil Pollution Prevention
and Response rule.

Development of Comment and Response Document

To develop this document, EPA reviewed the submissions made to public
docket number EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949.  EPA organized the comments based on
the topics they addressed in the proposed rule, which had been published
in the Federal Register on December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77357).  Comments
submitted to the public docket for this rulemaking appear in their
entirety at http://www.regulations.gov, identified by docket number
“EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949.”

EPA organized the comments into three categories: 1) support, 2) oppose,
and 3) suggested alternate dates.  Excerpts from each submission are
provided in the corresponding categories. The comment excerpts that are
included in this document are taken verbatim from the submissions
received by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS).  

EPA appreciates but will not respond as part of this action to comments
received that addressed issues outside the scope of the proposed rule
and the associated request for comment.

The table below, Table 1, lists all submissions received by FDMS for
docket EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949.  Each submission is provided a unique
document number by FDMS.  The document numbering begins at the number 2;
the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule is included in the
docket as document number 1.  The table also lists each commenter’s
name and the organization with which the commenter is affiliated, if
provided.  Multiple signatories to a single document are listed in the
last column.

Table 1.  Summary of submissions to FDMS by document number, commenter
name and affiliation.

No.	Name1	Organization

2	Josh Cashatt	Schwab

3	G.H. Holliday	Holliday Environmental Services

4	G.H. Holliday	Holliday Environmental Services

5	Pamela Faggert	Dominion Resources, Inc.

6	Jeff Spillyards	Entergy Services, Inc.

7	Terry Behrman	Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

8	Matt Grant	Wyoming Mining Association

9	Jerry Schwartz	The American Forest & Paper Association

10	Stuart Sanderson	The Colorado Mining Association

11	Robert Fronczak	Association of American Railroads

12	Angie Burckhalter	Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association

13	 	Independent Petroleum Association, International Association of 

Drilling Contractors, the International Association of 

Geophysical Contractors, the National Stripper Well Association, 

the Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association, California 

Independent Petroleum Association, Coalbed Methane Association 

of Alabama, Colorado Oil & Gas Association, East Texas Producers 

& Royalty Owners Association, Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas 

Association, Florida Independent Petroleum Association, Illinois 

Oil & Gas Association, Independent Oil & Gas Association of New 

York, Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania, 

Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia, Independent 

Oil Producers Agency, Independent Oil Producers Association 

Tri-State, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain 

States, Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, Indiana 

Oil & Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil & Gas 

Association, Kentucky Oil & Gas Association, Louisiana Independent 

Oil & Gas Association, Michigan Oil & Gas Association, 

Mississippi Independent Producers & Royalty Association, 

Montana Petroleum Association, National Association of 

Royalty Owners, Nebraska Independent Oil & Gas Association, 

New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, New York State Oil 

Producers Association, North Dakota Petroleum Council, 

Northern Alliance of Independent Producers, Ohio Oil & 

Gas Association, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum 

Association, Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners 

Association, Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Association, Permian Basin Petroleum
Association, Petroleum Association of 

Wyoming, Tennessee Oil & Gas Association, Texas Alliance of 

Energy Producers, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty 

Owners Association, Virginia Oil and Gas Association, 

Wyoming Independent Producers Association

14	Kirk Johnson	National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

15	Robert Fronczak	Association of American Railroads

16	Roger Claff	American Petroleum Institute

17	Steve Hensley	USA Rice Federation

18	Karen Bennett	National Mining Association

19	Sahar Osman-Sypher	Association Connecting Electronics Industries

20	Scott Davis	Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

21	Bill Verner	Georgia Electric Membership Corporation

22	Bridgette Ellis	Tennessee Valley Authority

23	Pamela Lacey	American Gas Association

24	Jeff Bunnulfsen	Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association

25	Karen Bennett	National Mining Association

26	 	American Forest & Paper Association, American Trucking
Associations, Automotive Oil Change Association, Automotive Service
Association, Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc, Independent
Lubricant Manufacturers Association, IPC - Association Connecting
Electronics Industries, National Association of Fleet Administrators,
National Automobile Dealers Association, National Federation of
Independent Business Legal Foundation, National Paint and Coatings
Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Printing
Industries of America/Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, Specialty
Graphic Imaging Association, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association

