SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Extension of Compliance Dates for All Facilities 40 CFR Part 112 February 9, 2006 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency This document addresses the comments received in response to the proposal to extend the compliance dates for the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure regulation, published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2005 ( 70 FR 73518). Comments submitted to the public docket for this rulemaking appear in their entirety at www. regulations. gov, identified under Docket number " EPA HQ OPA 2005 0003". This document is in the sequence of the topics listed below.

I. Support II. Suggestion or clarification of interest to EPA III. Oppose IV. Suggested Alternative Dates EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DATE FOR ALL FACILITIES General Comment Summary: On December 12, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA or Agency) proposed to extend the dates by which a facility must prepare or amend and implement its Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure ( SPCC) Plan ( 70 FR 73518). The Federal Docket Management System received a modest number of comments on the EPA proposal, and the official public comment period ended on January 10, 2006. Commenters primarily represent electrical utilities, cooperatives, and their representatives, and oil and gas exploration and production companies. Additional sectors submitted comments, including aviation, chemical manufacturing, construction, farms and agricultural cooperatives, and environmental organizations. The majority of commenters supported an extension of the dates by which a facility must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan. Four commenters opposed the proposed extension. Only one commenter suggested an alternative date for this extension. However, many commenters suggested alternative dates for compliance in the event that the Agency does not meet its proposed timeline. Commenters who recommended extending compliance dates generally confirmed the Agency's view at the time of proposal that an extension is appropriate to allow the Agency to take final action on the proposed regulatory relief before the current compliance dates for SPCC Plan preparation, amendment, and implementation. Commenters also agreed that this proposed extension would provide facilities time necessary to fully understand the regulatory relief offered by revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule and the clarifications presented in the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors. Commenters also supported the extension to allow with compliance with the SPCC rule without unduly compromising storm recovery efforts as a result of the recent hurricanes. Commenters that opposed the extension of compliance dates argued that the proposed extension does not benefit the public or environment. Two commenters suggested that as the SPCC rule has been in effect since 1974, most facilities should already be in compliance. Commenters were concerned that if EPA extends the compliance dates again, EPA will reduce numbers of inspections and enforcement actions, and noncompliant facilities will continue to operate and endanger human health and the environment. Commenters were also concerned that the proposed compliance date does not allow enough time for EPA to reasonably promulgate the revised substantive changes and communicate to the affected parties the requirements of a revised regulation, and for the regulated community to understand and comply with the requirements. Several commenters suggested that the compliance date should be extended either one year, or at least one year, after EPA promulgates the currently proposed rule revisions. Some commenters suggested that the compliance date for Plan preparation be one year after EPA promulgates the recently proposed rule revisions, with the compliance date for Plan implementation six months later. Several commenters suggested that EPA revise the proposed extension to include an alternative time period to implement Plans after the proposed deadline for Plan preparation/ amendment. Commenters from agricultural and meat/ poultry processing industries requested targeted extensions or suspension until issues associated with their particular industries can be resolved. Several commenters also asked that the deadline under section 112.5 to review and/ or amend the Plan be extended thereby providing relief to all facilities in an equitable manner. Finally, many commenters asked that the Agency reaffirm the application of the extended compliance dates in the final rule. 1. Support for the Extension Topic Comment Summary: The majority of commenters generally supported the extension of the compliance deadline by which the facility must prepare or amend and implement its SPCC Plan. The comments generally agreed that the extension would allow the Agency time to clarify and amend the July 17, 2002 final SPCC rule and provide affected facility owners and operators adequate time to implement any new amendments.

Topic Response: EPA agrees with these comments. This action will allow EPA time to promulgate revisions to the July 17, 2002 final SPCC rule before owners or operators are required to meet requirements of that rule related to preparing or amending, and implementing SPCC Plans. Additionally, this extension will provide the regulated community an opportunity to understand the material presented in the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors and also provide additional time for SPCC compliance for those facilities impacted by the recent hurricanes.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by  Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute Comment Text: API strongly supports the proposed extension of the compliance deadlines for amending and implementing SPCC Plans...

Submitted by  Entergy Services, Inc. Comment Text: Entergy Services, Inc. ( ESI) appreciates and supports EPA's proposal ( FR EPAHQ OPA 0003) to extend the compliance dates for all facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 112. ESI agrees with the Agency's rationale for proposing this extension.

Submitted by  John Hayden of The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association Comment Text: The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association ( NSSGA) supports EPA's proposal to extend the compliance deadlines for submitting an approved SPCC plan to October 31, 2007.

Submitted by  Susan Damron of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Comment Text: Regarding the 2002 Rule Deadline Extension, LADWP commends the EPA for inviting public comment and supports the extension for implementing the provisions of the 2002 Rule to October 31 2007.

