Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[FRL-7241-5]

RIN 2050-AC62

Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; Non-Transportation-Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency or we) is amending the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act. This rule includes requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and for Facility Response Plans (FRPs). The final rule includes new subparts outlining the requirements for various classes of oil; revises the applicability of the regulation; amends the requirements for completing SPCC Plans; and makes other modifications. The final rule also contains a number of provisions designed to decrease regulatory burden on facility owners or operators subject to the rule, while preserving environmental protection. We expect that today's rule will reduce the paperwork burden associated with SPCC requirements by approximately 40%. We have also made the regulation easier to understand and use.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 16, 2002.

ADDRESSES:

The official record for this rulemaking is located in the Superfund Docket at 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway 1, Arlington, Virginia 22202, Suite 105. The docket numbers for the final rule are SPCC-1P, SPCC-2P, and SPCC-7. The record supporting this rulemaking is contained in the Superfund Docket and is available for inspection by appointment only, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. You may make an appointment to review the docket by calling 703-603-9232. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no cost. If the number of pages exceeds 100, however, we will charge you $0.15 for each page after 100. The docket will mail copies of materials to you if you are outside of the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hugo Paul Fleischman, Oil Program Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, at 703-603-8769 (

fleischman.hugo@epa.gov

); or the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346 (in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, 703-412-9810)(

epahotline@bah.com

). The Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) Hotline number is 800-553-7672 (in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, 703-412-3323). You may wish to visit the Oil Program's Internet site at

www.epa.gov/oilspill.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The contents of this preamble are as follows:

I. Entities Affected by This Rule

II. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

B. Background of This Rulemaking

III. Summary of Major Rule Provisions

IV. Discussion of Issues

A. Reorganization of the Rule

B. Plain Language Format

C. “Should to Shall to Must” Clarification

D. Professional Engineers (PEs)

1. State Registration

2. PEs Employed by the Facility

3. Completion of Testing

4. Site Visits

E. Electrical Facilities and Other Operational Users of Oil

F. Discretionary Provisions

G. Design Capabilities of Drainage Systems, Other than Production Facilities

H. Compliance Costs

I. Contingency Planning and Notification

J. Reproposal

K. Industry Standards

V. Section by Section Analysis (Includes: Background, Comments, and Response to Comments)

VI. Summary of Supporting Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866—OMB Review

B. Executive Order 12898—Environmental Justice

C. Executive Order 13045—Children's Health

D. Executive Order 13175—Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism

F. Executive Order 13211—Energy Effects

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

K. Congressional Review Act

I. Entities Affected by This Rule

Entities Potentially Regulated by this Rule Include:

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.

“NAICS” refers to the North American Industry Classification System, a method of classifying various facilities. The NAICS was adopted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico on January 1, 1997 to replace the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. It lists the types of entities of which we are now aware that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility could be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the criteria in §§ 112.1 and 112.20 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and of today's rule, which explain the applicability of the rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

II. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act), 33 U.S.C. 1251, requires 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. The President has delegated the authority to regulate non-transportation-related onshore facilities under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Executive Order 12777, section 2(b)(1), (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991), superseding Executive Order 11735, 38 FR 21243. By this same Executive Order, the President has delegated similar 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 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOI, and DOT effective February 3, 1994, has redelegated the responsibility to regulate certain offshore facilities located in and along the Great Lakes, rivers, coastal wetlands, and the Gulf Coast barrier islands from DOI to EPA.

See

Executive Order 12777, section 2(i) regarding authority to redelegate. The MOU is included as Appendix B to 40 CFR part 112. An MOU between the Secretary of Transportation and the EPA Administrator, dated November 24, 1971 (36 FR 24080), established the definitions of non-transportation-related and transportation-related facilities. The definitions from the 1971 MOU are included as Appendix A to 40 CFR part 112.

B. Background of This Rulemaking

Part 112 of 40 CFR outlines the requirements for both the prevention of and the response to oil spills. The prevention aspect of the rule requires preparation and implementation of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. This rulemaking affects SPCC and FRP requirements. The SPCC requirements were originally promulgated on December 11, 1973 (38 FR 34164), under the authority of section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. The regulation established spill prevention procedures, methods, and equipment requirements for non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities with aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons (or greater than 660 gallons in a single container), or completely buried oil storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons. Regulated facilities were also limited to those that, because of their location could reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities into the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines.

We have amended the SPCC requirements a number of times, and those amendments are described in an October 22, 1991

Federal Register

proposed rule. 56 FR 54612. In the October 1991 document, in addition to the description of past amendments, EPA proposed new revisions that 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 Act made by amendments to the Act in 1977 and 1978. We have finalized some of those proposed revisions, with modifications, in this rule.

On February 17, 1993, we again proposed clarifications of and technical changes to the SPCC rule. We also proposed facility response planning requirements to implement the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). 58 FR 8824. The proposed changes to the SPCC rule included clarifications of certain requirements, response plans for facilities without secondary containment, prevention training, and methods of determining whether a tank would be subject to brittle fracture. We promulgated the facility response planning requirements of the 1993 proposal on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34070), and they are codified at 40 CFR 112.20-112.21. We have finalized the proposed 1993 prevention requirements, with modifications, in this rule.

In 1996, EPA completed a survey and analysis of SPCC facilities. The 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. We used the results of that survey and analysis to develop a proposed rule affecting SPCC facilities on December 2, 1997. 62 FR 63812. The survey and analytical results are part of the administrative record for this rulemaking.

The purpose of the 1997 proposal was to reduce the information collection burden imposed by the prevention requirements in the SPCC rule and the FRP rule without creating an adverse impact on public health or the environment. We also proposed changes in information collection requirements for facility response plans, but have withdrawn them in this rulemaking. Those changes would have affected the calculation of storage capacity at certain facilities for response plan purposes. 62 FR 63816. However, see new § 112.1(d)(6). The 1997 SPCC proposals, as modified, are finalized in this rule.

On April 8, 1999, we proposed revision to facility response plan requirements. 64 FR 17227. The main purpose of the proposal was to provide a more specific methodology for planning response resources that can be used by an owner or operator of a facility that handles, stores, or transports animal fats and vegetable oils. We finalized that proposal on June 30, 2000. 65 FR 40776. The final rule included four new definitions that are applicable to all of part 112.

III. Summary of Major Rule Provisions

For your convenience, we have developed a table showing a summary of the major revisions in this rule. The table does not always use exact rule text, but summarizes rule provisions. For exact rule text, see 40 CFR part 112 (2000) for text of the current rule; for exact text of the revised rule, see the rule text following this preamble.

Summary of Major Revisions to the Current SPCC Rules

Current SPCC rule

Revised SPCC rule

Comment

Section 112.1: General Applicability

§ 112.1(b): Explains that the SPCC rule applies to owners or operators of facilities that drill, produce, gather, store, process, refine, transfer, distribute, or consume oil and oil products, and might reasonably be expected to discharge oil in harmful quantities into or upon navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines

§ 112.1(b): Explains that the SPCC rule applies to owners or operators of facilities that drill, produce, gather, store, process, refine, transfer, distribute, use, or consume oil and oil products, and might reasonably be expected to discharge oil in quantities that may be harmful into or upon navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines, or waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or Deepwater Port Act, or affecting certain natural resources

§ 112.1(b): The revised rule clarifies that users of oil are also subject to the rule. It also expands the scope of the rule to conform with the expanded jurisdiction in the amended Clean Water Act.

§ 112.1(d)(2)(i): Section 112.1(d)(2) exempts from the rule a facility which meets both criteria specified in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) and (ii). The first criterion, found in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) is: the completely buried storage capacity of the facility is 42,000 gallons or less of oil. The threshold applies to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity contained in tanks

§ 112.1(d)(2)(i): Section 112.1(d)(2) exempts from the rule a facility which meets both criteria specified in § 112.1(d)(2)(i) and (ii). The first criterion, § 112.1(d)(2)(i) is: the completely buried storage capacity of the facility is 42,000 gallons or less of oil. For purposes of this exemption, the completely buried storage capacity of a facility does not include the capacity of completely buried tanks, as defined in § 112.2, that are currently subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or all of the technical requirements of a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281. Also, the completely buried storage capacity of a facility does not include the capacity of completely buried tanks that are “permanently closed,” as defined in § 112.2. The threshold applies to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity contained in tanks

§ 112.1(d)(2)(i): The revised rule provides that completely buried tanks subject to all of the technical requirements of parts 280 or 281 do not count in the calculation of the 42,000 gallon threshold. It also clarifies that permanently closed tanks do not count in the calculation of that threshold. The threshold continues to apply to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity contained in tanks.

§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The second criterion, found in § 112.1(d)(2)(ii) is: the storage capacity, which is not buried, of the facility is 1,320 gallons or less of oil, provided that no single container has a storage capacity of greater than 660 gallons. The threshold applies to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity in containers

§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The second criterion found in § 112.1(d)(2)(ii) is: the aboveground storage capacity of the facility is 1,320 gallons or less of oil. For purposes of this exemption, only containers of oil with a capacity of 55 gallons or greater are counted. The aboveground storage capacity of a facility does not include the capacity of containers that are “permanently closed,” as defined in 112.2. The threshold applies to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity in containers

§ 112.1(d)(2)(ii): The revised rule raises the threshold for aboveground storage capacity by eliminating the provision that triggers the requirement to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan if any single container has a capacity greater than 660 gallons. It maintains the greater than 1,320 gallon threshold. The revised rule also establishes a de minimis container capacity size to calculate aboveground storage capacity. Only containers with a capacity of 55 gallons or greater are counted in the calculation of aboveground storage capacity. The revised rule clarifies that permanently closed containers do not count in the calculation of aboveground storage capacity. The threshold continues to apply to storage capacity contained in operating equipment as well as to storage capacity in containers.

§ 112.1(d)(4): No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.1(d)(4): Exempts from the SPCC requirements completely buried storage tanks, as defined in § 112.2, as well as connected underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and containment systems, when such tanks are subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281, except that such tanks must be marked on the facility diagram as required by § 112.7(a)(3), if the facility is otherwise subject to this part

§ 112.1(d)(4): Completely buried storage tanks subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281 are no longer required to comply with SPCC provisions, except for the facility diagram. EPA estimates that under this new rule, most gasoline service stations will drop out of the SPCC program.

§ 112.1(d)(5): No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.1(d)(5): The revised rule exempts containers with a storage capacity of less than 55 gallons of oil from all SPCC requirements

§ 112.1(d)(5): In response to comments, EPA has established a minimum size container for purposes of the regulatory threshold. Containers with a storage capacity of less than 55 gallons of oil are exempt from all SPCC requirements.

§ 112.1(d)(6): No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.1(d)(6): Exempts any facility or part thereof from the rule, if used exclusively for wastewater treatment and not used to meet any other requirement of part 112. The production, recovery, or recycling of oil is not wastewater treatment for purposes of this paragraph

§ 112.1(d)(6): A facility or part thereof used exclusively for wastewater treatment will no longer be subject to prevention planning unless it is used to meet part 112 requirements.

§ 112.1(f): No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.1(f): Notwithstanding any regulatory exemptions, the Regional Administrator may require that the owner or operator of any facility subject to EPA jurisdiction under section 311(j) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), prepare and implement an SPCC Plan, or any applicable part, to carry out the purposes of the CWA. The rule includes notice and appeal provisions

§ 112.1(f): This amendment gives the Regional Administrator authority to require preparation of an entire SPCC plan, or applicable part, by an owner or operator of a facility exempted from SPCC requirements when it becomes necessary to achieve the purposes of the CWA. This authority will be exercised on a case-by-case basis. The decision to require a Plan could be based on the presence of environmental concerns not adequately addressed under other regulations, or other relevant environmental factors, for example, discharge history.

Section 112.2—Definitions

§ 112.2—definition of

facility:

No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.2—definition of

facility:

“Facility” is defined as any mobile or fixed, onshore or offshore building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe, or pipeline used in oil well drilling operations, oil production, oil refining, oil storage, oil gathering, oil transfer, oil distribution, and waste treatment, or in which oil is used. . . .”

§ 112.2—definition of

facility:

The revised rule clarifies that a facility may be as small as a piece of equipment, for example, a tank, or as large as a military base.

Section 112.3: Requirement to prepare and implement Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

§ 112.3(a): An owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility in operation on or before January 10, 1974, that has had a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, or, due to its location, could reasonably be expected to have a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare and fully implement an SPCC Plan, in writing and in accordance with § 112.7. The owner or operator must prepare the Plan within 6 months, and fully implement it as soon as possible, but not later than within 1 year

§ 112.3(a): An owner or operator (O/O) of an onshore or offshore facility in operation on or before August 16, 2002, that has had a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or, due to its location, could reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), must prepare a written Plan in accordance with § 112.7 and any other applicable section within 6 months of the effective date of the rule, and implement it as soon as possible, but not later than within 1 year of the effective date of the rule. The O/O of facility that becomes operational after August 16, 2002 through August 18, 2003 must prepare and implement a Plan not later than August 18, 2003

§ 112.3(a): For those facilities already in operation on the effective date of the rule, an owner or operator of a facility subject to the rule must prepare an SPCC Plan within the current time frame of six months. He may take up to an additional six months to implement the Plan. The revised rule extends this same time frame to amendments necessary to bring the Plan into compliance with rule revisions. An owner or operator of a facility becoming operational after August 16, 2002 through August 18, 2003 must prepare and implement a Plan not later than August 18, 2003.

§ 112.3(b): The owner or operator of an onshore and offshore facility that becomes operational after January 10, 1974, and that has had a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, or could reasonably be expected to have a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, must prepare an SPCC Plan. Unless the owner or operator is granted an extension of time to prepare and implement the Plan by the Regional Administrator, he must prepare the Plan within 6 months and fully implement it as son as possible, but not later than within 1 year

§ 112.3(b): The owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility that becomes operational after August 18, 2003, and could reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), from that facility, must prepare and implement an SPCC Plan before beginning operations

§ 112.3(b): The owner or operator of a facility that becomes operational after August 18, 2003 must now prepare and implement an SPCC Plan before beginning operations. The time frame in the current rule is up to 6 months for Plan preparation and up to 6 months more for Plan implementation.