27	Tim Pohle	Air Transport Association

28	Chris Keyser	New England Fuel Institute

29	Mark Morgan	Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association

30	Tim Crouch	Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric
Cooperatives

31	Eric Byer	National Air Transportation Association

32	John Hopewell	National Paint and Coatings Association

1 FDMS reports submission of comments from G.H. Holliday.  However,
comments were not uploaded to the system.  See “Note to File Regarding
George Holliday” in the docket for further information.



II.	SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 

EPA received a total of 28 unique submissions in response to the request
for comments in the notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the
Federal Register on December 26, 2006.   The majority of commenters (19)
expressed complete support for the proposed extension of dates for
preparation or amendment and implementation of facility SPCC Plans.  A
small group of commenters (9) suggested a different date for the
proposed extension.  No comments opposing the proposal were officially
logged with the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS).  However, one
of the commenters listed on the FDMS had attempted to submit official
comments but no document appeared included in the system; this comment
is included as the commenter had attempted to use the FDMS system and
had also contacted the Agency to express opposition to the proposed
extension.

The majority of commenters support extension of the compliance deadline.
They generally agree that the extension would allow the Agency time to
promulgate further regulatory revisions before the compliance dates. 
Many commenters also noted that the proposed extension would allow those
potentially affected in the regulated community an opportunity to make
changes to their facilities and to their SPCC Plans necessary to comply
with the revised requirements expected to be proposed in 2007, rather
than with the existing requirements. Several commenters urged the Agency
to confirm that the new compliance deadline applies to "new or more
stringent compliance obligations" imposed by or subsequent to the July
2002 SPCC amendments and not to provisions in the amendments that
provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities.  

A second group of commenters supports the proposed extension but
suggests alternate schedules, arguing that EPA’s proposed compliance
date was premature given the Agency’s intent to propose further
changes to the SPCC rule in 2007.  Several schedules were suggested:

Tie the proposed deadline for compliance to the promulgation of a final
SPCC rule following the 2007 proposal or, in the event that EPA
unexpectedly decides not to go forward with a final rule, 12 months
after publication of a notice in the Federal Register terminating that
rulemaking effort.

Provide an extension of 18 months from the date of promulgation of any
final amendments to the SPCC rule, thereby providing adequate
implementation time for regulated facilities (i.e. review amendments,
develop and /or modify existing Plans, and comply with any final changes
to the rule or guidance).

Set the date for preparing and amending Plans to one year following
publication of the final amendments, maintaining the six-month
separation between the deadline for amending and implementing Plans.

Set a compliance date deadline of July 1, 2009, and an implementation
compliance deadline of January 1, 2010, thereby allowing facility
owners/operators adequate time after Plan amendment to modify their
facilities, properly train employees, on the amended plan requirements,
and allow for full implementation of the amended Plan requirements.   

The opposing comment in FDMS argued that an extension would not
effectively address the problems with the regulation, and he saw a need
for a complete re-write of the rule.  Please see “Note to File
Regarding George Holliday” in the docket for further information. 
Excerpts from all comments submitted to the FDMS are provided in Section
IV and presented in the following order: Support; Oppose; Suggested
Alternate Dates.  

The Agency also received many calls inquiring about the proposed
extension.  One such caller saw no need for a compliance date extension
for this regulation, which has been in effect since 1974 (see 38 FR
34164, December 11, 1973), and was concerned that further compliance
date extensions could have a potentially detrimental effect on the
environment.  The caller declined to formally submit comments in
FDMS.III.	EPA RESPONSE

The Agency agrees with commenters who expressed full support of the
proposed rule. This action will allow EPA time to promulgate additional
revisions to the SPCC rule before owners or operators are required to
meet current requirements of the rule related to preparing or amending,
and implementing SPCC Plans. 