Submitted by  Bob Elam of American Chemical Council Comment Text: ACC strongly supports an extension of the compliance deadlines for amending and implementing SPCC Plans. Accordingly, ACC recommends an SPCC Plan amendment compliance deadline of either October 31, 2007, or a date no less than one year following the promulgation of both the final rule for qualified facilities/ oilfilled operational equipment ( 70 FR 73524, December 12, 2005) and the " loose ends" final rule ( discussed below), whichever is later. Submitted by  John McKinnon of Kimberly Clark Corporation Comment Text: We support EPA's current proposal to again extend the deadline for compliance with the requirements set out in 40 CFR 112.3 ( a) and ( b) for all the reasons cited in the proposal.

Submitted by  Deborah Boyle of TXU Electric Delivery Comment Text: TXU Electric Delivery submits these comments, generally in support of EPA's proposal to extend the deadline to October 31, 2007 for facilities to amend and implement their Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure ( SPCC) plans to comply with the 2002 SPCC amendments.

Submitted by  Joseph Hurt of International Association of Drilling Contractors Comment Text: The extension of the compliance date would allow the Agency time to clarify and amend the July 17, 2002 final SPCC rule and provide affected facility owners and operators adequate time to meet the amended requirements. IADC strongly supports the proposed extension of compliance deadlines for amending and implementing SPCC Plans...

Submitted by  Scott Davis of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group Comment Text: The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (" USWAG") submits these comments generally in support of EPA's proposal ( 70 Fed. Reg. 73518 ( Dec. 12, 2005)) to extend the deadline to October 31, 2007 for facilities to amend and implement their Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (" SPCC") plans to comply with the 2002 SPCC amendments.

Submitted by  June Small of North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation Comment Text: NCEME supports EPA's extension of the compliance date in the 2002 regulations... We are encouraged that these changes will relieve some regulatory burdens while offering comparable environmental protection... NCEMC supports the extension of the deadline to at least October 31, 2007.

Submitted by  Creg Browne of Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. Comment Text: Akzo Nobel Coatings, as a member of the National Paint and Coatings Association ( NPCA), strongly supports an extension in compliance dates for amending plans... and implementing these plans... and concurs with comments submitted by the NCPA on this proposal.

Submitted by  Larry Hardy of Anderson Development Company Comment Text: Anderson Development Company is a member of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturer's Association ( SOCMA) and as such concurs with SOCMA's comments on this rulemaking. This extension is warranted since EPA has just published extensive proposed guidance and a proposed rule regarding several regulatory relief revisions. Submitted by  Michael Bernard of Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association of Oklahoma, Inc. Comment Text: For oil and gas exploration and production ( E& P) operations, Mid Continent strongly supports a minimum compliance deadline extension of one year following promulgation of either the final rule for qualified facilities ( 70 Federal Register 73542, December 12, 2005) or the final rule clarifying the SPCC amendments ( proposed rulemaking scheduled for June, 2006).

1. A. Citing natural disaster Topic Comment Summary: These comments follow a form letter that first appeared in the docket under document number OPA 2005 0003 0005. Each comment supports the extension of the dates by which facilities must prepare or amend SPCC Plans because this will provide extra time to allow for compliance with SPCC rules without unduly compromising storm recovery efforts.

Topic Response: EPA agrees with the commenters. EPA recognizes the effects of recent hurricanes on many industry sectors, including the potential to adversely impact their ability to meet the current compliance dates.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by  Philip Caskey of Consolidated Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1 Comment Text: Our company was affected by ice storms earlier this year for which we are receiving FEMA assistance and we will be devoting considerable resources to storm recovery for the foreseeable future. Providing extra time by extending the SPCC deadlines will help us comply with the SPCC rules without unduly compromising our storm recovery efforts.

Submitted by  Karen Harned of National Federation of Independent Business ( NFIB) Legal Foundation Comment Text: Lastly, we appreciate the need to extend the dates of compliance for the small businesses that have been affected by this summer's hurricanes. We have approximately 19,000 members in the gulf coast states that were most impacted. These businesses deserve an opportunity to develop appropriate plans to help prevent further harm to the area's environment.

1 This comment text was submitted 25 times as part of a form letter. Commenters who submitted this text are as follows: National Federation of Independent Business; Pioneer Electric Cooperative; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative; Pearl River Valley Electric Power Association; Chugach Electric Association, Inc.; Boone REMC; Northeast Missouri Electric Power Cooperative; Nolin Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation; Berkeley Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Georgia Transmission Corporation; Mickey Green; Tri State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.; Alaska Power Association; Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Sangre De Cristo Electric Association, Inc.; Capital Electric Cooperative, Inc.; San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Old Dominion Electric Cooperative; Alabama Rural Electric Association of Cooperatives; Tri County Electric Cooperative; Wayne White Counties Electric Cooperative; Rappahannock Electric Cooperative; Grand Electric Cooperative. Submitted by  James Stine of National Rural Electric Cooperative Association2 Comment Text: Some of our members were affected by severe hurricanes this year and will be devoting an extraordinary amount of resources to storm recovery for the foreseeable future. Extending the SPCC deadlines would provide extra time for electric utility cooperatives to comply with the SPCC rules without unduly compromising their storm recovery efforts.

