SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure

Extension of Compliance Dates for All Facilities

40 CFR Part 112

June 5, 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

This document addresses the comments received in response to the
proposal to extend the compliance dates for the Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasure regulation, published in the Federal Register
on November 26, 2008 (73 FR 72016).  Comments submitted to the public
docket for this rulemaking appear in their entirety at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , identified under
Docket number “EPA-HQ-OPA-2008-0546.”  This document is in the
sequence of the topics listed below.  

Support 

Suggestions & Requests for Clarification

Opposed Length of the Extension  / Suggested Alternative Dates

Opposed Different Dates for Certain SectorsGeneral Comment Summary: 

On November 26, 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency)
proposed to amend the dates by which facilities must prepare or amend
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and
implement those Plans.  The Agency also proposed to establish dates for
farms to prepare or amend their SPCC Plans, and implement those Plans. 
EPA had delayed establishing compliance dates for farms pending
revisions to the SPCC rule that would specifically address this sector.
Different extension dates were proposed for farms and oil production
facilities that meet the qualified facilities criteria in §112.3(g) (73
FR 72016). 

The Agency received 25 unique comments on the proposed rule. Comments
primarily represent farms, agricultural cooperatives and trade
associations; and oil and gas production companies and trade
associations. Additional sectors submitted comments, including,
construction; electrical utilities; consultants; and trade associations
representing manufacturers and automotive industries. The discussion
below summarizes and responds to the substantive comments received. 

The majority of comments supported the Agency’s proposal to extend the
compliance dates in §112.3. They agreed with the Agency that the
extension was necessary to allow owners and operators sufficient time to
amend and implement their SPCC Plans.  Of those who supported an
extension of the compliance dates, some agreed with extending the
compliance dates as proposed. Others supported the extension but opposed
the length of the extension proposed by the Agency. These requests cited
the extent of modifications necessary at facilities, the need to obtain
the services of Professional Engineers (PE), and the need for a revised
SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors from EPA to better understand the
regulation and the 2006 and 2008 regulatory amendments.

Specifically, a number of comments requested that the Agency extend the
date of compliance to December 5, 2009.  Comments argued that, since the
official promulgation of the rule occurred with its publication in the
Federal Register on December 5, 2008, the one year compliance period
should be calculated from that date.

A subset of comments also requested that the Agency reinstate a
six-month interim period between the compliance dates for Plan amendment
and implementation.  They requested that the date for implementing
amended SPCC Plans be revised to include a six-month period after the
date for Plan amendment.

Some comments requested that the compliance date for oil production
facilities that do not meet the qualified facilities criteria in
§112.3(g) be extended to December 5, 2010, to allow an additional year
for two full years from publication of the final rule amendments in the
Federal Register.  They argued that the November 20, 2009 date provides
insufficient time to comply with the rule. Finally, many asked that the
Agency reaffirm the application of the extended compliance dates in the
final rule.

Some comments objected to the Agency’s proposal of different
compliance dates for qualified farms and qualified oil production
facilities. Comments requested that the compliance dates for all farms
and oil production facilities, whether they meet the qualified
facilities criteria in §112.3(g) or not, be extended to November 20,
2013. They argued that assigning differentiated compliance dates to
different industries was unnecessary and that additional time was
necessary to conduct outreach and compliance assistance to the regulated
community. Some also argued that assigning differentiated compliance
dates to qualified facilities and all other facilities within one
industry caused confusion over the applicability of the rule. 

I. Support for the Extension

Topic Comment Summary: The majority of comments generally supported the
extension of the compliance dates by which the facility must prepare or
amend and implement its SPCC Plan. The comments generally agreed that an
extension would allow additional time for affected facility owners and
operators to prepare or update their Plans. Of those who supported an
extension of the compliance dates, some agreed with extending the
compliance dates as proposed, and others opposed the proposed length of
the extension, as described in Section III of this document.

Topic Response: EPA agrees with these comments and has amended the dates
in §112.3(a), (b) and (c) by which facilities must prepare or amend
their SPCC Plans, and implement those Plans.  The Agency has established
a compliance date of November 10, 2010, which provides approximately 16
months beyond the previous compliance date.  This action will provide
more time for owners or operators to prepare or amend their SPCC Plans
and implement those Plans to comply with the rule amendments promulgated
December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74236).  