§ 112.3(d): No SPCC Plan is effective to satisfy the requirements of the SPCC rule unless it has been reviewed and certified by a Registered Professional Engineer (PE). By means of this certification the PE, having examined the facility and being familiar with the provisions of the SPCC rule, attests that the SPCC Plan has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practices. The PE's certification does not relieve the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility of his duty to prepare and fully implement the Plan in accordance with all applicable requirements

§ 112.3(d): No SPCC Plan is effective to satisfy the requirements of the SPCC rule unless it has been reviewed and certified by a PE. By means of this certification the PE attests that: (i) he is familiar with the requirements of the SPCC rule; (ii) he or his agent has visited and examined the facility; (iii) the Plan has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practice, including consideration of applicable industry standards, and with the requirements of the SPCC rule; (iv) procedures for required inspections and testing have been established; and, (v) the Plan is adequate for the facility. The PE's certification does not relieve the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore facility of his duty to prepare and fully implement the Plan in accordance with all applicable requirements

§ 112.3(d): The revised rule adds specificity to the PE's attestation. The specificity includes a requirement that the PE consider applicable industry standards and certify that the Plan is prepared in accordance with part 112 requirements. Presently, the PE must attest only that the Plan has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practice. The revised rule allows an agent of the PE to visit and examine the facility in place of the PE, but the PE must review the agent's work, and certify the Plan.

§ 112.3(e): An owner or operator of a facility for which an SPCC Plan is required must maintain a complete copy of the Plan at the facility if the facility is attended as least 8 hours per day, or at the nearest field office if the facility is not so attended, and must make the Plan available to the Regional Administrator for on-site review during normal working hours

§ 112.3(e): An owner or operator of a facility for which an SPCC Plan is required must maintain a complete copy of the Plan at the facility if the facility is attended at least 4 hours per day, or at the nearest field office if the facility is not so attended, and must make the Plan available to the Regional Administrator for on-site review during normal working hours

§ 112.3(e): The revised rule requires the facility owner or operator to maintain a copy of the Plan at the facility if it is attended at least 4 hours a day, in contrast to the current requirement to maintain it at the facility if it is attended at least 8 hours a day.

§ 112.3(f): The Regional Administrator may authorize an extension of time for the preparation and implementation of an SPCC Plan, when he finds that the owner or operator cannot comply with all SPCC requirements as a result of either nonavailability of qualified personnel, or delays in construction or equipment delivery beyond his control and without his fault, or the fault of his agents or employees. The rule also specifies what the letter requesting an extension must contain

§ 112.3(f): The Regional Administrator may authorize an extension of time for the preparation and implementation of an SPCC Plan, or any amendment thereto, when he finds that the owner or operator cannot comply with all SPCC requirements as a result of either nonavailability of qualified personnel, or delays in construction or equipment delivery beyond his control and without his fault, or the fault of his agents or employees. The rule also specifies what the letter requesting an extension must contain

§ 112.3(f): The revised rule provides for extension for amendments of the Plan, as well as the entire Plan.

Section 112.4: Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan by Regional Administrator

§ 112.4(a): Whenever an SPCC facility has: (1) discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gallons of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines in a single discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, or (2) discharged oil in harmful quantities, as defined in 40 CFR part 110, into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines in each of 2 discharges to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, reportable under section 311(b)(5) of the Clean Water Act, within any 12-month period, the owner or operator of the facility must submit to the Regional Administrator (RA), within 60 days from the time the facility becomes subject to this section, 10 different items of information, plus additional information pertinent to the Plan if the RA requests it

§ 112.4(a): Whenever an SPCC facility has: (1) discharged more than 1,000 U.S. gallons of oil in a single discharge as described in § 112.1(b), or (2) discharged more than 42 U.S. gallons of oil, as described in § 112.1(b), in each of 2 discharge, within any 12-month period, the owner or operator of the facility must submit to the RA, within 60 days from the time the facility becomes subject to this section, 8 different items of information, plus additional information pertinent to the Plan if the RA requests it

§ 112.4(a): We have revised the geographic scope of the rule in accordance with the CWA amendments, by using the phase “discharge as described in § 112.1(b).” We also raised the threshold for reporting two discharges as described in § 112.1(b), from a “reportable” quantity under the Clean Water Act, to a threshold of more than 42 U.S. gallons, or 1 barrel, in each of those discharges. The 1,000 gallon threshold for a single discharge as described in § 112.1(b) remains unchanged. We also reduced the amount of information that must minimally be submitted to the RA.

§ 112.4(b): Section 112.4 does not apply until the expiration of the time permitted for the preparation and implementation of the Plan under § 112.3

§ 112.4(b): Section 112.4 does not apply until the expiration of the time permitted for the preparation and implementation of the Plan under § 112.3

§ 112.4(b): Section 112.3 in the revised rule allows more time for some facilities for preparation and implementation of a Plan, or any amendments thereto, than in the 1991 proposed rule. Therefore, the implementation of the requirements of § 112.4 is postponed until the new time frames in § 112.3 have passed.

§ 112.4(c): The owner or operator is required to provide the same information he provided to EPA, under § 112.4(a), to the State agency in charge of water pollution control activities in and for the State in which the facility is located at the same time he provides it to EPA. After receiving that information, the State agency may conduct a review and make recommendations to the Regional Administrator as to further procedures, methods, equipment and other requirements for equipment necessary to prevent and to contain discharges of oil from the facility

§ 112.4(c): The owner or operator is required to provide the same information he provided to EPA, under § 112.4(a), to the State agency in charge of oil pollution control activities in the State in which the facility is located at the same time he provides it to EPA. After receiving that information, the State agency or agencies may conduct a review and make recommendations to the Regional Administrator as to further procedures, methods, equipment and other requirements for equipment necessary to prevent and to contain discharges of oil from the facility

§ 112.4(c): The revised rule changes the requirement from notification to the State agency in charge of water pollution control activities to notification to the State agency in charge of oil pollution control activities. There may be more than one such agency in some States.

§ 112.4(d): This section allows the Regional Administrator to require a facility owner or operator to amend his Plan after review of materials the owner or operator submits under § 112.4 (a) and (c)

§ 112.4(d): This section allows the Regional Administrator to require a facility owner or operator to amend his Plan after review of materials the owner or operator submits under § 112.4 (a) and (c), or after on-site review of the Plan

§ 112.4(d): The revised rule provides that the Regional Administrator may require Plan amendment after on-site review of the Plan.

Section 112.5: Amendment of Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan by owners or operators

§ 112.5(b): This section requires an owner or operator to review his Plan at least every 3 years from the date a facility becomes subject to the SPCC rule. As a result of this review and evaluation, the owner or operator must amend the SPCC Plan within 6 months of the review to include more effective prevention and control technology if: (1) Such technology will significantly reduce the likelihood of a discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines from the facility; and (2) if such technology has been field-proven at the time of the review

>§ 112.5(b): This section requires an owner or operator to review his Plan at least every 5 years from the date a facility becomes subject to the SPCC rule; or for an existing facility, 5 years from the date the last review was required under this part. The owner or operator must amend the SPCC Plan within 6 months of the review to include more effective prevention and control technology if: (1) Such technology will significantly reduce the likelihood of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b) from the facility; and (2) if such technology has been field-proven at the time of the review. Implementation of amendments is required within 6 months following amendment. The owner or operator must document completion of the review and evaluation, and must sign a statement as to whether he will amend the Plan, either at the beginning or end of the Plan or in a log or an appendix to the Plan. The following will suffice, “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.”

§ 112.5(b): The revised rule changes the period of review for SPCC Plans from 3 to 5 years. It also requires documentation of completion of the review and evaluation.

§ 112.5(c): This section requires that a Professional Engineer certify any amendments to an SPCC Plan

§ 112.5(c): This section requires that a Professional Engineer certify any technical amendments to an SPCC Plan

§ 112.5(c): The revised rule clarifies that a Professional Engineer must certify only technical amendments. PE certification is not required for non-technical amendments, like changes to phone numbers, names, etc.

Section 112.7: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan general requirements. We have reorganized § 112.7 of the current regulation into §§ 112.7, 112.8, 112.9, 112.10, 112.11, 112.12, 112.13, 112.14, and 112.15 of the final rule based on facility type and type of oil.

§ 112.7: This section specifies that a Plan must be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices, and have the full approval of management at a level with authority to commit the necessary resources. The SPCC Plan must follow the sequence specified in the rule, and include a discussion of the facility's conformance with the requirements of the rule

§ 112.7: This section specifies that a Plan must be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices, and have the full approval of management at a level with authority to commit the necessary resources. The SPCC Plan must follow the sequence specified in the rule, and include a discussion of the facility's conformance with the requirements of the rule. If you do not follow the sequence specified in the rule, you must prepare an equivalent prevention Plan acceptable to the Regional Administrator that meets all applicable requirements, and you must supplement it with section cross-referencing the location of requirements listed in the SPCC rule to the equivalent requirements in the other prevention plan

§ 112.7: The revised rule allows differing formats for the Plan, other than the one format now specified. While you may use the format specified in the rule, you may also use other formats, such as State plans, Integrated Contingency Plans, and any other formats acceptable to the Regional Administrator. If you use another format, you must cross-reference its provisions to the requirement listed in the SPCC rule. Also, if you use another format, you must ensure that the format includes all applicable SPCC requirements, or you must supplement that format to include all applicable SPCC requirements.

§ 112.7(a)(2): No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.7(a)(2): This provision explicitly allows deviations from most of the rule's substantive requirements (except for secondary containment requirements), provided that you explain your reasons for nonconformance with the requirement, and provide equivalent environmental protection with an alternate measure. If the Regional Administrator determines that the alternate measure described in your Plan does not provide equivalent protection, he may require that you amend the Plan

§ 112.7(a)(2): The revised rule explicitly allows deviations from most of the rule's substantive requirements (except for secondary containment requirements), provided that you explain your reasons for nonconformance with the requirement, and provide equivalent environmental protection with an alternate measure. If the Regional Administrator determines that the alternate measure described in your Plan does not provide equivalent protection, he may require that you amend your Plan.

§ 112.7(a)(3): No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.7(a)(3): This section requires a facility owner or operator to describe the physical layout of the facility and include a facility diagram in the Plan

§ 112.7(a)(3): The facility diagram must include completely buried tanks exempted from other SPCC requirements.

§ 112.7(c): This section is the general provision requiring secondary containment

§ 112.7(c): This section is the general provision requiring secondary containment

§ 112.7(c): The revised rule maintains the current standard that dikes, berms, or retaining walls must be “sufficiently impervious” to contain oil. We withdrew the proposed standard that such secondary containment must be impermeable for 72 hours.

§ 112.7(d): When it is not practicable to install secondary containment at your facility, this section requires that you explain why and provide a strong oil spill contingency plan in your SPCC Plan. The contingency plan must follow the provisions of 40 CFR part 109. You must also provide in your SPCC Plan a written commitment to manpower, equipment and materials required to expeditiously control and remove any harmful quantity of oil discharged

§ 112.7(d): When it is not practicable to install secondary containment at your facility, this section requires that you explain why and provide a strong oil spill contingency plan in your SPCC Plan. The contingency plan must follow the provisions of 40 CFR part 109. You must also provide in your SPCC Plan a written commitment to manpower, equipment and materials required to expeditiously control and remove any quantity of oil discharged that may be harmful; conduct periodic integrity testing of the containers; and, conduct periodic integrity and leak testing of the valves and piping

§ 112.7(d): The revised rule adds new requirements for periodic integrity testing of containers, and periodic integrity and leak testing of valves and piping. We clarify that if you have submitted a facility response plan under § 112.20 for a facility, you need not provide for that facility either a contingency plan following the provisions of part 109, nor a written commitment of manpower, equipment, and materials required to expeditiously control and remove any quantity of oil discharged that may be harmful.

§ 112.7(e)(8): This section requires that the owner or operator conduct required inspections in accordance with written procedures developed for the facility. The owner or operator must maintain these written procedures and a record of inspections, signed by the appropriate supervisor or inspector, as part of the SPCC Plan, and maintain them for a period of 3 years

§ 112.7(e): This section requires that the owner or operator conduct required inspections and tests in accordance with written procedures developed by him or by the certifying engineer for the facility. The owner or operator must maintain these written procedures and a record of inspections and tests, signed by the appropriate supervisor or inspector, with the SPCC Plan, and maintain them for a period of 3 years. Records of inspections and tests kept pursuant to usual and customary business practices are sufficient for purposes of the rule

§ 112.7(e): The revised rule allows use of usual and customary business records to serve as a record of tests or inspections, instead of keeping duplicate records. It also allows the owner or operator to keep those records as an appendix to the Plan, or in a separate log, etc., with the Plan, rather than requiring that those records be a part of the Plan. The rule also acknowledges that the certifying engineer, as well as the owner or operator, has a role in the development of inspection procedures.

§ 112.7(e)(10): The owner or operator of a facility is responsible for properly instructing personnel in the operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent the discharges of oil and applicable pollution control laws, rules, and regulations. An owner or operator must designate a person at each facility who is accountable for oil discharge prevention and who reports to facility management. An owner or operator must schedule and conduct discharge prevention briefings for operating personnel at intervals frequent enough to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan for that facility. Such briefings must highlight and describe known discharges to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, or failures, malfunctioning components, and recently developed precautionary measures

§ 112.7(f): The owner or operator of a facility, at a minimum, must train oil-handling personnel in the operation and maintenance of equipment to prevent the discharge of oil; discharge procedure protocols; applicable pollution control laws, rules, and regulations; general facility operations; and, the contents of the facility Plan. An owner or operator must designate a person at each facility who is accountable for oil discharge prevention and who reports to facility management. An owner or operator must schedule and conduct discharge prevention briefings for oil-handling personnel at least once a year to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan for that facility. Such briefings must highlight and describe known discharges as described in § 112.1(b), or failures, malfunctioning components, and recently developed precautionary measures

§ 112.7(f): The revised rule mandates training only for oil-handling employees, instead of all employees. It specifies additional topics for the training of these employees. It also specifies that discharge prevention briefings must be conducted at least once a year, instead of at “intervals frequent enough to assure adequate understanding of the SPCC Plan for that facility.”