This extension would allow those potentially affected in the regulated
community an opportunity to make the changes to their facilities and to
their SPCC Plans necessary to comply with the revised requirements
expected to be proposed in 2007, rather than with the existing
requirements.  Further, the Agency believes that this proposed extension
of the compliance dates would also provide facilities additional time to
fully understand the regulatory relief offered by revisions to the 2002
SPCC rule as finalized in December 2006 (71 FR 77266).

In addition, the Agency intends to issue revisions to the SPCC Guidance
for Regional Inspectors, to address both the revisions finalized in
December 2006 (71 FR 77266), and any additional revisions based on an
upcoming proposal expected in 2007.  An extension of the compliance
dates will allow the regulated community sufficient time to properly
understand and implement any new rule modifications, and to take
advantage of the revised guidance.

In response to the alternate schedules for amendment and implementation
proposed by several commenters, the Agency is reluctant to proceed as
these commenters suggested to either set uncertain compliance dates in
Sec. 112.3 or to further extend the time period for the compliance
deadlines. At the same time, the Agency recognizes that the regulated
community needs adequate time after EPA takes final action on any
additional proposed amendments to the SPCC Plan requirements to amend or
prepare their SPCC Plans and to implement them. The Agency still
believes that one year is a reasonable period of time to allow for
preparing, amending, and implementing SPCC Plans following final Agency
action on any additional proposed amendments to the SPCC rule. The
Agency plans to develop and publish Federal Register notices proposing
and then taking final action on further amendments to the SPCC
regulatory requirements as soon as possible. The Agency believes that
extending the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3 until July 1, 2009 will
allow those potentially affected in the regulated community an
opportunity to make changes to their facilities and to their SPCC Plans
necessary to comply with any new revised requirements, rather than with
the existing requirements.

The Agency also disagrees with commenters that requested a revised date
for implementing amended SPCC Plans to include a six-month period after
the July 1, 2009 date for Plan amendment. For the reasons discussed
above, the Agency believes the July 1, 2009 date for Plan implementation
is adequate. The Agency's decision to eliminate the gap between Plan
preparation or amendment and implementation will allow additional time
for Plan preparation or amendment.

The Agency believes that it is in the best interest of the regulated
community to address areas of confusion that arose after promulgation of
the 2002 amendments. By promulgating a proposal intended to clarify
requirements and tailor requirements, particularly for small businesses,
and by making the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors available to the
regulated community, the Agency believes that a more effective and
complete implementation of the SPCC regulation and improved compliance
will result in enhanced environmental protection. The Agency also
believes that the regulated community needs the additional time allowed
by the extension to be able to consider taking advantage of the
alternative compliance options provided by the 2006 amendments.  For
example, the owner or operator of a facility that stores 10,000 gallons
of oil or less and meets other qualifying criteria may choose to
self-certify their SPCC Plan in lieu of review and certification by a
Professional Engineer.  An extension will also allow the regulated
community the opportunity to take advantage of further amendments that
are expected to be proposed in 2007.  The Agency believes that the
benefits of this extension outweigh the concerns raised by commenters of
increased administrative burdens.  

The Agency is providing an extension from the requirements in both the
2002 and 2006 amendments to those facilities that were in compliance
with the SPCC regulation and those facilities that became subject to the
SPCC regulation after the 2002 amendments effective date. The compliance
date provision (40 C.F.R. 112.3(a)) means that components of both the
2002 and 2006 SPCC rule that imposed new or more stringent requirements
than the 1973 SPCC rule must be met by this date. Because facilities
with SPCC Plans meeting the requirements of the 1973 SPCC rule would
already be in compliance with those provisions of the July 2002 rule
that are less stringent than the 1973 rule, those aspects of the
facility’s SPCC plan would not have to be amended in order to meet the
requirements of the 2002 SPCC rule (although there may be other reasons,
such as material changes at the facility, which would require the plan
to be amended). The compliance dates in §112.3 are independent of the
requirement to review the SPCC Plan at least once every five years as
required by §112.5(b).