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by - Jon Koepke and Daniel R. Beatty of- Cemex Construction
Materials Florida, LLC.

Comment Text: Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC (CEMEX) supports
EPA’s proposal…to amend the dates by which facilities must prepare
or amend Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans, and
implement those plans.

Submitted by - Steve Whitt of Martin Marietta Materials

Comment Text: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. believes that this
extension of the compliance date to November 20, 2009 is justified and
will allow facilities the time needed to implement changes and to make
the necessary modifications to the SPCC Plans.

Submitted by - G.H. Holliday of Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.

Comment Text: I support the proposed extension of the SPCC Plan
Implementation Dates for farm and production facilities, but not for the
reasons given by EPA in the proposal dated 26 November 2008 at 72016...I
support the proposed extension, because there are many major and large
independents which require time to prepare new SPCC Plan, since the cost
of modifying 1973 style is prohibitive.

Submitted by - David F. Darling of the National Paints and Coatings
Association

Comment Text: NPCA believes the extension is warranted since EPA has
just published amendments to the SPCC rule and the regulated community
needs time to review these amendments and develop/modify existing plans
and start executing the requirements.  Without this additional time,
facilities could be stranded in their compliance efforts.  Therefore
NPCA believes that it is appropriate for EPA to extend the SPCC
compliance dates to November 20, 2009.

Submitted by - Douglas I. Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers
Association

Comment Text: NADA fully supports the establishment of the November 20,
2009, compliance date in the proposal as it would afford dealers a few
extra months to comply with SPCC mandates, including those applicable to
Tier I and Tier II qualified facilities.

Submitted by - Jeff Spillyards of Entergy Services, Inc.

Comment Text: Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI) is supportive of EPA's
proposal to extend the deadline for amendment and implementation of
changes to oil SPCC plans necessary as a result of the 2002-2008 changes
to the Part 112 rule.

Submitted by - James D. Thrift of Agricultural Retailers Association

Comment Text: ARA believes that the modifications in the SPCC rule are
generally positive and should be applied equally to all agribusiness
sectors…

Submitted by - Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute

Comment Text: API supports EPA's proposed compliance date extension to
establish a date one year from promulgation of the additional amendments
to the SPCC Rule...The extension of the compliance date would provide
affected facility owners and operators with adequate time to meet the
amended requirements…

Submitted by - P.F. Faggert of Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Comment Text: As EPA has recognized, the regulated community should not
be expected to dedicate resources to develop and implement SPCC plans
for aspects of the regulations that EPA is in the process of
amending.…We therefore strongly support an extension of the compliance
deadline.

Submitted by - Jerry Schwartz of American Forest & Paper Association

Comment Text: AF&PA strongly supports an extension to the compliance
date for preparing or amending and implementing SPCC Plans. An extension
allows facility owners and operators time to fully understand the
regulatory amendments to the 2002 rule and make changes to their SPCC
Plans based on the final requirements.

Submitted by – Phillip Yee of Dow Chemical Company

Comment Text: Dow supports EPA’s proposed SPCC compliance date
extension rule in §112.3(a)( I ) which extends the compliance date for
facilities in operation on or before August 16, 2002 to make the
necessary changes in the plan and fully implement the requirements
before November 20, 2009. Our support for this rule extension is based
on the minimum anticipated time needed to develop and implement
compliant measures to the December 5, 2008 SPCC final rule amendments
and clarifications.

Submitted by – John S. Hayden of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel
Association

Comment Text: NSSGA believes such an extension of the compliance dates
to November 20, 2009 is appropriate because it will provide the owner or
operator of a facility the opportunity to fully understand the
regulatory amendments offered by revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule
promulgated on December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77266) and with the revised SPCC
requirements also found in 73 FR 71941; November 26, 2008.