§ 112.7(i): No counterpart in current rule

§ 112.7(i): This section requires evaluation for field-constructed aboveground containers undergoing repair, alteration, reconstruction, or change in service that might affect the risk of a discharge or failure due to fracture or other catastrophe. It also requires such evaluation when there has actually been a discharge or failure due to brittle fracture or other catastrophe

§ 112.7(i): The brittle fracture requirement was triggered by the Ashland Oil tank collapse in 1988 due to brittle fracture.

Section 112.8: Requirements for onshore facilities (excluding production facilities).

§ 112.7(e)(2)(iii): This section establishes substantive requirements for stormwater drainage from diked areas, and recordkeeping requirements for stormwater bypass events

§ 112.8(c)(3): This section establishes substantive requirements for stormwater drainage from diked areas, and recordkeeping requirements for stormwater bypass events. The revised rule provides that records required under permits issued in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) rules are sufficient for recording stormwater bypass events

§ 112.8(c)(3): The revised rule allows records required by NPDES permit regulations to record stormwater bypass events to be used for SPCC purposes in lieu of events records specifically prepared for purpose.

§ 112.7(e)(2)(vi): This provision requires that aboveground containers be subject to periodic integrity testing, taking into account tank design (floating roof, etc.) and using such techniques as hydrostatic testing, visual inspection, or a system of non-destructive shell thickness testing. The owner or operator must keep comparison records where appropriate, and must include tank supports and foundations in these inspections. In addition, operating personnel must frequently inspect the outside of the container for signs of deterioration, leaks, or accumulation of oil inside diked areas

§ 112.8(c)(6): The revised rule requires that aboveground containers be tested for integrity on a regular schedule, and when material repairs are done. The frequently and type of testing must take into account container size and design (floating roof, skid-mounted, elevated, partially buried, for example). The owner or operator must combine visual inspection with another testing technique such as hydrostatic testing, radiographic testing, ultrasonic testing, acoustic emissions testing, or other system of non-destructive shell testing. The owner or operator must keep comparison records and must include tank supports and foundations in these inspections. In addition, operating personnel must frequently inspect the outside of the container for signs of deterioration, leaks, or accumulation of oil inside diked areas. Records of inspections and tests kept pursuant to usual and customary business practices are sufficient for purposes of the rule

§ 112.8(c)(6): The revised rule requires that an owner or operator test aboveground containers for integrity on a regular schedule, and when material repairs are done. The rationale for adding a testing requirement when material repairs are done is that material repairs might increase the potential for oil discharges. Usual and customary business records may be used for the purpose of integrity testing, instead of records specifically created for this purpose.

§ 112.7(e)(3)(i): This section requires that buried piping installations have protective wrapping and coating and cathodic protection, if soil conditions warrant

§ 112.8(d)(1): This section requires that buried piping that is installed or replaced on or after August 16, 2002 must have protective wrapping and coating and cathodic protection, or otherwise satisfy the corrosion protection provisions for piping in 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281

§ 112.8(d)(1): The revised rule requires that all buried piping that is installed or replaced on or after August 16, 2002 must have protective wrapping and coating and cathodic protection, or otherwise satisfy the corrosion protection provisions for piping in 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281, for all soil conditions.

Section 112.9: Requirements for onshore oil production facilities.

§ 112.7(e)(5)(ii): This section provides requirements for stormwater drainage events

§ 112.9(b)(1): This section provides requirements for stormwater drainage events

§ 112.9(b)(1): The revised rule provides that records required by NPDES permit regulations are allowable to record stormwater bypass events for SPCC purposes in lieu of records specifically generated for that purpose.

§ 112.7(e)(5)(iii)(B): This section requires secondary containment for onshore production facilities

§ 112.9(c)(2): This section requires secondary containment for onshore production facilities

§ 112.9(c)(2): The revised rule clarifies that the secondary containment must include sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation.

IV. Discussion of Issues

Below is a discussion of the major issues for which we solicited comments in the 1991, 1993, and 1997 proposals. We also discuss the use of industry standards to comply with the rule. Following these issues, we discuss the revisions to each section and the major comments received, as well as responses to those comments. A detailed Response to Comments document addressing all comments is also part of this rulemaking and may be found in the administrative record for this rule.

A. Reorganization of the Rule

Background

In 1991, EPA proposed to reorganize the SPCC rule based on facility type. The purpose of that proposed reorganization was to clarify SPCC Plan requirements for different types of facilities. In this rulemaking, we are dividing the rule into subparts. Subpart A consists of an applicability section, definitions, and general requirements for all facilities. Subparts B and C outline the requirements for different types of facilities storing and using different types of oils. Subpart B is for facilities storing or using petroleum oils or other non-petroleum oils, except those oils covered by subpart C. Subpart C is for facilities storing or using animal fats and oils and greases, or fish and marine mammal oils; and, oils of vegetable origin, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels. Subpart D is for response requirements.

If you have already prepared an SPCC Plan, you were required to follow the sequence of § 112.7 of the current rule, prior to today's revisions. Today, we are reorganizing that portion of the rule into §§ 112.7 through 112.15, based on facility type and type of oil. Under the introduction to § 112.7 of today's rule, if your Plan does not follow the revised sequence, you must supplement it with a section cross-referencing the location of requirements listed in the revised rule and the equivalent requirements in your Plan. To assist you in preparing this cross-reference, the following table lists each requirement in the revised rule, provides the corresponding paragraph of the current rule, and leaves a space where you can show the location of the provision in your Plan. We have put this rule, including the table below, on our website for your convenience. You may download it for your use.

See

our Web site at

www.epa.gov/oilspill.

Under the revised rule, § 112.7 sets out the general requirements for SPCC Plans for all facilities and all types of oil. Sections 112.8 to 112.11 set out the SPCC Plan requirements for petroleum oil and for non-petroleum oils other than animal fats and vegetable oils. Sections 112.12 to 112.15 set out the SPCC Plan requirements for animal fats and oils and greases, and fish and marine mammal oils; and for oils of vegetable origin, including oils from seeds, nuts, fruits, and kernels.

Revised rule

Current rule

Description of rule

Page

§ 112.7

§ 112.7

General requirements for SPCC Plans for all facilities and all oil types

§ 112.7(a)

§ 112.7

General requirements; discussion of facility's conformance with rule requirements; deviations from Plan requirements; facility characteristics that must be described in the Plan; spill reporting information in the Plan; emergency procedures

§ 112.7(b)

§ 112.7(b)

Fault analysis

§ 112.7(c)

§ 112.7(c)

Secondary containment

§ 112.7(d)

§ 112.7(d)

Contingency planning

§ 112.7(e)

§ 112.7(e)(8)

Inspections, tests, and records

§ 112.7(f)

§ 112.7(e)(10)

Employee training and discharge prevention procedures

§ 112.7(g)

§ 112.7(e)(9)

Security (excluding oil production facilities)

§ 112.7(h)

§ 112.7(e)(4)

Loading/unloading (excluding offshore facilities)

§ 112.7(i)

n/a

Brittle fracture evaluation requirements

§ 112.7(j)

§ 112.7(e)

Conformance with State requirements

§ 112.8 § 112.12

§ 112.7(e)(1)

Requirements for onshore facilities (excluding production facilities)

§ 112.8(a), § 112.12(a)

n/a

General and specific requirements

§ 112.8(b), § 112.12(b)

§ 112.7(e)(1)

Facility drainage

§ 112.8(c), § 112.12(c)

§ 112.7(e)(2)

Bulk storage containers

§ 112.8(d), § 112.12(d)

§ 112.7(e)(3)

Facility transfer operations, pumping, and facility process

§ 112.9, § 112.13

§ 112.7(e)(5)

Requirements for onshore production facilities

§ 112.9(a), § 112.13(a)

n/a

General and specific requirements

§ 112.9(b), § 112.13(b)

§ 112.7(e)(5)(ii)

Oil production facility drainage

§ 112.9(c), § 112.13(c)

§ 112.7(e)(5)(iii)

Oil production facility bulk storage containers

§ 112.9(d), § 112.13(d)

§ 112.7(e)(5)(iv)

Facility transfer operations, oil production facility

§ 112.10, § 112.14

§ 112.7(e)(6)

Requirements for onshore oil drilling and workover facilities

§ 112.10(a), § 112.14(a)

n/a

General and specific requirements

§ 112.10(b), § 112.14(b)

§ 112.7(e)(6)(i)

Mobile facilities

§ 112.10(c), § 112.14(c)

§ 112.7(e)(6)(ii)

Secondary containment—catchment basins or diversion structures

§ 112.10(d), § 112.14(d)

§ 112.7(e)(6)(iii)

Blowout prevention (BOP)

§ 112.11, § 112.15

§ 112.7(e)(7)

Requirements for offshore oil drilling, production, or workover facilities

§ 112.11(a), § 112.15(a)

n/a

General and specific requirements

§ 112.11(b), § 112.15(b)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(ii)

Facility drainage

§ 112.11(c), § 112.15(c)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(iii)

Sump systems

§ 112.11(d), § 112.15(d)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(iv)

Discharge prevention systems for separators and treaters

§ 112.11(e), § 112.15(e)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(v)

Atmospheric storage or surge containers; alarms

§ 112.11(f), § 112.15(f)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(vi)

Pressure containers; alarm systems

§ 112.11(g), § 112.15(g)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(vii)

Corrosion protection

§ 112.11(h), § 112.15(h)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(viii)

Pollution prevention system procedures

§ 112.11(i), § 112.15(i)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(ix)

Pollution prevention systems; testing and inspection

§ 112.11(j), § 112.15(j)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(x)

Surface and subsurface well shut-in valves and devices

§ 112.11(k), § 112.15(k)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(xi)

Blowout prevention

§ 112.11(l), § 112.15(l)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(xiv)

Manifolds

§ 112.11(m), § 112.15(m)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(xv)

Flowlines, pressure sensing devices

§ 112.11(n), § 112.15(n)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(xvi)

Piping; corrosion protection

§ 112.11(o), § 112.15(o)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(xvii)

Sub-marine piping; environmental stresses

§ 112.11(p), § 112.15(p)

§ 112.7(e)(7)(xviii)

Inspections of sub-marine piping

In 1995, Congress enacted the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (EORRA), 33 U.S.C. 2720. That statute mandates that most Federal agencies differentiate between and establish separate classes for various types of oils, specifically: animal fats and oils and greases, and fish and marine mammal oils; oils of vegetable origin; petroleum oils, and other non-petroleum oils and greases. In differentiating between these classes of oils, Federal agencies are directed to consider differences in the physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes. In response to EORRA, as noted above, we have divided the requirements of the rule by subparts for facilities storing or using the various classes of oils listed in that act.

Because at the present time EPA has not proposed differentiated SPCC requirements for public notice and comment, the requirements for facilities storing or using all classes of oil will remain the same. However, we have published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on how we might differentiate among the requirements for the facilities storing or using various classes of oil. 64 FR 17227, April 8, 1999. If after considering these comments, there is adequate justification for differentiation among the requirements for those facilities, we will propose rule changes.

B. Plain Language Format

We have rewritten the SPCC rule in a plain language format to make it clearer and easier to use. A plain language format includes maximum use of the active voice; short, clear sentences; and, in this rule, a summary table of the major regulatory changes. This format is part of the Agency's ongoing efforts in regulatory reinvention. While we have made substantive changes in some provisions, the plain language changes are only editorial. The plain language format used in today's rule may appear different from other rules, but it establishes binding, enforceable legal requirements.

In this preamble, as in the rule text, we often use the pronoun “he” as a generic term. “He” does not necessarily mean a man; it may be a woman, or in some cases, a business organization when referring to an owner or operator.

C. “Should to Shall to Must” Clarification

Background

EPA has always considered that § 112.3 of the SPCC rule requires 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 current 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” 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. Section 112.7(a)(2) will provide such flexibility. In the exercise of our authority to inspect facilities and SPCC Plans, we reserve the right to find that such alternate methods do not provide equivalent environmental protection. In such cases, we would require the owner or operator of the facility to amend the SPCC Plan to provide equivalent environmental protection.

Comments. Guidance.

Several commenters supported the proposed change. One asked that discretionary provisions might be better placed in a separate guidance document. Several commenters were concerned that there are no guidance documents outlining equivalency as provided in proposed § 112.7(a)(2) and that it may be impossible to prove equivalency to EPA.

PE certification.

Other commenters suggested that if the Professional Engineer (PE) certified the Plan as adequate for the facility, then the mandated requirements were unnecessary, as he would have determined that all appropriate equipment and planning is in place.

Substantive change.

Some commenters argued that the proposal was a substantive change, contrary to legislative intent, and that we failed to give opportunity for proper notice and comment, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Small production facilities.

One commenter suggested that the clarification should not apply to small production facilities, defined as those with less than 3000 barrels of storage capacity, because those facilities would suffer severe hardship as a result.

Response to comments. Guidance.

EPA agrees with the comment that recommendations have no place in this rule because we do not wish to confuse the regulated public as to what is mandatory and what is discretionary. Instead, some recommendations are discussed in the preamble to this document, while others can be found in separate guidance documents or policy statements. When the rule or preamble is silent, or no published guidance or policy documents exist, we will generally use industry standards as guidance for rule compliance.

PE certification.

While we generally agree that certification by a PE should show that all necessary equipment and planning are in place, we reserve the right to make a determination that additional measures may be necessary to comply with the rule. EPA made it clear in proposed § 112.3(d), which is finalized today, that a PE certification does not relieve the owner or operator of the duty to prepare and fully implement an SPCC Plan in accordance with the rule's requirements.

Substantive change.

We disagree that the change is either substantive or contrary to legislative intent. Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act authorizes the President and, through delegation, EPA, to establish “procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and to contain such discharges.” That authority is ample to provide the basis for a mandatory SPCC rule, that is, a rule that establishes “requirements * * * to prevent discharges.”

We also disagree that the proposed rule failed to provide proper notice and comment. The preamble to the 1991 proposed rule fully explained the rationale for the proposed change (56 FR 54620, October 22, 1991), and numerous commenters responded. Furthermore, we have always interpreted and enforced our rules as mandatory requirements.