The Agency disagrees that an extension will have an adverse effect on
environmental protection.  The extension of the compliance deadlines
does not eliminate the requirement for facilities to continue to
maintain their existing SPCC Plans.  Facilities subject to SPCC continue
to be responsible for ensuring that their operations are conducted in a
manner that safeguards human health and the environment by preventing
oil discharges to navigable waters and by effectively responding in the
event of an accidental discharge.  Finally, all facilities have an
incentive to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining
shorelines as they are liable under 40 CRF 110.  

The Agency recognizes the concerns of the commentor opposing the
extension.  The Agency is considering additional revisions to further
clarify the regulation, which is the reason for the extension.

IV. 	COMMENT EXCERPTS

A.	SUPPORT

Submitted by - Josh Cashatt of Schwab

Comment Text: 

I wish to support the extension of the SPCC implementation date.

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

Comment Text: 

The Alliance supports EPA's proposal to extend the deadlines to amend
and implement SPCC plan changes required as a result of the December
2006 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures amendments. This will
allow sufficient time for EPA to resolve the remaining issues and
implement the required rulemaking. Additionally, it allows the regulated
community sufficient time to properly understand and implement the new
rule modifications.

Submitted by - Matt Grant of Wyoming Mining Association 

Comment Text: 

WMA members support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal
to extend the compliance date to July 1, 2009 by which facilities must
comply with the 2002 Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) regulations.

Submitted by - Stuart Sanderson of The Colorado Mining Association

Comment Text: 

The Colorado Mining Association appreciates the opportunity to submit
these comments supporting the proposed extension of the date that
facilities must prepare or amend and implement the new Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan requirements until July 1, 2009.

Submitted by - Robert Fronczak of Association of American Railroads 

Comment Text: 

AAR supports this proposed rulemaking. It makes no sense to implement
new requirements to SPCC plans at a time when EPA is in the process of
making further revisions to the regulations.

Submitted by - Angie Burckhalter of Oklahoma Independent Petroleum
Association (OIPA) 

Comment Text: 

We strongly support EPA's proposed extension. We agree the proposed
extension will allow EPA time to conduct future rulemakings that could
result in changes to the 2002 rule that would make current costly and
unnecessary expenditures by small oil and gas operators unnecessary,
allow time to update the guidance document in accordance with any new
rules, and allow operators time to fully understand and comply with
those changes.

Submitted by - of Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)

Comment Text: 

We strongly support EPA's proposal to extend these compliance dates...
The extension will also allow time to address a series of issues that
have been raised repeatedly in the past and have not yet been addressed.

Submitted by - Kirk Johnson of National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association 

Comment Text: 

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) submits
these comments in support of EPA's proposal (71 Fed. Reg. 77357 (Dec.
26, 2006)) to extend the deadline to July 1, 2009 for facilities to
amend and implement their Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
("SPCC") plans to comply with the SPCC regulations published in July,
2002, the SPCC amendments published in 2006 and the SPCC amendments EPA
is planning to issue in the near future. 

Submitted by - Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute

Comment Text: 

The extension of the compliance date would allow the Agency time to
clarify and amend the July 17,2002 final SPCC rule and provide affected
facility owners and operators adequate time to meet the amended
requirements. 

Submitted by - Steve Hensley of USA Rice Federation 

Comment Text: 

USA Rice is pleased to support the proposed extension. Although the
extension does not apply directly to farms, it does apply to other
members of the Federation as well as many farm-support services. The
effects on those services from this rule will be felt downstream with
their farm customers and any burden reduction is welcome.

Submitted by - Karen Bennett of National Mining Association (NMA)

Comment Text: 

The National Mining Association (NMA) appreciates this opportunity to
submit comments in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) proposal to extend the dates by which facilities must comply with
the 2002 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations
from Oct. 31, 2007 to July 1, 2009. 67 Fed. Reg. 47,042 (Dec. 26, 2006).

Submitted by - Bill Verner of Georgia Electric Membership Corporation
(GEMC)

Comment Text: 

This new extension is needed, therefore, to give the Georgia EMCs the
opportunity [to] make changes to their facilities and to amend/prepare
their SPCC plans as needed to comply with the new requirements
forthcoming in 2007. In addition, the extensions would give the EMCs
more time to understand and address the revisions to the SPCC program
made in 2002 and in 2006. For all of these reasons, GEMC and the Georgia
EMCs support EPA's proposal to extend the compliance deadlines until
July 1,2009.