Submitted by – Barry A. Mader of Martin Marietta Materials

Comment Text: We believe that an extension of the compliance dates to
November 20, 2009 is appropriate because it will provide the owner
and/or operator of a facility the opportunity to fully understand the
regulatory amendments offered by revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule
promulgated on December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77266) and revised SPCC
requirements found in 73 FR 71941; November 26, 2008. We believe that a
one-year extension provides sufficient time to understand the
streamlined amendments to the SPCC rule finalized at 73 FR 71941.

II. Suggestions & Requests for Clarification

Topic Comment Summary: Several comments requested that the EPA reaffirm
the scope of the compliance requirements that are affected by the
proposed extension. Comments urged EPA to confirm that the extended
compliance dates apply to “new or more stringent compliance
obligations” imposed by the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not to
provisions in the amendments that provide regulatory relief to regulated
facilities. One comment requested an extension until an agreed
definition of “oil” is established. The agricultural sector urged
EPA to set up a hotline specifically for agricultural producers seeking
information and clarity on the rule and how it applies to their
operation and encouraged the Agency to continue coordinated efforts with
USDA and the Cooperative Extension Service to conduct outreach and
compliance assistance. Finally, another comment suggested that EPA
provide time for states to facilitate implementation and compliance
before EPA enforcement can take place.

Topic Response: This rulemaking provides an extension of the compliance
dates for those facilities that were in compliance with the SPCC
regulation in 2002 and those facilities that became subject to the SPCC
regulation after the 2002 amendments’ effective date. The compliance
date provision (§112.3(a)) means that components of the 2002 amendments
or subsequent amendments in 2006 or 2008 (see 71 FR  77266, December 26,
2006; 73 FR 74236, December 5, 2008) that imposed new or more stringent
requirements than those in the SPCC rule prior to the 2002 amendments
must be met by this date. Provisions in the amendments that provide
regulatory relief to facilities are applicable as of the effective date
of the amendment.

Comments regarding issues for clarification, such as the definition of
“oil” are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, and while EPA may
address additional issues in a future action, this extension is not
intended to postpone compliance with the SPCC rule to accommodate such
an action. The compliance date extension in this rulemaking is intended
to provide additional time for facilities to comply with the SPCC rule
amendments promulgated in 2008 (73 FR 74236, December 5, 2008) and
earlier amendments in 2006 and 2002 (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006; 67
FR 47042, July 17, 2002).

Finally, EPA does not delegate responsibility of enforcement or
implementation of the SPCC regulation to states and therefore we do not
believe that additional time for states to conduct outreach on the SPCC
regulation is appropriate. However, EPA agrees to continue partnering
with USDA, states, and agricultural trade associations and cooperatives
to provide ongoing outreach and compliance assistance to farmers. The
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil Information Center is equipped to
answer questions on the SPCC regulation and can be reached at: (800)
424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 / TDD (800) 553-7672 or (703) 412-3323. 

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by - Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute 

Comment Text: As with other deadline extensions of this rule, API
continues to have concerns about the scope of the compliance obligations
that are affected by the proposed extension of the
amendment/implementation dates. Attached is a letter API sent to EPA on
January 29, 2003 describing our understanding of the scope of the
extension… Similar to the confirmation in the April 17, 2003 extension
(68 Fed. Reg. 18893), EPA should reaffirm API's understanding in the
preamble to the final rule. [See attachment to submission entitled: In
The Final Rule, EPA Should Confirm that the Deadline Extension Applies
to All New or More Stringent Compliance Obligations in the July 2002
SPCC Rule.]

Submitted by - Jeffrey G. Luzenski of PPL Corporation

Comment Text: 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 - Jerry Schwartz of American Forest & Paper Association

Comment Text: We also urge EPA to make it clear in the final rule that
those provisions that reduce the regulatory burden become effective on
the effective date of the rule…

Submitted by - Scott L. Davis of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

Comment Text: In addition, as EPA stated in the 2004 and 2006 final
extension notices (see 69 Fed. Reg. 48794, 48796 (Aug. 11, 2004); 71
Fed. Reg. 8462, 8463 (Feb. 17, 2006)), 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 - James D. Thrift of Agricultural Retailers Association

Comment Text: ARA supports the modifications in the SPCC rule but asks
the Agency to delay the implementation of the rule for one year to allow
for an agreed definition of "oil" and full communication of the rule to
the entire agricultural community.