EPA recognizes, however, that this clarification may result in certain owners or operators of regulated facilities recognizing for the first time that they have been and are subject to various provisions of part 112. Such owners and operators should, of course, take all necessary steps to come into compliance with this part as soon as possible. In exercising its prosecutorial discretion, the Agency always takes into account the good faith and efforts to comply of an owner or operator who has been in noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations when deciding whether or not to take an enforcement action.

Small production facilities.

We disagree that the “should” to “must” change will generally pose a severe hardship for small production facilities. As noted above, EPA has always interpreted the “shoulds” as “musts.” Further, when a particular requirement is not feasible for a particular facility, under § 112.7(a)(2) that facility may explain the reasons for nonconformance with the requirement, and provide alternate measures that achieve equivalent environmental protection.

D. Professional Engineers (PEs)

Background.

In the preamble to the 1991 proposal (56 FR 54618), EPA posed several questions to commenters regarding how PEs could help to implement the SPCC Plan. An owner or operator of a facility is required to secure the certification of a PE on an SPCC Plan, and on technical amendments to the Plan. By means of this certification, the PE attests that the Plan or the amendment has been prepared in accordance with good engineering practice.

1. State Registration

Background.

We solicited comments on the advantages and disadvantages associated with the PE being registered in the State in which the facility is located. EPA noted that “a requirement that a PE be licensed in the State in which the facility is located would allow the State licensing board to more easily address the actions of the PE under its jurisdiction, and that the PE may have greater familiarity with the State and local requirements related to the facility under review.” 56 FR 54619.

Comments. Favorable comments.

Several commenters supported a requirement that the PE be registered in the State in which the facility is located. The rationales often expressed were that: (1) Letting any PE certify any SPCC Plan effectively removed the PE from the supervision of the State board; and, (2) familiarity with the State and local requirements related to the facility as well as the State itself are essential for viable SPCC Plans. One commenter suggested that when an out-of-State PE prepares the Plan, the Plan should bear the seal of the PE who prepared the Plan along with the seal of a PE registered in the State in which the facility is located, assuring that the proposed Plan conforms to any additional State requirements.

Opposing comments.

Opposing commenters argued that: (1) A State licensing board will address the actions of an engineer regardless of the engineer's location when he applies his seal; (2) suggestions that the potential liability of the engineer might be limited if the engineer holds an out-of-State license are specious; (3) SPCC Plan

preparation is a Federal activity, therefore, it is unnecessary to have State registration; and, (4) such a requirement would reduce the available pool of qualified PEs. One commenter volunteered that the proposal was “superfluous” because the practice of engineering in a State without being professionally registered in that State is unlawful in most States.

Response to comments.

We agree with commenters that it is unnecessary that the PE be registered or licensed in the State in which the facility is located because any abuses will be corrected by the licensing jurisdiction. We also agree that such a requirement might unnecessarily reduce the availability of PEs and increase the cost of certification without any tangible benefits. The professional liability of a PE would likely be unaffected by the place of his registration. When State law precludes a PE from applying his seal if he is not licensed in that State, the question of State registration becomes moot. However, that is not the case in every State.

We also disagree that if a PE is not licensed in the State, he will be unfamiliar with State and local requirements for the facility. Any PE may become familiar with both Federal and State and local requirements for a facility. Therefore, to require that the PE be registered in the State in which the facility is located would impose unnecessary financial burdens on the facility and would challenge the integrity of the PE. Such a requirement would also reduce the pool of PEs available for facilities.

2. PEs Employed by the Facility

Background.

EPA asked whether the rule should specify that the PE not be an employee of the facility or have any other direct financial interest in the facility. This request for comment had its origin in a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued on February 22, 1989, “Inland Oil Spills: Stronger Regulation and Enforcement Needed to Avoid Future Incidents” (GAO/RCED-89-65).” The GAO report recommended that EPA evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of requiring facilities to obtain certifications from independent engineers. EPA noted that “not having the PE otherwise associated with the facility may avoid any potential conflicts of interest or appearance of conflicts of interest that could arise from allowing an employee of a regulated party to certify a SPCC Plan.” 56 FR 54619. On the other hand, for both the issues of whether to require State registration and whether to allow PEs employed by the facility to certify SPCC Plans, EPA noted that some organizations objected to the proposals as “challenging the integrity of professional engineers.” 56 FR 54619. We also pointed out that some professional organizations believe that such requirements “would impose substantial costs without enhancing the integrity of the certification process.” 56 FR 54619.

Comments. Favorable comments.

Several commenters supported a requirement that the PE not be an employee of the facility or not have a direct financial interest in it. The rationales most often asserted were: (1) A Plan would better satisfy regulatory objectives and better serve the public; (2) the Plan would be less subject to compromise by other factors; (3) Plan certification is less likely to be a coerced or superficial effort, and undue economic and moral pressures would be avoided; (4) more cooperative efforts among regulatory bodies, engineers, and the facility would be possible; (5) more economic and effective Plan development is assured; and, (6) more competent and more professional Plan development is guaranteed.

Opposing comments.

Opposing commenters asserted that: (1) Such a proposal would limit the availability of PEs, leading to delays in Plan certification; (2) administrative action to correct abuses would be a better approach; and, (3) such an approach insults the ethical integrity of PE. One commenter suggested that “to suppose a facility employee would break the law and jeopardize his license to practice his profession and do it more willingly than an “independent” engineer has no basis in fact'; (4) an in-house PE may be the person most familiar with the facility; (5) the proposal would place an undue and unnecessary financial burden on the owner or operator of a facility by forcing him to hire an outside engineer; and, (6) it is uncertain whether an independent PE can afford the insurance necessary to certify his work given that the liability incurred might run into the millions of dollars.

Compromise position.

One commenter suggested that a compromise position might be that the PE who certifies the Plan would be required to disclose in the Plan certification his relationship to the facility owner, the facility improvements owner, and the facility landowner.

Response to comments.

We agree that a proposal to restrict certification by a PE employed by a facility or having a financial interest in it would limit the availability of PEs, possibly leading to delays in Plan certification. Therefore, we will not adopt it. Nor do we favor the proposal to require the PE to disclose his relationship to the facility owner, the facility improvements owner, or the facility landowner. Such disclosure would add no environmental protection to the SPCC certification process. Administrative action to correct abuses would be a better approach. We believe that most PEs, whether independent or employees of a facility, being professionals, will uphold the integrity of their profession and only certify Plans that meet regulatory requirements. We also agree that an in-house PE may be the person most familiar with the facility. EPA believes that a restriction of in-house PE certification might place an undue and unnecessary financial burden on owners or operators of facilities by forcing them to hire an outside engineer.

3. Completion of Testing

Background.

The Agency proposed that the PE must attest that required testing has been completed and the Plan meets the requirements of the regulation for the facility. This proposal was advanced to “promote the Agency's intent in the original promulgation of § 112.3(d) that SPCC Plans be certified by a Registered Professional Engineer exercising independent judgment.” 56 FR 54619. These new requirements were to be met when a new Plan is prepared after promulgation of the rule, or when an existing Plan is amended, under § 112.5.

Comments. Favorable comments.

One commenter supported a requirement that the PE attest to the completion of testing and that the Plan meets regulatory requirements.

Opposing comments.

Some opposing commenters believed that the PE should “enumerate all the inspections and tests that have been completed, plus those that should be completed before the facility commences operations and those that should be undertaken periodically after it commences operations.” Others believed that completion of required testing is the responsibility of the operator and not the PE. Another commenter believed such a requirement would be impossible, because “required testing may take up to a year to complete.”

Response to comments.

EPA agrees that the PE is not responsible for certifying that all required testing has been completed. Rather, such responsibility belongs to the owner or operator of the facility. Testing may be ongoing long after the Plan is certified. The PE is responsible for certifying that the Plan is adequate and meets all regulatory requirements, including enumeration of all tests that have been

completed, plus those that should be completed before the facility commences operations and those that should be undertaken periodically after it commences operations. Therefore, we are changing the proposed requirement to a requirement in which the PE attests that the procedures for required inspections and testing have been established, and the Plan is adequate for the facility.

See

the discussion of § 112.3(d), below.

4. Site Visits

Background.

We stated that EPA “believes the current regulatory language (

e.g.,

requiring the engineer to examine the facility) clearly requires the certifying Engineer to visit the facility prior to certifying the SPCC Plan.” We added that the proposed change “clarifies this requirement by specifying that the Professional Engineer must be physically present to examine the facility.” 56 FR 54619.

Comments. Favorable comments.

Many commenters favored the requirement that the PE make a site visit prior to certifying a Plan. Those commenters called such a visit “absolutely necessary.” Some argued that a generic plan prepared by an engineer who has never seen the facility is unacceptable.

Opposing comments.

Opposing commenters asserted that such visits only involve additional costs and duplication of efforts without any tangible benefits. Many opposing commenters argued that customary engineering practice includes the use of engineering technicians, technologists, graduate engineers, and others to prepare preliminary reports, studies, and evaluations. After preparation of these documents, the PE would then perform a careful review of all pertinent material and then sign and seal the appropriate plans and drawings. Other commenters argued that such a requirement would be impractical, particularly at electrical substations, due to their large number.

Particular cases.

One commenter urged that small facilities be exempted from the site visit requirement where “a determination is made that sufficient documentation of site characteristics is available for plan certification.” That commenter noted that in many instances sufficient information is available from topographic maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, hydrologic studies, engineering and construction reports, and local operating personnel to eliminate the need for site visits prior to certification. Another commenter urged an exemption for temporary storage facilities because given their emergency nature, certification is impractical. One commenter asked for clarification that the certification of an existing Plan is sufficient until the Plan update is required. Another suggested that the rule should only require that the PE be familiar with the operation and design of the type of facility, and that he would have visited and examined one or more facilities of this type.

Response to comments. In general.

EPA agrees that the rule should not necessarily require a site visit by a certifying PE, but we believe that a site visit should occur before the PE certifies the Plan. We have modified proposed § 112.3(d)(ii) to reflect this position. The PE's agent may perform the visit. We agree that customary engineering practice allows someone under the PE's employ such as an engineering technician, technologist, graduate engineer, or other qualified person to prepare preliminary reports, studies, and evaluations after visiting the site. Then the PE could legitimately certify the Plan. Nevertheless, in all cases the PE must ensure that his certification represents an exercise of good engineering judgment. If that requires a personal site visit, the PE must visit the facility himself before certifying the Plan.

Particular cases.

EPA agrees that a PE site visit requirement might be impractical at electrical substations, due to their large number. However, the PE need not go. One of his agents may go, and he may review the agent's work. We disagree with commenters who believe that a site visit is unnecessary at small facilities and temporary storage facilities. Site visits are necessary for those facilities to ensure Plan adequacy and to prevent discharges.

EPA has interpreted the current rule language to contain a requirement that the PE examine the facility. Because of the uncertainty concerning the nature of this requirement, however, we will not require documentation of a site visit by a PE or his agent until after the effective date of this rule. We disagree that the rule should only require that the PE be familiar with the operation and design of the type of facility. We also disagree that merely because the PE has visited and examined one or more facilities of a particular type that no site visit is necessary. A facility may have individual characteristics that differ from those of its type in general, and a site visit by a PE or agent may be necessary to detect those characteristics and accommodate them in the Plan. Such individual characteristics include geographic conditions, possible flow paths, facility design and construction, type of containers, product stored, particular equipment, and the integrity of containment at the facility. Therefore, even if a PE has inspected many facilities of a particular type, that fact does not eliminate the need for a site visit at each facility. After the site visit, the PE will have to devise appropriate inspection and testing standards based on the facility's unique characteristics.

E. Electrical Facilities and Other Operational Users of Oil

Background.

In 1991, we proposed that certain facilities having equipment containing oil that is used for operational purposes, such as electrical transformers, would not have to comply with secondary containment requirements and certain other provisions proposed in §§ 112.8(c) and 112.9(d) because such facilities are not bulk storage facilities. EPA asked for comment on this and also asked commenters to identify other possible operational uses of oil, other than electrical transformers, that may not currently use secondary containment as a common industry practice and that should not be subject to bulk storage provisions. 56 FR 54623.

Comments. Use of oil.

Numerous commenters, especially in the electric utility industry, asserted that EPA has no jurisdiction to regulate the operational use of oil generally, or specifically in electrical transformers, substations, and other equipment. Some manufacturers of other products agreed. They argued that the legislative history of the Act showed no Congressional intent for such regulation. However, many commenters asked EPA specifically to clarify this jurisdictional issue.

Response to comments. Use of oil.

We disagree that operational equipment is not subject to the SPCC rule. We have amended § 112.1(b) to clarify that using oil, for example operationally, may subject a facility to SPCC jurisdiction as long as the other applicability criteria apply, for example, oil storage capacity, or location. Such a facility might reasonably be expected to discharge oil as described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, the prevention of discharges from such facility falls within the scope of the statute.

However, we have distinguished the bulk storage of oil from the operational use of oil. We define “bulk storage container” in the final rule to mean any container used to store oil. The storage of oil may be prior to use, while being used, or prior to further distribution in commerce. For clarity, we have specifically excluded oil-filled electrical, operating, or manufacturing equipment from the definition.

Facilities that use oil operationally include electrical substations, facilities containing electrical transformers, and certain hydraulic or manufacturing equipment. The requirements for bulk storage containers may not always apply to these facilities since the primary purpose of this equipment is not the storage of oil in bulk. Facilities with equipment containing oil for ancillary purposes are not required to provide the secondary containment required for bulk storage facilities (§ 112.8(c)) and onshore production facilities (§ 112.9(c)), nor implement the other provisions of § 112.8(c) or § 112.9(c). Oil-filled equipment must meet other SPCC requirements, for example, the general requirements of this part, including § 112.7(c), to provide appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures to prevent discharged oil from reaching a navigable watercourse. The general requirement for secondary containment, which can be provided by various means including drainage systems, spill diversion ponds, etc., will provide for safety and also meet the needs of section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA. EPA will continue to evaluate whether the general secondary containment requirements found in § 112.7(c) should be modified for small electrical and other types of equipment which use oil for operating purposes. We intend to publish a notice asking for additional data and comment on this issue.