Submitted by - Jeff Gunnulfsen of Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) 

Comment Text: 

Under the proposal, EPA would extend the compliance date for preparing
(or revising) SPCC plans and for implementing plans from October 31,
2007 to July 1, 2009. SOCMA strongly supports this extension and
believes that it is warranted. 

Submitted by - Jessica Steinhilber of Aviation Coalition

Comment Text: 

The Aviation Coalition strongly supports the Proposed Compliance Date
Extension and strongly agrees with the Agency's rationales for the
extension.

Submitted by - Chris Keyser of New England Fuel Institute

Comment Text: 

NEFI strongly supports the Agency's proposal for an extension of the
compliance date for amending and implementing SPCC Plans to July 1,
2009.

Submitted by - Mark Morgan of Petroleum Transportation and Storage
Association

Comment Text: 

PTSA strongly supports the Agency's proposal for an extension of the
compliance date for amending and implementing SPCC Plans to July 1,
2009.

Submitted by - Tim Crouch of Indiana Statewide Association of Rural
Electric Cooperatives

Comment Text: 

Regulatory Program members wish to express their support for US EPA's
proposal to extend the compliance deadline to July 1, 2009 for covered
facilities to amend their SPCC plans and the recent revised amendments
allowing for regulatory relief in several key areas affecting our
members including Oil filled Operational Equipment, Qualified and Small
facilities. 

Submitted by - Eric Byer of National Air Transportation Association 

Comment Text:

The association is very supportive of the EPA's proposal to extend the
compliance deadline until July 1, 2009, and commends the agency for its
flexibility in allowing facilities affected by the rule appropriate time
to comply with the new regulations.

Submitted by – John Hopewell of National Paint and Coatings
Association

Comment Text:

Given EPA's recent amendments to provide SPCC regulatory relief, the
pending update of its SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors, and the
agency's intent to propose further SPCC rule amendments in 2007, the
extension is appropriate and very welcomed. The extension of the SPCC
deadline should provide regulated facilities adequate time to review the
amendments, develop and/or modify existing plans, and comply with any
final changes to the rule or guidance. Without this additional time,
facilities' compliance efforts would be unnecessarily burdensome and
compromised.

B.	OPPOSE

No comments opposing the Agency’s proposal to extend the dates for
owners and operators of facilities to prepare or amend and implement
SPCC Plans from October 31, 2007 to July 1, 2009 were officially logged
with the Federal Docket Management System.

C.	SUGGESTED ALTERNATE DATES 

Submitted by - Pamela Faggert of Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Comment Text: 

Dominion... appreciates the opportunity to express support for a
proposed extension... At the same time, however, because the EPA cannot
guarantee a certain date for promulgation of the 'loose ends' rule, the
proposed deadline of July 1, 2009, does not ensure that adequate time to
meet the amended requirements will be provided. We recommend that EPA
establish a compliance deadline of 12 months following promulgation of a
final 'loose ends' rule, or notice of termination of the rulemaking, in
order to allow facility owners/operators adequate time for plan
amendment and full implementation of the amended plan requirements.

Submitted by - Jeff Spillyards of Entergy Corporation

Comment Text: 

Entergy Corporation ("Entergy") endorses EPA's proposed rule, Docket No.
EPA-OPA-2006-0949, 71 Fed. Reg. 77357 (Dec. 26, 2006), to extend the
deadline to July 1, 2009 for facilities to amend and implement their
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans in accordance
with requirements associated with the July 2002, December 2006 and
forthcoming "loose ends" spill prevention control and countermeasure
amendments. Additionally, Entergy supports suggestion by the Utility
Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG") that repetition of compliance
extension rulemakings can be avoided by tying the proposed deadline to
promulgation of the final “loose ends” rule or, in the event that
EPA unexpectedly decides not to go forward with the rule, 12 months
after publication of a notice in the Federal Register terminating that
rulemaking. Likewise, Entergy supports the USWAG suggestion that, as EPA
stated in the 2004 and 2006 final extension notices (see 69 Fed. Reg. at
48796; 71 Fed. Reg. at 8463), EPA reaffirm in the preamble to this final
compliance extension rule that the new compliance deadline applies to
"new or more stringent compliance obligations" imposed by or subsequent
to the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not to provisions in the amendments
that provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities. 