Submitted by - Lisa Y. Kelley for the Agriculture Coalition on the SPCC
Rule

Comment Text: Additionally, states should be given timelines to
facilitate implementation and compliance before EPA enforcement can take
place. This extra time will provide farmers and others the opportunity
to work within their organizations and with appropriate government
agencies, including USDA, regarding the development of guidelines that
could be utilized to meet such requirements. 

We also urge EPA to set up a hotline specifically for agricultural
producers seeking information and clarity on the rule and how it applies
to their operation… We encourage the Agency to continue coordinated
efforts with USDA…We also appreciate EPA’s coordinated efforts with
the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the
Cooperative Extension Service on this issue.

III. Opposed Length of the Extension / Suggested Alternative Dates

Topic Comment Summary: Although some comments supported the proposed
two-year and five-year extension of the compliance dates for farms and
oil production facilities, respectively, that meet the qualified
facilities criteria in §112.3(g), several suggested alternative dates
and requested additional time. These requests cited the extent of
modifications necessary at facilities, the need to obtain the services
of Professional Engineers (PE), and the need for a revised SPCC Guidance
for Regional Inspectors from EPA to better understand the regulation and
the 2006 and 2008 regulatory amendments. Comments argued for a number of
different options as alternates to the extension period. Two comments
requested six months between a compliance date for SPCC Plan amendment
and implementation of the Plan. Comments requested revising the date by
15 days so the compliance date is exactly one year from the publication
date of the final rule amendments in the Federal Register, including
some who requested an additional year to allow two full years following
publication of the final rule amendments in the Federal Register.

Topic Response: The Agency agrees with comments that the compliance
dates should be extended beyond the proposed November 20, 2009 date. The
Agency recognizes that the owner or operator of a regulated facility
needs adequate time to comply with the SPCC rule following amendments to
the regulation. Therefore, the Agency has extended the date of
compliance for all facilities that were in operation on or before August
16, 2002 to November 10, 2010.  This period of time will allow
facilities to prepare, amend, and implement an SPCC Plan following final
Agency action on the SPCC rule. The Agency also believes that this
action is appropriate because it will provide the owner or operator of
all facilities the opportunity to fully understand the regulatory
amendments offered by revisions to the SPCC rule promulgated on December
5, 2008 (73 FR 74236). Additionally, EPA intends to issue revisions to
the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors that address changes made to
the SPCC rule, consistent with the 2006 and 2008 regulatory amendments
(71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006; 73 FR 74236, December 5, 2008).

The Agency also disagrees with comments that requested that EPA
incorporate a six-month period between Plan preparation/amendment date
and Plan implementation date. The Agency did not propose such a
provision and therefore it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
Additionally, in February 2006, the Agency eliminated the gap between
Plan preparation/amendment and implementation to allow the owner or
operator additional time to prepare or amend the SPCC Plan (71 FR 8462,
February 17, 2006). The Agency believes that this approach provides
added flexibility, given that facilities are not required to submit SPCC
Plans to the Agency at the time of Plan preparation or amendment. 

EPA recognizes that the delay in the effective date for the December
2008 rule amendments may cause uncertainty among those potentially
affected in the regulated community.  The Agency expects to promulgate
final revisions to the December 5, 2008 amendments, if any, in November
of 2009 and is therefore choosing a compliance date that is
approximately one year from the expected publication date of those
revisions. The Agency believes that this timeframe (almost one year
longer than proposed) provides sufficient time for the Agency to review
comments received on the 2008 amendments and to promulgate additional
revisions, if any, that result from this review and still provide those
potentially affected by any modifications ample time to come into
compliance.