In addition, a facility may deviate from most SPCC requirements, if the owner or operator explains his reasons for nonconformance and provides equivalent environmental protection by some other means.

See

§ 112.7(a)(2).

See also

§ 112.7(d).

F. Discretionary Provisions

Background.

In the preamble to the 1991 proposal (at 56 FR 54616), we asked for comments as to whether the provisions proposed as recommendations in rule text should be made requirements. We then noted that we were “particularly interested in receiving comments and information on the advisability of establishing” certain provisions as “requirements for large facilities, but as recommendations for small facilities.” These provisions were: (1) Proposed § 112.8(d)(4)—“that facilities have all buried piping tested for integrity and leaks annually or have buried piping monitored monthly in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 280.” We also recommended that records of testing or monitoring be kept for five years.; and, (2) proposed § 112.8(d)(5)—“that facilities post vehicle weight restrictions to prevent damage to underground piping.” Individual proposals will be discussed under their relevant sections in this preamble. Large facilities were defined for this purpose as facilities with more than 42,000 gallons of SPCC-regulated storage capacity. Conversely, we asked whether such provisions should be discretionary for smaller facilities. The rationale expressed in the question was EPA believes that “larger volumes of oil stored at a facility increase the chances of a spill occurring, and that spills from large-capacity facilities may be greater in magnitude than those from smaller facilities, thus posing a greater potential threat to the waters of the United States.”

EPA also requested comments on two other practices it proposed as recommendations, but did not include in rule text. Those practices were: (1) “That owners and operators of facilities affix a signed and dated statement to the SPCC Plan indicating that the revision has taken place and whether or not amendment of the Plan is required;” and, (2) “That owners and operators of onshore facilities other than production facilities state the design capabilities of their drainage system in the SPCC Plan if the system is relied upon to control spills or leaks.” Concerning the first practice, see also the discussion under § 112.5(b) of today's rule. The rationale for these recommendations was that “these provisions may not for all facilities achieve the standard of provisions based on good engineering practice, which is the basic standard of the regulation. EPA, however believes that implementation of these provisions at most facilities would contribute to the facilities' overall effort to prevent oil discharge and to mitigate those spills that may occur.” The Agency also asked whether some of these provisions should be mandatory.

Comments. Large or small facility regulation, in general.

EPA received a number of comments on this issue, some directed towards regulation of larger and smaller facilities in general, and others toward specific provisions proposed. Some commenters believed that larger facilities could better bear the costs of regulation than smaller facilities, some of which were financially marginal and might go out of business as a result of environmental regulation.

Storage capacity level.

Commenters suggested different storage capacity levels at which to differentiate large from small facilities. Those suggestions ranged from 10,000 to 100,000 gallons in storage capacity. Many, however, supported the 42,000-gallon level.

Other factors.

One commenter suggested that other factors such as proximity to navigable waters or environmentally sensitive areas, as well as the use of good engineering practices should be considered in the regulation of facilities. The commenter argues that these factors might avoid overburdening a large facility with a low potential for impact on a navigable water or exempting a small facility with a high potential for impact on a navigable water.

Discretionary provisions. Favorable commenters.

Numerous commenters favored discretionary provisions in the interest of maintaining flexibility in the program, noting that what may be appropriate for one facility may not be appropriate for another. Some commenters favored applying discretionary provisions to small facilities only, leaving the provisions as requirements for larger facilities.

Discretionary provisions. Opposing commenters.

Some commenters argued that discretionary provisions are inappropriate in a rule as a matter of principle because they complicate mandatory rule documents and enforcement, and they confuse the regulated community. Yet others urged that such provisions were unnecessary in any case because they believe that no risks exist for which the discretionary provisions were proposed.

Response to comments.

We will discuss specific comments under the discussion of specific sections. See section IV.G of today's preamble for a discussion of the “Design Capabilities of Drainage Systems, other than Production Facilities.” Our general discussion follows.

Large or small facility regulation, in general.

We have decided not to regulate facilities differently based merely on storage capacity, provided that the capacity is above the regulatory threshold of over 1,320 gallons. This decision is based on environmental reasons. Small discharges of oil that reach the environment can cause significant harm. Sensitive environments, such as areas with diverse and/or protected flora and fauna, are vulnerable to small spills. EPA noted in a recent denial of a petition for rulemaking: “Small spills of petroleum and vegetable oils and animal fats can cause significant environmental damage. Real-world examples of oil spills demonstrate that spills of petroleum oils and vegetable oils and animal fats do occur and produce deleterious environmental effects. In some cases, small spills of vegetable oils can produce more environmental harm than numerous large spills of petroleum

oils.” 62 FR 54508, 54530, October 20, 1997. Describing the outcome of one small spill of 400 gallons of rapeseed oil into Vancouver Harbor, we noted that “ * * * 88 oiled birds of 14 species were recovered after the spill, and half of them were dead. Oiled birds usually are not recovered for 3 days after a spill, when they become weakened enough to be captured. Of the survivors, half died during treatment. The number of casualties from the rapeseed oil spills was probably higher than the number of birds recovered, because heavily oiled birds sink and dying or dead birds are captured quickly by raptors and scavengers.” 62 FR 54525.

A small discharge may also cause harm to human health or life through threat of fire or explosion, or short-or long-term exposure to toxic components.

Other factors.

Finally, EPA notes that the rule affords flexibility to an owner or operator of a facility to design a Plan based on his specific circumstances. It allows him to choose methods that best protect the environment. It permits deviations from most of the mandatory substantive requirements of the rule when the facility owner or operator can demonstrate a reason for nonconformance, and can provide equivalent environmental protection by other means. Consequently, both small and large facilities have the opportunity to reduce costs by alternative methods if they can maintain environmental protection. Because smaller facilities may require less complex plans than larger ones, their costs may be less.

Discretionary provisions.

We agree that discretionary provisions have no place in this rule because we do not wish to confuse the regulated community and complicate enforcement by blurring what is mandatory and what is discretionary. We will provide guidance or policy statements on various issues, as necessary, that will incorporate some or all of these recommendations. In the absence of such guidance or policy statements, you should look to current industry standards for guidance on technical issues. See also our discussion of industry standards and good engineering practice under section IV.K of today's preamble and under § 112.3(d) in section V of today's preamble.

G. Design Capabilities of Drainage Systems, Other than Production Facilities

Background.

In the 1991 preamble, we asked for comments on, but did not propose, a provision that owners or operators of onshore facilities other than production facilities describe the design capabilities of their drainage systems in the SPCC Plan if the system is relied upon to control spills or leaks. 56 FR 54616, October 22, 1991. See also section IV.F of today's preamble for a discussion of other “Discretionary Provisions.”

Comments. Favorable comments.

Commenters favoring such a requirement asserted that such a description would help identify all paths of escape for discharges at a facility, assess the spill retention capacity of the facility's containment system, and identify the risks to the public of a discharge. Those commenters generally believed that the Professional Engineer should develop the description for the Plan.

Opposing comments.

Commenters opposing making the recommendation a requirement argued that it was unnecessary because the rules already require certain descriptions of design capabilities of drainage systems. They asserted that such a requirement would be redundant in that if a drainage system is relied upon to control spills or leaks, then it must have design capabilities to control such spills or leaks.

Response to comments.

The question of description of the design capabilities of drainage systems for onshore facilities other than production facilities is adequately covered by rules pertaining to drainage.

See

, for example, §§ 112.7(a)(3) and (4), 112.7(b), 112.8(b), and 112.10(c). Therefore, we will not promulgate any additional requirements on this subject. These provisions generally require that a facility owner or operator design the facility drainage system to prevent discharges, or if prevention fails, to contain the discharge within the facility.

H. Compliance Costs

Background.

We provided an extensive discussion of the costs and benefits of the proposed 1991 rule. 56 FR 54628-54629, October 22, 1991. We requested comments in the 1991 preamble concerning the new compliance costs associated with the proposed rule.

Comments.

EPA received numerous comments on this issue. The overwhelming majority of commenters asserted that the proposed rule would impose costs that few could bear. Many argued that such costs were unnecessary or should be applied to large facilities only.

Response to comments.

EPA considered cost factors in finalizing the requirements in this rule. We believe that facilities in compliance with the current rule will incur minimal additional cost due to the revisions in this rule. Many of the provisions we proposed in 1991 that commenters believed were too costly were not finalized in this rule. In addition, in today's rule, we have provided flexibility in several ways. Many of the provisions we proposed in 1991 that commenters believed were too costly were not finalized in this rule. In addition, in the deviation provision, § 112.7(a)(2), we permit you to substitute alternate measures that provide equivalent environmental protection if you can explain a reason for nonconformance with the prescribed requirement. We also rely on the use of industry standards in many provisions, rather than mandating any particular procedure, or any particular monitoring or inspection schedule. We assume that most facilities follow industry standards, and therefore will not incur additional costs for many provisions where they do. We recognize, however, that to the extent any facility does not follow current industry standards, it might incur additional costs. Furthermore, we are finalizing other provisions in this rule which will reduce burden in other ways and will exempt certain facilities from having to prepare an SPCC or FRP Plan. EPA has also prepared an assessment of the costs of rule compliance, which is discussed in part VI.F (Regulatory Flexibility Act) of this preamble, and we have included the specific comments related to costs and our responses in relevant sections of this preamble.

I. Contingency Planning and Notification

Background.

We requested comments in the 1991 preamble on spill contingency planning needs (at 56 FR 54615) and on proposed facility notification requirements (at 56 FR 54614). You will find a detailed discussion of contingency requirements and facility notification requirements (§ 112.7(d) and proposed § 112.1(e)) in Section V of today's preamble. On those subjects, we briefly summarize the comments and our responses below.

Comments. Contingency planning.

Many commenters supported the 1991 proposal. Opposing commenters suggested that such planning should be discretionary because not all facilities need such planning, or that facilities be allowed to use contingency plans prepared for other purposes. Others thought the proposal was premature as we had not at the time finalized response planning requirements in § 112.20. Some said that contingency planning was not practicable because

the costs are too high, but these commenters did not provide specific cost estimates.

Notification.

A number of commenters favored the proposal, including some industry commenters. Most industry commenters opposed the proposal either in part or in its entirety. Commenters who opposed the proposal in its entirety asserted that it was unnecessary, largely because they believed the information sought might be better obtained from other sources, such as State sources or SARA Title III reports.

Response to comments. Contingency planning.

Contingency planning is necessary whenever you determine that a secondary containment system for any part of the facility that might be the cause of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b) is not practicable. This requirement applies whether the facility is manned or unmanned, urban or rural, and for large and small facilities. Because we have not finalized either the 1991 or 1993 contingency plan proposals, there are no new costs. We note that we finalized response planning requirements in 1994. Contingency plans prepared for other purposes are acceptable for SPCC purposes if they satisfy all SPCC requirements.

Notification. Withdrawal of proposal.

We have decided to withdraw the proposed facility notification requirement because we are still considering issues associated with establishing a paper versus electronic notification system, including issues related to providing electronic signatures on the notification. Should the Agency in the future decide to move forward with a facility notification requirement, we will repropose such requirement.

J. Reproposal

Background:

In the 1997 proposal, we stated that we would finalize the 1991 and 1993 proposals without seeking additional comments on those proposals.

Comments:

Some commenters suggested that we repropose the 1991 proposal “so that the public can view the proposed changes in a comprehensive manner.” Other commenters suggested that the time that has elapsed, the changes in operational procedures of the oil and gas industry which have improved the degree of environmental protection, and the new information EPA obtained from its tank survey, justified reproposal. Others cited changes in oil industry personnel as a reason to repropose the rule. Some commenters believed that the implementation of the Facility Response Plan (FRP) rule alone requires us to solicit additional comments concerning the SPCC proposals.

Response: Additional comments or reproposal.

We believe it is unnecessary to repropose the 1991 and 1993 proposals because of mere passage of time. We received numerous comments on every side of most issues. In developing this final rule, we have considered changes that have taken place in the oil industry, industry standards, and regulations that may affect the SPCC rule. We have also considered changes in the various industries which comprise the universe of SPCC facilities which have occurred since our original proposals. We encourage the use of industry standards to implement the rule, without incorporating any particular standard into the rule, thereby averting possible obsolescence of those standards. We used the results of our 1995 SPCC facility survey to develop our 1997 proposed rule. These results are also part of the administrative record for this rulemaking. We considered all the comments we received in 1997, even if they dealt with issues proposed in 1991 or 1993. We have also considered and responded to all of the comments received in 1991 and 1993 in their respective Comment Response Documents or in the preamble to today's final rule.

Personnel changes.

In developing this final rule, as noted above, we have considered changes that have taken place in the oil industry, industry standards, and regulations that may affect the SPCC rule. For the past 26 years, owners and operators of regulated facilities have been responsible for training their personnel in applicable regulations, such as 40 CFR part 112. Such responsibility is in effect now, and will continue under the revised rule. New companies and new personnel of those companies are on notice as to applicable rules and proposals. They have also had the opportunity to comment on the 1997 proposal. Furthermore, we have considered cost implications for all three proposals which we are finalizing today.

Response plan requirements.

We have no plans to require SPCC facilities for which secondary containment is not practicable to develop response plans. However, we have withdrawn § 112.7(d) as proposed in 1993. Only a contingency plan following the provisions of 40 CFR part 109 and compliance with other provisions of § 112.7(d) is necessary when secondary containment is impracticable. Only onshore facilities that meet the criteria of substantial harm and/or significant and substantial harm facilities need to comply with the FRP requirements in 40 CFR 112.20-21.

K. Industry Standards

Throughout the rule we generally allow for the application of industry standards where the standards are both specific and objective, and their application may reduce the risk of discharges to and impacts to the environment. We recognize that as technology advances, specific standards change. By referencing industry standards throughout the preamble, we anticipate that the underlying requirements of the rule itself will change as new technology comes into use without the need for further amendments. We believe that industry standards today represent good engineering practice and generally are environmentally protective. However, as under the current rule, if an industry standard changes in a way that would increase the risk of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), EPA will apply and enforce standards and practices that protect the environment, rather than the less protective industry standard.