Submitted by - Jerry Schwartz of The American Forest & Paper Association
(AF&PA) 

Comment Text: 

AF&PA strongly supports an extension of the compliance date for
preparing or amending and implementing SPCC Plans...

Rather than setting an exact date, however, AF&PA recommends that EPA
set the date for preparing and amending Plans to one year following
publication of the final amendments. As noted in the federal register
announcement, this is the fourth proposal to extend the compliance date
following publication of the 2002 amendments. Linking the compliance
date to the publication of the final amendments would streamline the
process, and guarantee facility owners and operators adequate time to
amend existing plans.

Additionally, AF&PA recommends that a six month separation be maintained
between the deadline for amending plans and implementing plans. Thus,
AF&PA recommends that SPCC Plans be amended one year after promulgation
of the final amendments and implemented six months later.

Submitted by - Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute

Comment Text: 

API strongly supports the proposed extension of the compliance deadlines
for amending and implementing SPCC Plans; however, API also recommends
EPA maintain the separation of six months between the deadline for SPCC
Plan amendment and implementation, to allow facility owners/operators
adequate time after plan amendment to modify their facilities, properly
train employees on the amended plan requirements, and allow for full
implementation of the amended plan requirements.

Accordingly, API recommends a SPCC Plan amendment compliance deadline of
July 1, 2009 and an implementation compliance deadline of January l,
2010. Our recommendation is contingent on EPA finalizing no later than
July 1,2008 all rule amendments as well as its responses to all
outstanding requests for clarification submitted by API and other
industry members. Should EPA not be able to meet this timeline, API
recommends the Plan amendment deadline be set at least one full year
after finalizing all clarifications and making the necessary rule
amendments. This year would allow industry time to prepare its amended
plans and to budget and plan for the required facility modifications.
The deadline for implementation of amended plans would follow at least
six months after that date.

Submitted by - Sahar Osman-Sypher of IPC - Association Connecting
Electronics Industries 

Comment Text: 

IPC supports EPA's proposal to extend the deadline for
preparing/amending and implementing facility SPCC Plans... However,
EPA's proposed compliance date to July 1, 2009 is premature given EPA's
intent to propose further changes to the SPCC rule this year. IPC asks
EPA to consider an extension of 18 months from promulgation of the final
amendments to the SPCC rule, rather than prematurely setting a specific
compliance date. IPC believes this alternative to EPA's proposed
compliance date of July 1, 2009 is a more suitable extension and will
provide regulated facilities adequate time to review the amendments,
develop and/or modify existing plans, and comply with any final changes
to the rule or guidance. Without this additional time, facilities'
compliance efforts would be unnecessarily burdensome. 

Submitted by - Scott Davis of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
("USWAG")

Comment Text: 

The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) submits these comments
in support of EPA's proposal (71 Fed. Reg. 77357 (Dec. 26, 2006))...

Unfortunately, given the uncertainties of the rulemaking process and the
inability of EPA to guarantee promulgation of the "loose ends" rule by a
date certain, the proposal to defer the compliance deadline to a
specific date creates the real possibility that yet another extension
after this one will be necessary to provide the regulated community with
the promised 12 month compliance period. EPA can avoid this needless
repetition of compliance extension rulemakings by simply tying the
proposed deadline to promulgation of the final "loose ends" rule or, in
the event that EPA unexpectedly decides not to go forward with the rule,
12 months after publication of a notice in the Federal Register
terminating that rulemaking. We know of no legal barrier to EPA linking
the new compliance deadline to the completion of another rulemaking
aimed at amending the rules for which compliance has been temporarily
deferred. 