The Agency proposed a two-year and a five-year extension of the
compliance dates for farms and oil production facilities, respectively,
that meet the qualified facilities criteria in §112.3(g). This was
intended to allow additional time for EPA to partner with federal and
state agencies and industry stakeholders to conduct outreach and
compliance assistance to these facilities. However, after reviewing
comments, EPA believes that a November 10, 2009 compliance date is
appropriate for the following reasons:

The SPCC compliance dates have been delayed since the promulgation of
amendments in 2002; during this time, new facilities (those that have
become operational after the effective date of the 2002 amendments) have
not yet been required to prepare and implement a Plan. Therefore, EPA
believes that any compliance date beyond the date finalized in this
action would not be environmentally protective.

Facilities in operation prior to the effective date of the 2002
amendments are required to maintain their SPCC Plans and have had ample
time to schedule and conduct facility modifications to comply with these
amendments. 

The SPCC amendments published in 2006 and 2008 were intended to
streamline rule requirements. Facilities should not require extensive
modifications in order to comply with these regulatory amendments. 

In 2006, EPA provided an option to allow owners and operators of
eligible facilities the option to self-certify SPCC Plans, thereby
minimizing reliance on PEs to certify Plans. This should reduce the
scheduling problems associated with obtaining a PE to certify Plan
amendments. 

The Agency provides ongoing outreach and compliance assistance to
SPCC-regulated facilities and we do not believe that it is necessary to
delay amendment and implementation of SPCC Plans to account for these
ongoing activities. 

Finally, if an owner or operator of an SPCC-regulated facility requires
additional time to comply with the SPCC rule, he may submit a written
request to the Regional Administrator in accordance with §112.3(f). The
Regional Administrator may authorize an extension of time for the
owner/operator to prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan for the
facility, when he finds that the owner or operator cannot comply with
all SPCC requirements by the compliance date as a result of either
non-availability of qualified personnel, or delays in construction or
equipment delivery beyond his control.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by - Gregory D. Russell of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
for the Ohio Oil and Gas Association

Comment Text: But the Association is concerned that the general deadline
of November 20, 2009 - only 11 months away - will not give non-qualified
oil production facility owners sufficient time to adequately understand
and implement their obligations under the new SPCC rule...

Submitted by - Angie Burckhalter of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum
Association

Comment Text: While EPA has proposed a November 20, 2013 compliance date
for certain qualified facilities, our current reading of the constraints
on qualifying for this extension may limit its utility to a small number
of facilities. Most wells in Oklahoma are marginal wells that are
operated by small companies who do not have easy access to PEs to assist
them. It will take time for our association to develop training
materials for smaller operators.

Submitted by - Steve Hensley of USA Rice Federation

Comment Text Further complications will arise as EPA attempts to address
compliance assistance through the various USDA field offices.  This will
take time which is not reflected in either the one or two-year deadline.
 As of December 3rd, EPA and USDA were scheduled to talk about
cooperation on this issue in the future.  USA Rice does not understand
how the agency can expect short term compliance when they don’t have
the compliance assistance documents, process or agreements in place.

Submitted by - Jeff Spillyards of Entergy Services, Inc.

Comment Text: …ESI wishes to suggest the compliance deadline be
established as December 5, 2009, rather than November 20, 2009, in order
to “harmonize” the compliance deadline with the December 5, 2008,
publication of the final rulemaking in the Federal Register.

Submitted by - Lee Fuller of Independent Petroleum Association of
America

Comment Text: We believe that the November 20, 2009 deadline should be
extended to December 5, 2010 because the additional burdens on American
producers cannot be implemented in a one year time frame….we believe
the necessary compliance actions will be extensive and will be difficult
to complete both physically and with professional engineer certification
by EPA’s proposed date.

Submitted by - Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute

Comment Text: Since the SPCC-2 Rule was promulgated on December 5, 2008,
API recommends EPA resolve this ambiguity by correctly specifying the
compliance date as December 5, 2009. API also recommends, however, that
EPA maintain a separation of six months between the deadline for SPCC
Plan amendment and implementation of that Plan, 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
December 5, 2009, and a SPCC Plan implementation compliance deadline of
June 5, 2010.

Submitted by - Angie Burckhalter of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum
Association

Comment Text: We believe the proposed compliance date should be extended
to December 5, 2010 to allow oil and gas operators time to fully
understand the regulation, obtain the appropriate training, and
implement the requirements to comply with the 2002, 2006 and 2008
amendments… Furthermore, a December 5, 2010 compliance deadline will
provide the EPA time to revise its guidance document and allow companies
ample time to better understand the regulation and comply.