Under the terms of this rule, when there is no specific and objective industry standard that applies to your facility (for example, whether there is no standard or a standard that uses the terms “as appropriate,” “often,” “periodically,” and so forth), you should instead follow any specific and objective manufacturer's instructions for the use and maintenance or installation of the equipment, appurtenance, or container. If there is neither a specific and objective industry standard nor a specific and objective manufacturer's instruction that applies, then it is the duty of the PE under § 112.3(d) to establish such specific and objective standards for the facility and, under § 112.3(d), he must document these standards in the Plan. If the PE requires the use of a specific standard for implementation of the Plan, the owner or operator must also reference that standard in the Plan.

Throughout this preamble, we list industry standards that may assist an owner or operator to comply with particular rules. The list of those standards is merely for your information. They may or may not apply to your facility, but we believe that their inclusion is helpful because they generally are applicable to the topic referenced. The decision in every case as to the applicability of any industry standard will be one for the PE.

For your convenience, we are including a list of organizations below

that may be helpful in the identification and explanation of industry standards.

Name

Address

Phone #

Web Site/E-mail

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036

212-642-4900

212-398-0023 fax

www.ansi.org

ansionline@ansi.org

American Petroleum Institute (API)

1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

202-682-8000

202-682-8232 fax

www.api.org

standards@api.org

standards2@api.org

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)

Three Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-5990

800-843-2763

973-882-1717 fax

www.asme.org

infocentral@asme.org

American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT)

PO Box 28518, 1711 Arlingate Lane Columbus, OH 43228-0518

800-222-2768

614-274-6899 fax

www.asnt.org

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959

610-832-9585

610-832-9555 fax

www.astm.org

webmastr@astm.org.

Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) International

4051 West Flossmoor Road Country Club Hills, IL 60478

708-799-2300

708-799-4981 fax

www.bocai.org

webmaster@bocai.org.

International Code Council (ICC)

5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 708 Falls Church, VA 22041

703-931-4533

703-379-1546 fax

www.intlcode.org

staff@intlcode.org.

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)

5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 90601-2298

888-699-0541

888-329-4220 fax

www.icbo.org

International Fire Code Institute (IFCI)

5360 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 90601-2298

562-699-0124

562-699-8031 fax

www.ifci.org

webmaster@icbo.org

Manufacturers Standardization Society of The Valve and Fittings Industry Inc. (MSS)

127 Park Street, N.E. Vienna, VA 22180-4602

703-281-6613

703-281-6671 fax

www.mss-hq.com

info@mss-hg.com

National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)

1440 South Creek Drive Houston, TX 77084

281-228-6200

281-228-6300 fax

www.nace.org

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

1 Batterymarch Park PO Box 9101 Quincy, MA 02269-9101

617-770-3000

617-770-0700 fax

www.nfpa.org

hazchem@nfpa.org

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)

P.O. Box 2380 Tulsa, OK 74101-2380

918-494-9696

918-491-9895 fax

www.pei.org

pei@peinet.org.

Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI)

900 Montclair Road Birmingham, AL 35213-1206

205-591-1853

205-591-0775 fax

www.sbcci.org

info@sbcci.org

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)

P.O. Box Drawer 28510 San Antonio, TX 78228-0510

210-684-5111

www.swri.org

action67@swri.org

Steel Tank Institute (STI)

570 Oakwood Road Lake Zurich, IL 60047

847-438-8265

847-438-8766 fax

www.steeltank.com

ankiefer@steeltank.com

Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

333 Pfingsten Road Northbrook, IL 60062-2096

847-272-8800

847-272-8129 fax

www.ul.com

northbrook@ul.com

Western Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA)

300 N. Main St. #25 Fallbrook, CA 92028

760-723-6911

760-723-6912 fax

www.wfca.com

wfcadmin@wfca.com

V. Section by Section Analysis (Includes: Background, Comments, and Response to Comments)

Subpart A—Applicability, definitions, and general requirements for all facilities

Background.

In the reformatted rule, subpart A defines the applicability of part 112, provides definitions applicable to all subparts, and prescribes general requirements that are applicable to all facilities subject to part 112.

Section 112.1(a)(1)—General Applicability of the Rule

Background.

We have redesignated § 112.1(a) as § 112.1(a)(1) due to the addition of a new paragraph (a)(2). In 1991, we proposed changes in § 112.1(a) to conform to the 1977 CWA amendments. Those amendments extended the geographic scope of EPA's authority under CWA section 311. Formerly the geographic scope of the rule extended only to navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines. The final rule extends the geographic scope of EPA's authority beyond discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines to include a discharge into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act). Hereinafter, a discharge as described above in quantities that may be harmful is also referred to as “a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).”

Comments. Geographic scope of rule.

One commenter wrote to support the geographic extension of the rule, noting that the extended definition “will allow for more clarity in determining which facilities are subject to SPCC requirements.”

Natural resources.

Another commenter was concerned that the extension of the rule to facilities with the potential to affect natural resources “would bring under the scope of 40 CFR 112 a significant number of operating facilities which did not previously require SPCC plans.” Still another commenter proposed limiting the scope of natural resource jurisdiction under the rule to resources under the Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Act to avoid “another unnecessary workload on the judicial system over the years.”

Response to comments. Geographic scope of rule.

EPA believes that the geographic extension of the rule to agree with statutory amendments is the proper course, and has finalized the rule as proposed.

Natural resources.

Limiting the scope of natural resource jurisdiction under the rule to natural resources under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act would be inconsistent with this statutory language. We also believe that few, if any new facilities, will be subject to the rule because of its extension to facilities with the potential to affect certain natural resources. We believe that most affected facilities are either already subject to the rule, or not subject to our jurisdiction due to a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), which assigns jurisdiction over most of those facilities to DOT or DOI. See 40 CFR part 112, Appendix B.

Editorial changes and clarifications.

While revisions to the rule published today are not retroactive, any violation of the current rule which occurs before the effective date of today's rule is subject to enforcement and penalties.

Section 112.1(a)(2)—Number and Gender

Background.

We added a new § 112.1(a)(2) to make clear that words in the singular include the plural, and words in the masculine include the feminine, and vice versa. This amendment is for clarification purposes only.

Section 112.1(b)—Facilities Covered by the Rule—Non-Transportation-Related Facilities

Background.

We have redesignated this section to add four new paragraphs. This section describes generally the type of facilities which are subject to the SPCC rule.

In 1991, EPA proposed changes in § 112.1(b) to reflect changes in the geographic scope of EPA's authority under CWA section 311, as described in the discussion under § 112.1(a)(1). EPA also proposed to change the phrase “harmful quantities” to “quantities that may be harmful, as described in part 110.” Amendments to the CWA also reflected the broadening of quantities that may be harmful to include those not only harmful to the “public health or welfare,” but also to the environment.

Comments. Facilities.

Several commenters argued that EPA jurisdiction, under statutory authority, does not extend to facilities, merely to requirements for oil spill prevention and containment equipment. The commenters' argument noted that the statute doesn't mention jurisdictional criteria relating to proximity to water or oil storage capacity, only EPA rules do. Therefore, the commenters argued, if EPA is successful in its assertion of facility regulation, then every pipe, valve, meter, and flange on the wellsite along with tubing and casing in the hole, stock tanks, drainage ditches, and roads are all subject to EPA jurisdiction and specifications. More importantly, they argued, every facility, in every industry, which at some time or other handles oil or hazardous substances could be subject to EPA rules concerning its spill prevention and containment procedures, methods, or equipment.

Use of oil.

Numerous commenters, especially in the electric utility industry, asserted that EPA has no jurisdiction to regulate the operational use of oil generally, or specifically in electrical transformers, substations, and other equipment. Some manufacturers of other products agreed. They argued that the legislative history of the Act showed no Congressional intent for such regulation. However, many commenters asked EPA specifically to clarify this jurisdictional issue.

Distance to navigable waters.

Two commenters proposed that we exempt from the rule facilities more than one mile from surface waters or those located outside the coastal zone.

Response to Comments: Facilities.

We disagree that our authority does not extend to facilities. Section 311(j)(1)(C) of the statute authorizes and requires the President (and EPA, through delegation in Executive Order 12777, 56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991) to issue regulations consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, and consistent with maritime safety and with marine and navigation laws, which establish “procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and from onshore and offshore facilities, and to contain such discharges.” This language authorizes the President to issue oil spill prevention rules which pertain to onshore facilities and offshore facilities and not just “equipment.”

In order to fulfill the statutory mandate, it is necessary to regulate the facilities from which discharges emanate. Moreover, although the term “facility” is not defined in the statute, both “onshore facility” and “offshore facility” are defined terms in CWA section 311. They have also been defined terms in the SPCC rule since its inception in 1974. In the 1991 proposal, EPA proposed a definition of “facility” to implement the CWA. That definition was based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Secretary of Transportation and the EPA Administrator dated November 24, 1971 (36 FR 24080). The MOU, which has been published as Appendix A to part 112 since December 11, 1973 (38 FR 34164, 34170), defines in detail what constitutes a facility. Thus, there has long been a common understanding of the term. That understanding has been reinforced by frequent use of the term in context within the SPCC rule since it became effective in 1974. To promote clarity and to maintain all definitions in one place, the proposed definition has been finalized in this rulemaking.

While section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act may not explicitly mention jurisdictional criteria, section 311(b) of the Act does. Section 311(b) establishes as the policy of the United States that there shall be “no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act).” Thus, the location or “jurisdictional” criteria contained in § 112.1(b) are appropriate for inclusion in the rule.

Use of oil.

We disagree that operational equipment is not subject to the SPCC rule. We have amended § 112.1(b) to clarify that using oil, for example operationally, may subject a facility to SPCC jurisdiction as long as the other applicability criteria apply, for example, oil storage capacity, or location. Such a facility might reasonably be expected to discharge oil as described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, the prevention of discharges from such facility falls within the scope of the statute.

However, we have distinguished the bulk storage of oil from the operational use of oil. We define “bulk storage container” in the final rule to mean any container used to store oil. The storage of oil may be prior to use, while being used, or prior to further distribution in commerce. For clarity, we have specifically excluded oil-filled electrical, operating, or manufacturing equipment from the definition.

Facilities that use oil operationally include electrical substations, facilities containing electrical transformers, and certain hydraulic or manufacturing equipment. The requirements for bulk storage containers may not always apply to these facilities since the primary purpose of this equipment is not the storage of oil in bulk. Facilities with equipment containing oil for ancillary purposes are not required to provide the secondary containment required for bulk storage facilities (§ 112.8(c)) and onshore production facilities (§ 112.9(c)), nor implement the other provisions of § 112.8(c) or § 112.9(c). Oil-filled equipment must meet other SPCC requirements, for example, the general requirements of this part, including § 112.7(c), to provide appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures to prevent discharged oil from reaching a navigable watercourse. The general requirement for secondary containment, which can be provided by various means including drainage systems, spill diversion ponds, etc., will provide for safety and also the needs of section 311(j)(1)(C) of the CWA.

In addition, a facility may deviate from any inappropriate SPCC requirements, if the owner or operator explains his reasons for nonconformance and provides equivalent environmental protection by some other means. See § 112.7(a)(2). See also § 112.7(d).

Distance to navigable waters.

We do not believe that any rule which exempts facilities beyond any particular distance meets the intent of the statute. The locational standard in the rule is whether there is a reasonable possibility of discharge in quantities that may be harmful from the facility. A facility that is more than one mile from navigable waters might well fit within that standard. For example, piping or drainage from that facility might lead directly to navigable water. If discharged oil may reach or does reach navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or protected resources, the distance which the discharged oil travels is irrelevant.

Editorial changes and clarifications.

In the proposed rule, this paragraph was designated as §§ 112.1(b) and 112.1(b)(1). We have combined the paragraphs and added two new paragraphs. The new paragraphs describe the types of containers subject to the rule, which in addition to the two paragraphs we already proposed, better describe those containers. We also changed plural references in the proposal to singular throughout the section.

Section 112.1(b)(1)—Aboveground Storage Containers

Background.

We added this paragraph to clarify that aboveground storage containers are a subset of the containers subject to the rule. In 1991, we noted that containers used for standby storage, temporary storage, or containers that are not permanently closed, are subject to the rule. We also noted that bunkered tanks and partially buried tanks are subject to the rule. The inclusion of this paragraph and paragraph (b)(2), which refers to completely buried tanks, completes the universe of containers subject to the rule.

Section 112.1(b)(2)—Completely Buried Tanks

Background.

We added this paragraph to clarify that completely buried tanks are a subset of the containers subject to the rule. See also the discussion under § 112.1(b)(1).

Section 112.1(b)(3)—Standby, Temporary, or Seasonal Storage Facilities

Background.

We proposed in 1991 to clarify that tanks used for standby, temporary, or seasonal storage, or that are not otherwise permanently closed, are subject to the SPCC rule. The Agency noted that such tanks are not permanently closed and can reasonably be expected to experience a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). 56 FR 54617. The facilities described in § 112.1(b)(3) are a subset of the facilities described in § 112.1(b)(1) and (b)(2).

Comments.

One commenter asserted that temporarily closed tanks should be exempted from the rules because they are required to be drained and, while awaiting temporary closure, are no threat to the environment through oil spills. Another commenter urged that temporary storage facilities should be exempted from the SPCC rule, and handled under the Facility Response Plan (FRP) rules, found at 40 CFR 112.20-21. A third commenter argued that frac tanks, used to store oil for the short periods of time while maintenance or workover operations are underway, should be exempted from the rule because their use is of short duration and does not necessarily increase the potential for discharge. Another commenter stated that it would be impractical to maintain an up-to-date SPCC Plan for temporary storage at remote parts of a large mining operation.

Response to comments.

If a tank is not permanently closed, it is still available for storage and the possibility of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), remains. Nor does a short time period of storage eliminate the possibility of such a discharge. Therefore, a prevention plan is necessary. A tank closed for a temporary period of time may contain oil mixed with sludge or residues of product which could be discharged. Discharges from these facilities could cause severe environmental damage during such temporary storage and are therefore subject to the rule. As to the argument that it is impractical to maintain an up-to-date Plan for temporary facilities at remote parts of mining sites, we disagree. Plans for such storage are analogous to or may be Plans for mobile facilities, which may be general Plans, but still provide environmental protection against a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).