Also, as EPA stated in the 2004 and 2006 final extension notices (see 69
Fed. Reg. at 48796; 71 Fed. Reg. at 8463), we ask EPA to reaffirm in the
preamble to the final compliance extension that the new compliance
deadline applies to “new or more stringent compliance obligations”
imposed by or subsequent to the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not to
provisions in the amendments that provide regulatory relief to regulated
facilities.

Submitted by - Bridgette Ellis of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Comment Text: 

TVA supports EPA's proposal to extend the compliance dates for the very
reasons stated in the preamble text... We feel that EPA should tie the
compliance extension deadline to the promulgation date of the final
"loose ends" rulemaking or, in the event that this rulemaking does not
go forward, tie the compliance date to a time period 12 months after
publication of a notice in the Federal Register terminating that
rulemaking. This would allow adequate time to comment on the "loose
ends" and to assess and implement any required changes without having to
expend unnecessary resources on a changing regulation. 

Submitted by - Pamela Lacey of American Gas Association

Comment Text: 

The American Gas Association (AGA) supports EPA's proposal to extend the
deadline to July 1, 2009 for facilities to amend and implement their
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans to comply
with the 2002, 2006 and soon to be proposed 2007 SPCC amendments...

AGA is a member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), and
we support USWAG's comments on the proposed SPCC deadline extension...

To avoid the needless repetition of compliance extension rulemakings, we
urge you to implement USWAG's suggestion. EPA could simply tie the
proposed deadline to the promulgation of the "loose ends" rule by
setting the deadline 12 months after promulgation of the loose ends rule
or -- in the event that EPA unexpectedly decides not to proceed with the
rule -- 12 months after to the date of a notice terminating the
rulemaking. 

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus

Comment Text: 

As an alternative to that proposal, we urge EPA to consider an extension
tied to 18 months after the final rule is published, thereby ensuring
that enough time is allowed for implementation regardless of when final
publication occurs.

 This comment was submitted on behalf of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors (IADC), the International Association of
Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), the National Stripper Well Association
(NSWA), the Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association (PESA), California
Independent Petroleum Association, Coalbed Methane Association of
Alabama, Colorado Oil & Gas Association, East Texas Producers & Royalty
Owners Association, Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas Association, Florida
Independent Petroleum Association, Illinois Oil & Gas Association,
Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York, Independent Oil & Gas
Association of Pennsylvania, Independent Oil & Gas Association of West
Virginia, Independent Oil Producers Agency, Independent Oil Producers
Association Tri-State, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
States, Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, Indiana Oil &
Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association, Kentucky Oil
& Gas Association, Louisiana Independent Oil & Gas Association, Michigan
Oil & Gas Association, Mississippi Independent Producers & Royalty
Association, Montana Petroleum Association, National Association of
Royalty Owners, Nebraska Independent Oil & Gas Association, New Mexico
Oil & Gas Association, New York State Oil Producers Association, North
Dakota Petroleum Council, Northern Alliance of Independent Producers,
Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association,
Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association, Pennsylvania Oil & Gas
Association, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Petroleum Association
of Wyoming, Tennessee Oil & Gas Association, Texas Alliance of Energy
Producers, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association,
Virginia Oil and Gas Association, Wyoming Independent Producers
Association

 This comment was submitted on behalf of the Air Transport Association
of America, Inc. (ATA), American Association of Airport Executives
(AAAE), Airports Council International - North American (ACI-NA), and
National Air Transportation Association (NATA).

 This comment was submitted on behalf of the American Forest & Paper
Association, American Trucking Associations, Automotive Oil Change
Association, Automotive Service Association, Copper and Brass
Fabricators Council, Inc., Independent Lubricant Manufacturers
Association, IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries,
National Association of Fleet Administrators, National Automobile
Dealers Association, National Federation of Independent Business Legal
Foundation, National Paint and Coatings Association, National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, Printing Industries of America/Graphic
Arts Technical Foundation, Specialty Graphic Imaging Association,
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

12/13/2006

 PAGE   

 PAGE   2 