Submitted by - P.F. Faggert of Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Comment Text: The extension of the compliance date for amending and
implementing SPCC Plans for non-production and non-qualified production
facilities until approximately a year after promulgation of the December
5, 2008, rule, and 5 years after the rule for qualified production
facilities, is both appropriate and necessary in order to provide
affected facility owners and operators adequate time to meet the amended
requirements of the 2006 and 2008 rules.

Submitted by – Gregory Russell of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
for the Ohio Oil and Gas Association

Comment Text:  The Association… supports the proposal by U.S. EPA to
extend the date by which qualified oil production facilities must
prepare, amend, and implement their SPCC plans to November 20, 2013; and
further urges U.S. EPA to extend the date for compliance for
non-qualified production facilities an additional year from the date
proposed (i.e., to November 20, 2010).

Submitted by - Jeffrey G. Luzenski of PPL Corporation

Comment Text: The proposed rule would extend the compliance deadline for
most regulated facilities to November 20, 2009. EPA apparently selected
that date because it is exactly one year after the EPA Administrator
signed the final 2008 rule. But that is not the date on which the final
rule became generally available to the public. Official promulgation of
the rule did not occur until publication in the Federal Register on
December 5, 2008...we suggest that EPA calculate the one year compliance
period from the date of the Federal Register publication...

Submitted by - Jerry Schwartz of American Forest & Paper Association

Comment Text: AF&PA strongly supports an extension to the compliance
date for preparing or amending and implementing SPCC Plans.  An
extension allows facility owners and operators time to fully understand
the regulatory amendments to the 2002 rule and make changes to their
SPCC Plans based on the final requirements. However, we think the
compliance date should be set at December 5, 2009 rather than November
20, 2009. The December 5, 2009 date gives operators one full year after
promulgation of the revised requirements in the Federal Register on
December 5, 2008.

Additionally, AF&PA recommends that a six month separation be maintained
between the deadline for amending plans and implementing plans in
accordance with the provisions outline in 40 CFR 112.5(a). Thus, AF&PA
recommends that the compliance date for amending SPCC Plans be set at
December 5, 2009 (one year after promulgation of the final amendments)
and the Plan implementation date be set at May 5, 2010 (six months
later.)  

Submitted by - Scott L. Davis of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

Comment Text: The proposed rule would extend the compliance deadline for
most regulated facilities to November 20, 2009. EPA apparently selected
that date because it is exactly one year after the EPA Administrator
signed the final 2008 rule. But that is not the date on which the final
rule became generally available to the public. Official promulgation of
the rule did not occur until publication in the Federal Register on
December 5, 2008...we suggest that EPA calculate the one year compliance
period from the date of the Federal Register publication..."

IV. Opposed Different Dates for Certain Sectors

Topic Comment Summary: Comments objected to the Agency’s proposal of
different compliance dates for farms and production facilities that meet
the criteria for qualified facilities. Comments requested that the
compliance date for all farms and production facilities, whether they
meet the qualified facilities criteria in §112.3(g) or not, be extended
to November 20, 2013. They argued that assigning differentiated
compliance dates to different industries was unnecessary and that
additional time was necessary to conduct outreach and compliance
assistance to the regulated community.  Some also argued that assigning
differentiated compliance dates to qualified facilities and all other
facilities within one industry caused confusion over the applicability
of the rule.

Topic Response: EPA agrees with comments who objected to different
compliance dates for certain sectors. EPA also agrees with the comment
who indicated that owners or operators of facilities eligible for
self-certified SPCC Plans do not require more time to amend or prepare
an SPCC Plan than owners or operators of facilities that must hire a PE
to certify the Plan. Furthermore, the Agency does not have information
to support a longer extension of the compliance dates for qualified
facilities in the farming or oil production sectors. Therefore, the
Agency believes that a single compliance date for all regulated
facilities avoids potential confusion by an owner or operator when
determining the date for compliance at his facility. In providing a
single compliance date applicable to all sectors, EPA believes that an
owner or operator will have additional clarity and should result in
increased compliance with the SPCC rule. 