Editorial changes and clarifications.

In the proposed rule, this paragraph was designated as § 112.1(b)(2). We have redesignated it as § 112.1(b)(3).

Section 112.1(b)(4)—Bunkered, Partially Buried, and Vaulted Tanks

Background.

In 1991, we proposed to clarify that bunkered tanks, partially buried tanks, and tanks in subterranean vaults are considered aboveground tanks for purposes of the SPCC rule. The tanks or containers in these facilities are a subset of the facilities described in § 112.1(b)(1). The Agency explained that compared to completely buried tanks, discharges from these tanks are more likely to enter surface waters regulated under the CWA. 56 FR 54626.

Comments. Partially buried and bunkered tanks.

A commenter suggested that partially buried and bunkered tanks should be considered underground storage tanks (USTs) and regulated under that program because ten percent

or more of the product is below grade either in the tank or in the pipeline. The commenter argued that tanks in compliance with the UST program, found at 40 CFR part 280, would not pose a significant threat to the environment. In fact, the commenter argued, they might be less likely to cause a spill than one in compliance with the SPCC rule. The commenter further argued that dual regulation would be unnecessarily burdensome without providing any additional environmental protection.

Vaulted tanks.

Several commenters asserted that since vaulted tanks are already regulated by fire and safety authorities, they should not be regulated under the SPCC program. Others argued that vaulted tanks meeting the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280, or which have engineering controls designed to contain product released from failure or overfill, should likewise be exempted from the SPCC rule. These commenters asserted that a discharge from such tanks would not reach water.

Response to comments. Partially buried and bunkered tanks.

We disagree that partially buried tanks and bunkered tanks should be considered completely buried tanks, and therefore excluded from SPCC provisions. The rules differ in important aspects. Tanks which are partially underground pose a risk of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), which could have an adverse impact on navigable water, adjoining shorelines, or affected resources. Some tanks that are not completely buried contain engineering controls designed to prevent discharges. However, such controls may fail due to human or mechanical error and cause severe environmental damage. Such tanks may suffer damage caused by differential corrosion of buried and non-buried surfaces greater than completely buried tanks, which could cause a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).

Such tanks are also not subject to secondary containment requirements under part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281. There may also be accidents during loading or unloading operations, or overfills resulting in a discharge to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. Furthermore, a failure of such a tank (caused by accident or vandalism) would be more likely to cause a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). We will, however, accept UST program forms, e.g., the Notification for Underground Storage Tanks, EPA Form 7530-1, or approved State program equivalents, insofar as such forms contains information relevant to the SPCC program. For example, the UST form (item 12) contains information regarding corrosion protection for steel tanks and steel piping which would be relevant for SPCC purposes. Other items on the form may also be relevant for SPCC purposes. We are, however, excluding from the rule completely buried storage tanks (including connected underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and containment systems) that are currently subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or 281.

See

§ 112.1(d)(4).

Vaulted tanks.

Vaulted tanks are generally excluded from the scope of 40 CFR part 280. The definition of “underground storage tank” at 40 CFR 280.12(i) excludes from its scope a “storage tank situated in an underground area (such as a basement, cellar, mineworking, drift, shaft, or tunnel) if the storage tank is situated upon or above the surface of the floor.” These tanks might reasonably experience a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). Therefore, it is reasonable that they be within the scope of part 112. Merely because these tanks are the subject of local fire and safety regulations does not guarantee that there will be adequate environmental protection to prevent a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), because that is not the purpose of those regulations. Such codes may provide lesser protection than part 112. For example, NFPA 30:2-3.4.3(b) specifically indicates that a dike need only provide containment for the largest tank, while part 112 requires freeboard for precipitation.

Editorial changes and clarifications.

In the proposed rule, this paragraph was designated as § 112.1(b)(3). We have redesignated it as § 112.1(b)(4). Section 112.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule uses the term “aboveground storage containers,” in place of “aboveground storage tanks.”

See 56

FR 54630. We continue to use “containers” in the final rule. We deleted the word “subterranean,” which modified vaulted tanks in the proposed rule, because vaulted tanks are considered aboveground tanks under this rule whether they are subterranean or not.

Section 112.1(c)—Federal Agencies—Applicability of Rule

Background.

In 1991, we republished the already existing provisions of § 112.1(c), which provide that agencies, departments, and instrumentalities of the Federal government are subject to the rule to the same extent as any person, except for the provisions relating to civil penalties. The provision relating to civil penalties was rescinded on March 11, 1996, because it no longer accurately reflected the penalties provided for under section 311(b) of the Act, as amended by OPA. 61 FR 9646. Therefore, we have reserved § 112.6 for future use.

Comments.

One commenter suggested that Federal agencies are subject to civil penalties which are imposed under the CWA—including fines.

Response to comments.

EPA disagrees that Federal agencies are subject to penalties or fines under the CWA because the Federal government is not a “person” under sections 311(a)(7) or 502 of the CWA. Only “persons” (including owners or operators and persons in charge) are subject to such penalties. Therefore, although Federal agencies must comply with requirements of a CWA section 311 rule in accordance with CWA section 313, they are not subject to civil or criminal penalties or fines.

See U.S. Department of Energy

v.

Ohio,

503 U.S. 607, 618 (1992) (because the CWA does not define “person” to include the United States, the civil penalty provisions are not applicable).

Section 112.1(d)—Exemptions From Applicability

Section 112.1(d)(1)—Exemptions Based on Jurisdiction

Section 112.1(d)(1)(i)—Exemptions Based on Location

Background.

In 1991, we described the facilities, equipment, and operations that are exempt from the SPCC rule because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of EPA under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. These facilities include those which, due to their location, could not be reasonably expected to have a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).

In making the determination of whether there is a reasonable possibility of a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), we proposed that you may consider only the geographical and locational aspects of the facility (such as proximity to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines, land contour, drainage,

etc.

). We proposed that you could not consider manmade structures such as dikes, equipment, or other structures which may serve to restrain, hinder, or otherwise contain a discharge as described in § 112.1(b), in making that same determination.

Comments. Geographic scope of rule.

One commenter agreed that the extension of the geographic scope of the rule will allow for more clarity in determining which facilities are subject to SPCC requirements. The commenter added that the inclusion of natural

resources sets the stage for the implementation of Natural Resource Damage Assessments, as required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Manmade structures.

Other commenters argued that EPA should modify its rules to provide that a facility with no reasonable possibility of discharge because of some combination of natural and manmade features, which are present for operational rather than pollution prevention purposes, should be excluded from the scope of the rule. Another commenter urged that the rule allow consideration of manmade structures where the structures are inherent in the design of the facility and serve functional and operational purposes distinct from the containment of oil spills.

Groundwater.

Another commenter argued that Congress intended for EPA to develop SPCC requirements that prevent releases to groundwater, in addition to requirements that prevent releases to navigable water. At a minimum, that commenter argued, § 112.1(d)(1)(i) should contain language stating that clear hydrologic connections between groundwater underlying a facility and navigable waters require a facility to develop and implement an SPCC Plan. Yet another commenter, in opposing exemption of USTs from the SPCC program noted that groundwater eventually becomes surface water. The commenter added that, hydrologically, oil released into underground waters may migrate to surface water within minutes or months. The commenter argued that in the absence of emergency response provisions, some USTs could damage the nation's ground and surface water resources.

Response to comments. Geographic scope of rule.

We also believe that few, if any, new facilities will be subject to the rule because of its extension to facilities with the potential to affect certain natural resources. We believe that most affected facilities are either already subject to the rule, or not subject to our jurisdiction due to a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), which assigns jurisdiction over most of those facilities to DOT or DOI. See 40 CFR part 112, Appendix B.

We have amended this provision to be consistent with the revised statutory language found in sections 311(b)(1) and (c)(1)(A) of the CWA. This rule focuses on preventing discharges to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, the exclusive economic zone, and natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Once a prohibited discharge of oil occurs and affects such natural resources, the NRDA provisions of OPA sections 1002(b)(2)(A) and 1006 apply. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has promulgated a set of regulations which govern the process for conducting NRDAs under the OPA. 15 CFR part 990.

Manmade structures.

To allow consideration of manmade structures (such as dikes, equipment, or other structures) to relieve a facility from being subject to the rule would defeat its preventive purpose. Because manmade structures may fail, thus putting the environment at risk in the event of a discharge, there is an unacceptable risk in using such structures to justify relieving a facility from the burden of preparing a prevention plan. Secondary containment structures should be part of the prevention plan.

Groundwater.

EPA agrees with the commenter that groundwater underlying a facility that is directly connected hydrologically to navigable waters could trigger the requirement to produce an SPCC Plan based on geographic or locational aspects of the facility.

See

the discussion below for tanks regulated under 40 CFR part 280 or under a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281.

EPA does not agree with the commenter that 40 CFR part 280 and a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281 (the rules governing most completely buried tanks) lack adequate emergency response provisions for regulated tanks and piping. 40 CFR part 280 and State programs approved under 40 CFR part 281 require corrective action, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for any release from regulated tanks and piping. Also, 40 CFR parts 280 and 281 require various measures intended to prevent contamination that could result from releases from regulated tanks and piping. Although groundwater underlying a facility may eventually connect hydrologically to navigable waters, the requirements of 40 CFR part 280 and State programs approved under 40 CFR part 281 are intended to address the prevention of releases from underground storage tanks that might have an impact on groundwater and to require rapid response and corrective action at such sites if they compromise groundwater quality.

Editorial changes and clarifications.

The proposed phrase in the first sentence which read, “* * * could not reasonably be expected to discharge oil as described in § 112.1(b)(1) of this part,” becomes “* * * could not reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).” The proposed phrase in the last sentence of the paragraph which read, “* * * which may serve to restrain, hinder, contain, or otherwise prevent a discharge of oil from reaching navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines. * * *” becomes “* * * which may serve to restrain, hinder, contain, or otherwise prevent a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).”

Section 112.1(d)(1)(ii)—Exemptions Based on Function—DOT

Background.

In 1991, we republished, without substantive change, the current exemption for equipment or operations of vessels or transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities that are subject to the authority and control of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). While we received no comments on the proposal, we believe that this provision merits a few words to clarify the understanding of the regulated community. The Executive Order (EO) implementing the Act assigns regulatory jurisdiction to three Federal agencies based on the function of facilities. Section 2(b)(1) of EO 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991) delegates to the Administrator of EPA authority in section 311(j)(1)(C) relating to the establishment of procedures, methods, and equipment, and other requirements for equipment to prevent and to contain discharges of oil and hazardous substances from non-transportation-related onshore facilities. Section 2(b)(2) of the EO delegates similar authority to contain discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and transportation-related onshore facilities and deepwater ports to the Secretary of Transportation. Section 2(b)(3) of the EO delegates similar authority for offshore facilities, including associated pipelines, other than deepwater ports, to the Secretary of the Interior. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among EPA, DOT, and the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), found at Appendix B to part 112, redelegated from DOI to EPA the responsibility for non-transportation-related offshore facilities located landward of the coastline. Similarly the MOU redelegated from DOI to DOT the responsibility for transportation-related offshore facilities, including pipelines, landward of the coastline.

In 1993, we proposed a definition for the term “complex,” which is a facility possessing a combination of transportation-related and non-transportation-related components that is subject to the jurisdiction of more than one Federal agency under section

311(j) of the Clean Water Act. We published that definition on July 1, 1994. 59 FR 34097. A commenter on the definition of “breakout tank” (

see also

discussion below on “breakout tank”) asked for guidance as to which agency, DOT or EPA, regulates such tanks. Because of confusion in the regulated community over which Federal agencies have jurisdiction in complexes, we discuss the issue below.

Complexes.

“Complex” is defined at § 112.2 as a “facility possessing a combination of transportation-related and non-transportation-related components that is subject to the jurisdiction of more than one Federal agency under section 311(j) of the Clean Water Act.” The jurisdiction over a component of a complex is determined by the activity occurring at that component. An activity might at one time subject a facility to one agency's jurisdiction, and a different activity at the same facility using the same structure or equipment might subject the facility to the jurisdiction of another agency.

Equipment, operations, and facilities are subject to DOT jurisdiction when they are engaged in activities subject to DOT jurisdiction. If those facilities are also engaged in activities subject to EPA jurisdiction, such activities would subject the equipment, operation, or facility to EPA jurisdiction. An example of an activity subject to EPA jurisdiction would be the loading or unloading of oil into a tank truck or railcar. Under an MOU between EPA and DOT (See Appendix A of part 112), transportation-related activities regulated by DOT and non-transportation-related activities regulated by EPA are defined. The MOU provides that highway vehicles and railroad cars which are used for the transport of oil in interstate or intrastate commerce and the equipment and appurtenances related thereto, and equipment used for the fueling of locomotive units, as well as the rights-of-way on which they operate, are considered transportation-related activities, subject to DOT jurisdiction.

Another example of activities that might be considered a complex and therefore subject to both sets of rules is that of a breakout tank which is used for both transportation and non-transportation purposes. It is the activity to which the tank is put that determines jurisdiction. If you are an owner or operator of a complex, while you may not choose which agency will regulate your facility, you may choose not to engage in activities which would subject your facility to the jurisdiction of a particular agency if you do not wish to comply with that agency's rules. Otherwise, if you engage in activities subjecting your facility to the jurisdiction of two agencies, your facility would be subject to the more stringent of rules if there were to be a conflict or an inconsistency in those rules. For example, a facility with breakout tanks used solely to relieve surges in a pipeline, and not having another non-transportation-related activity or component, would not be required to have an SPCC Plan.

Which activity would be subject to DOT jurisdiction and which activity which would be subject to EPA jurisdiction is defined by the MOU in Appendix A to part 112. The definitions in the MOU are keyed to the delegations of authority in EO 12777.

Because regulatory jurisdiction is predicated upon the owner's or operator's activities at the facility, an owner or operator might have questions concerning that jurisdiction at his facility. To clarify regulatory jurisdiction, in February 2000, EPA and DOT signed a policy memorandum that described how the two agencies would work together to bring their respective regulations into alignment and, ultimately, to eliminate overlapping jurisdiction over tanks when possible.

Recently, DOT informed EPA of a voluntary initiative to collect information from industry on breakout tanks, beginning in December 2001. In anticipation of receiving the new tank information, DOT is considering updating the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) data standards to reflect the guidelines for tank data submissions. Operators' data submissions will include the location of each tank farm with breakout tanks, information about each tank, and information about the accuracy of the data. The data will be depicted as a geospatial location in a digital file or a point located on a USGS 1:24,000 topographic quad map.

In addition to upgrading the NPMS, DOT is training its inspectors in tank inspection. In the President's Fiscal Year 2002 budget request, DOT expressed its intent to make tanks a priority in its compliance program, particularly where the tanks are in sensitive areas. DOT and EPA have agreed to provide cross-training of their respective personnel. As the two agencies proceed with tank oversight plans, the goal is to ensure that every tank is regulated and no tank is subject to overlapping regulations from two agencies.

Editorial changes and clarifications.

“EPA Administrator” becomes “Administrator of EPA.” Another revision corrects an incorrect citation to the 1971 MOU between EPA and DOT.

Section 112.1(d)(1)(iii)—Exemptions Based on Function—DOT and DOI

Background.

We have added a new paragraph to the applicability section of the rule to note the jurisdictional changes resulting from an MOU between DOT, DOI, and EPA redelegating certain functions. The MOU was published on July 1, 1994 (at 59 FR 34102). The addition of this paragraph is not a substantive change in the rules, but merely an editorial revision to mark the jurisdiction of the respective agencies in this rule. It complements the other paragraphs in § 112.1(d)(1) that describe facilities which are not subject to EPA jurisdiction. Due to the MOU, the referenced facilities, equipment, and operations of DOT and DOI in § 112.1(d)(1)(iii), like the facilities, equipment, and operations described in § 112.1(d)(1)(i) and (ii), are not subject to EPA jurisdiction under section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Act. They are not subject to EPA jurisdiction either because of their location, in the case of DOI facilities, or because of their activities, which are strictly transportation-related, in the case of DOT facilities.

EO 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 22, 1991) delegates to DOI, DOT, and EPA various responsibilities identified in section 311(j) of the CWA. Sections 2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of EO 12777 assigned to DOI spill prevention and control, contingency planning, and equipment inspection activities associated with offshore facilities. Section 311(a)(11) of the CWA defines the term “offshore facility” to include facilities of any kind located in, on, or under navigable waters of the United States. By using this definition, the traditional DOI role of regulating facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf was expanded by EO 12777 to include inland lakes, rivers, streams, and any other inland waters.

Under section 2(i) of EO 12777, DOI redelegated, and EPA and DOT accepted, the functions vested in DOI by sections 2(b)(3), 2(d)(3), and 2(e)(3) of the EO. DOI redelegated to EPA the responsibility for non-transportation-related offshore facilities located landward of the coastline. To DOT, DOI redelegated responsibility for transportation-related facilities, including pipelines, located landward of the coastline. DOT retained jurisdiction for deepwater ports and the associated seaward pipelines. DOI retained jurisdiction over facilities, including pipelines, located seaward of

the coastline, except for deepwater ports and associated seaward pipelines. For purposes of the MOU, the term “coastline” means “the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters.”

Section 112.1(d)(2)—Other Exemptions

Section 112.1(d)(2)(i)—Completely Buried Storage Tanks Currently Subject to all of the Technical Requirements of 40 CFR PART 280 or State Programs Approved under 40 CFR PART 281

Background. Part 280 and approved State programs.

In 1991, we proposed to exempt from the underground storage capacity of facilities in the SPCC rule the storage capacity of buried underground storage tanks (USTs) currently subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280. We proposed this change as § 112.1(d)(2)(i) in 1991. We did not at the time include approved State programs in the proposal because in 1991 few if any States had such programs. In 40 CFR part 281 (published on September 23, 1988 at 53 FR 37212), EPA established regulations whereby a State could receive EPA approval for its State program to operate in lieu of the Federal program. In order to obtain EPA program approval under part 281, a State program must demonstrate that its requirements are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations set forth in part 280, and that it provides adequate enforcement of these requirements. Thus, we have decided to exempt also the storage capacity of USTs subject to all of the technical requirements of State UST programs which EPA has approved. By January 2000, EPA had approved 27 State programs, plus programs in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The rationale for exempting the storage capacity of these facilities from the SPCC regime is because 40 CFR part 280 and the approved State programs under 40 CFR part 281 provide comparable environmental protection for the purpose of preventing discharges as described in § 112.1(b).

Facilities with storage capacity not subject to part 280 or deferred from its provisions.

Storage capacity not subject to part 280.

Some UST facilities have storage capacity that is not subject to part 280, for example: any UST system holding hazardous wastes listed or identified under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, or a mixture of such hazardous wastes and other regulated substances; wastewater treatment tank systems that are part of a wastewater treatment facility regulated under section 307(b) or 402 of the Clean Water Act; equipment or machinery that contains regulated substances for operational purposes such as hydraulic lift tanks and electrical equipment tanks; and, UST systems whose capacity is 110 gallons or less. Also, part 280 does not provide for regulation of USTs storing animal fats and vegetable oils. All of these facilities remain potentially subject to the SPCC program.

Tanks deferred from compliance with part 280 rules.

Other facilities with storage capacity subject to part 280 are deferred from current compliance with most of the technical requirements of that part, including: wastewater treatment tank systems; any UST systems containing radioactive material that are regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011

et seq.

); any UST system that is part of an emergency generator system at a nuclear power generation facility regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A; airport hydrant fuel distribution systems; UST systems with field-constructed tanks; and, any UST system that stores fuel solely for use by an emergency power generator. All of these facilities remain potentially subject to the SPCC program.

Tanks excluded from part 280 UST definition.

Excluded from the definition of “underground storage tank” or “UST” in part 280 are a: (1) Farm or residential tank of 1,100 gallons or less capacity used for storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes; (2) tank used for storing heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where stored; (3) septic tank; (4) pipeline facility (including gathering lines) regulated under: (a) the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (49 U.S.C. App. 1671,

et seq.

), (b) the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49 U.S.C. App. 2001,

et seq.

), or (c) which is an intrastate pipeline facility regulated under State law comparable to the provisions of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 or the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979; (5) surface impoundment, pit, pond, or lagoon; (6) storm-water or wastewater collection system; (7) flow-through process tank; (8) liquid trap or associated gathering lines directly related to oil or gas production and gathering operations; or, (9) storage tank situated in an underground area (such as a basement, cellar, mineworking, drift, shaft, or tunnel) if the storage tank is situated upon or above the surface of the floor. An UST system includes the tank itself, connected underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and containment system. Therefore, any of these tank systems may be potentially subject to the SPCC program.

Definitions.

EPA proposed to define an UST as any tank which is completely covered with earth. Part 280 includes a broader definition of underground storage tanks, and includes partially buried and bunkered tanks. Partially buried tanks and bunkered tanks are excluded from the definition of “completely buried tank” in part 112, and are considered aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) for purposes of the rule, as are tanks in vaults. These tanks are not included in today's exemption because compared to completely buried tanks, partially buried and bunkered tanks are more likely to cause a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).

Although most USTs will be exempt from the SPCC rule (see the above discussion on § 112.1(d)(4)), a facility might have non-exempt USTs for which it must prepare a facility SPCC Plan. If part of your facility is subject to the rule, you must mark the location and contents of all containers, including exempt and non-exempt USTs, on the facility diagram. 40 CFR 112.1(d)(4). The rationale for this requirement is to help response personnel to easily identify dangers from either fire or explosion, or physical impediments during spill response activities. In addition, facility diagrams may be referred to in the event of design modifications. 56 FR 54626.

Capacity calculations.

To calculate the 42,000-gallon threshold which subjects a facility operating a completely buried tank to the SPCC rule, you may exclude the storage capacity of any completely buried tank currently subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or of an approved State program under 40 CFR part 281. Thus we expect you will count few completely buried tanks containing petroleum products in that calculation. You must count the capacity of completely buried tanks containing products which are not regulated under part 280 or an approved State program under part 281, or which are not currently subject to all of its technical requirements.

Permanently closed tanks.

In 1991, EPA proposed that the underground storage capacity of a facility does not include the capacity of underground tanks that are “permanently closed” as defined in § 112.2. Under today's rule, you may exclude the capacity of tanks that are permanently closed, as defined in § 112.2, in completely buried tank capacity calculations.

Comments. Completely buried storage tanks.

Favorable comments. Commenters overwhelmingly favored eliminating dual regulation of ASTs and USTs. Most agreed that the UST program provides protection comparable to the SPCC program. Several argued that all USTs as defined in part 280, which includes partially buried and bunkered tanks, should be exempted. Others argued that tanks deferred under the UST program should be exempted from the SPCC program. Another commenter suggested that piping connecting exempted USTs to regulated ASTs should be exempted from the SPCC rules. The commenter added that if such piping is subject to leak detection requirements for USTs under 40 CFR part 280, then it should remain exclusively under UST rules and be exempted from SPCC rules.

Opposing comments.

Several commenters, however, opposed the proposed exemption of USTs from the SPCC program. Those commenters argued that the SPCC rules are not duplicative. They asserted that UST rules lack provisions concerning contingency planning; emergency response; periodic training of personnel to deal with emergencies; maintenance of records regarding inspections and tests; maintenance of records regarding discharges to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines; diking of fuel transfer areas; fuel transfer area operational procedures; illumination of fuel transfer areas; stormwater drainage system design; posting of vehicle weight restrictions in areas where there is underground piping and/or design of underground piping to withstand vehicular loadings; a requirement for an application of “good engineering practice,” in other words, no requirements that the design and construction of a UST system be overseen by a Professional Engineer; a requirement that management sign the Plan; and, “other topics enumerated in 40 CFR 112.7.” One commenter noted that since groundwater becomes surface water eventually, whether within minutes or months, the absence of emergency provisions in the UST program might cause environmental problems. Another commenter argued that the new regulatory scheme would be confusing because a facility might have some containers subject to SPCC and some that are not, as well as containers that may be subject to State regulation.

Response to comments. Completely buried storage tanks.

As we noted above, in the discussion of § 112.1(d)(1)(i), the UST program provides comparable environmental protection to the SPCC program. While not all aspects of the programs are identical, the UST program ensures protection against discharges as described in § 112.1(b), and protection of the environment. Therefore, dual regulation is unnecessary. In response to commenters asserting that UST rules lack provisions concerning contingency planning; emergency response; certain recordkeeping requirements; and other alleged deficiencies, we disagree. The UST rules have numerous safeguards addressing the commenter's issues.

Partially buried tanks and bunkered tanks.

We disagree that partially buried tanks and bunkered tanks should be considered completely buried tanks, and therefore excluded from SPCC provisions. Such tanks may suffer damage caused by differential corrosion of buried and non-buried surfaces greater than completely buried tanks, which could cause a discharge as described in § 112.1(b). Such tanks are also not subject to secondary containment requirements under part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281. There may also be accidents during loading or unloading operations, or overfills resulting in a discharge to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. Furthermore, a failure of such a tank (caused by accident or vandalism) would be more likely to cause a discharge as described in § 112.1(b).

Contingency planning.

While it is true that UST rules do not require contingency planning, spills and overfills of USTs resulting in a discharge to the environment are much less likely as a result of those rules. An owner or operator of an underground storage tank subject to 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281 was required to install spill and overfill prevention equipment no later than December 22, 1998. 40 CFR 280.20 and 280.21. The use of this equipment will greatly reduce the likelihood of both small and large releases or discharges of petroleum to the environment through surface spills or overfilling underground storage tanks. In addition, the UST rules place a general responsibility on the owner or operator to ensure that discharges due to spilling and overfilling do not occur. See 40 CFR 280.30.

Emergency response and release reporting.

The UST rules also have several requirements related to emergency response and release or discharge reporting. The UST rules generally require that releases of regulated substances be reported to the implementing agency within 24 hours. As part of the initial response requirements (found at 40 CFR 280.61), an owner or operator must take immediate action to prevent further release of the regulated substance and must identify and mitigate fire, explosion, and vapor hazards.

Reporting and recordkeeping.

In addition to the reporting requirements mentioned above, there are numerous reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the rules governing underground storage tanks. Among these are: corrective action plans; documentation of corrosion protection equipment; documentation of UST system repairs; and, information concerning recent compliance with release detection requirements. Thus, the UST rules have significant reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including specific requirements related to spills and overfills.

Transportation rules.

In addition to the EPA UST rules, the U.S. Department of Transportation has hazardous material regulations related to driver training, emergency preparation, and incident reporting and emergency response. Training regulations, for example, can be found at 49 CFR part 172, and loading and unloading regulations can be found at 49 CFR 177.834 and 49 CFR 177.837. These regulations apply, for example, to truck drivers delivering gasoline or diesel fuel to gas stations with underground storage tanks.

Section 112.1(f).

Finally, as a safeguard, today's rule (

see

§ 112.1(f) in today's preamble) provides the Regional Administrator with the authority to require any facility subject to EPA jurisdiction under section 311 of the CWA, regardless of threshold or other regulatory exemption, to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan when necessary to further the purposes of the Act.

Regulatory jurisdiction.

To eliminate any possible confusion over regulatory jurisdiction, we explain in this preamble (see the above background discussion) which containers in a facility are subject to 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281 and which are subject to part 112.

Piping, ancillary equipment, and containment systems.

EPA has modified the scope of the proposed exemption for completely buried tanks (which are excluded from the scope of the SPCC rule if they are subject to all of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part 281) by clarifying that the exemption includes the connected underground piping, underground ancillary equipment, and containment

systems, in addition to the tank itself. This modification is consistent with the definition of underground storage tank system found at 40 CFR 280.12. In addition, this clarification is responsive to the comment which asked that the piping be included in the exemption.

Deferred tanks.

We disagree that we should not regulate tanks which are deferred from compliance with any of the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 280 or a State program approved under 40 CFR part

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.