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by - Lee Fuller of Independent Petroleum Association of
America

Comment Text: Moreover, while EPA has proposed a November 20, 2013
compliance date for certain qualified facilities, our current reading of
the constraints on qualifying for this extension will limit its utility
to a small number of operations.

Submitted by - Steve Hensley of USA Rice Federation

Comment Text: This rule was published, along with a direct final rule on
the same issue, on November 26, 2008 and references a third rule
presumably in the same Federal Register issue.  The third rule, however,
was not published until December 5, 2008 as a final rule and contains
language needed to adequately understand this proposal.  To further
complicate matters, the agency does not use the same language in both
documents when referring to the same things.  The result is, in this
proposal, language that is clearly confusing on the topic of which farms
have which deadlines.

Second, it is now our understanding that the farms requiring a
Professional Engineer (PE) certification (called “all other
facilities” in the Dec. 5 rule) have until November 20, 2009, whereas
the farms allowed self-certification of either a template or a plan
(called “qualified facilities” in both documents) have until
November 20, 2010.  In essence, the agency is giving less time to those
farms that must find and hire a limited number of PEs while competing
with other farms for the same PEs than they are giving those farms that
don’t have to hire a PE but instead fill out a template or a plan. 
Adding further confusion to the issue, the EPA is proposing to give oil
production facilities five years to come into compliance....

Submitted by – Lisa Y. Kelley for the Agriculture Coalition on the
SPCC Rule

Comment Text: …That said, we do not understand why the Agency provided
a five-year time frame for the oil production industry to comply with
the December 5, 2008 final rule. EPA stated in the final rule that
“the agricultural community did not provide information that would
lead the Agency to conclude that farms are sufficiently different to
warrant further differentiation from other facilities that store oil.”
The Coalition would remind EPA of the 2005 USDA study which found that
data on oil spill on farms, cooperatives, and other agribusinesses is
almost nonexistent. The Agency has failed to provide data or anecdotal
evidence of agricultural spills to justify such a resource-intensive
rulemaking and also failed to adequately justify the longer time period
for the oil production industry that has a history of spills. 

Submitted by - Steve Hensley of USA Rice Federation

Comment Text: USA Rice strongly believes that the EPA has made a mistake
in their compliance deadlines for agriculture.  Farms should have a five
year deadline to come into compliance regardless of their “qualified
facility” or “all other facility” status.

Submitted by – Lisa Y. Kelley for the Agriculture Coalition on the
SPCC Rule

Comment Text: For simplicity, we call on the Agency to establish one
compliance deadline for all industry sectors impacted by this final rule
to avoid further confusion.  Since the Agency sees no differentiation
between the agriculture community’s risk under SPCC compared to that
of other covered facilities such as oil production facilities, we see no
reason for differentiation in compliance deadlines. A compliance
deadline of November 20, 2013 is recommended for both the agricultural
community and oil production facilities.

 Signatories of this submission are listed as follows: American Farm
Bureau Federation; California Dairies, Inc.; CHS Inc.; Dairy Farmers of
America; Kansas Cooperative Council; Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers
Cooperative Association, Inc.; National Association of Wheat Growers;
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; National Corn Growers
Association; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Farmers
Union; National Grange; National Grape Cooperative, Inc.; National Milk
Producers Federation; South East Dairy Farmers Association; United Egg
Producers; USA Rice Federation; and Western United Dairymen.

 These comments are filed on behalf of the Independent Petroleum
Association of America (IPAA), 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), the US Oil & Gas
Association (USOGA) and the following organizations: Arkansas
Independent Producers and Royalty Owners 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; Southeastern Ohio Oil & Gas Association; Tennessee Oil & Gas
Association; Texas Alliance of Energy Producers; Texas Independent
Producers and Royalty Owners Association; Virginia Oil and Gas
Association; and Wyoming Independent Producers Association

EXTENSION OF SPCC COMPLIANCE DATES

	  PAGE  2 	June 5, 2009