Submitted by  Fred Braswell of Alabama Rural Electric Association of Cooperatives Comment Text: Many of our cooperatives were affected by sever hurricanes this year... providing extra time by extending SPCC deadlines will help us comply with SPCC rules without unduly compromising our storm recovery efforts.

1. B. Concur with reasons put forth in proposal Topic Comment Summary: These commenters recommended extending compliance dates and supported EPA's rationale, specifically confirming the Agency's view at the time of proposal that an extension is appropriate to allow the Agency to promulgate the proposed regulatory relief before the current compliance dates for SPCC Plan preparation or amendment, and implementation. The commenters also agreed that this proposed extension would provide facilities time necessary to fully understand the regulatory relief offered by revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule and the clarifications presented in the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors. Several commenters indicated that additional time would allow an opportunity to address issues related to the current regulations. These issues include: clarification of what triggers the need to create an SPCC Plan; definition of navigable waters; definition of produced waters; issues related to the Agency's definition of Animal Fats and/ or Vegetable Oils ( AFVOs); and the cost of implementing SPCC Plans for marginal wells. Several commenters also supported the extension since it will allow facilities time to review the newly issued SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors.

Topic Response: EPA appreciates the support for the extension as proposed. EPA believes it is appropriate to extend the compliance dates since the Agency will not be able to take final action on the burden reduction revisions proposed on December 12, 2005 before the current compliance dates for SPCC Plan preparation or amendment, and implementation. This extension will allow facilities the opportunity to take advantage of any regulatory revisions the Agency may finalize. This extension will also provide the regulated community an opportunity to understand the material presented in the newly issued SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors before preparing or amending their SPCC Plans, facilitating their understanding of the SPCC rule's applicability and of the performance based SPCC requirements. Comments regarding other issues that the commenters would like clarified are beyond the scope of today's rulemaking, and while EPA may address additional issues, such as the ones mentioned by commenters, in a future rulemaking, today's extension is not intended to postpone compliance with the 2 This comment text was submitted again as part of a form letter from Sam Cain of Pearl River Valley Electric Power Association. SPCC rule to accommodate such a future rulemaking. Today's extension is intended only to allow enough time for EPA to take final action on rule revisions proposed in December 2005 and for the regulated community affected by any such revisions to take advantage of them.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by  Philip Caskey of Consolidated Electric Cooperative, Inc. 3 Comment Text: If the compliance date is extended, rather than being forced to comply with the existing regulations, our company will be able to benefit from the reduced burdens provided by the proposed regulatory changes without compromising environmental protection. EPA should extend the deadline to at least October 31, 2007 to provide sufficient time for EPA to complete the rulemaking process and publish the final regulatory revisions while still leaving time for affected companies to respond. Assuming that EPA completes the rulemaking process by October 2006, companies would have one year to read and understand the new rules, incorporate them into their SPCC plans and implement any changes in the field. This seems like a reasonable schedule as long as the rulemaking is not unduly extended.

Submitted by  Beth Van Emburgh of National Air Transportation Association Comment Text: NATA wholeheartedly agrees that the compliance dates should be extended for the same reasons the EPA listed in the proposal. Initially it would be unreasonable to hold the existing compliance dates EPA also proposing amendments to the 2002 SPCC rule. The content of this other proposal differ drastically from the existing requirements, and by extending the compliance dates the EPA would give businesses the opportunity to take advantage of those changes.

Submitted by  Vernon Hartley of Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation Comment Text: This extension would ease the pressure on the affected facilities and also allow EPA additional time to promulgate the proposed regulation.... We agree with EPA's decision to extend the date of compliance until October 31, 2007... We believe that the proposed extension would provide facilities with additional time to properly research, understand, and implement existing SPCC requirements as well as other proposed revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule.

Submitted by  Robert Martinez of Wilko Paint, Inc. Comment Text: Wilko Paint, Inc believes that it is appropriate for the EPA to extend the SPCC compliance dates to October 31, 2007. Without this additional time, our company finds it difficult to comply with the proposed regulatory revisions.

Submitted by  David F. Darling of National Paint and Coatings Association Comment Text: NPCA believes the extension is warranted since EPA has just published extensive proposed guidance and a proposed rule regarding several regulatory relief 3 See Footnote 1. revisions. The regulated community needs time to review these proposals and develop/ modify existing plans and start executing the requirements. Without this additional time, our member companies are stranded in their compliance efforts. Therefore NPCA believes that it is appropriate for EPA to extend the SPCC compliance dates to October 31, 2007.

Submitted by  Carter Kelly of Waste Management, Inc. Comment Text: We urge EPA to finalize the rule as proposed. The proposed extension is necessary to allow the Agency to finalize both its proposed amendments to the SPCC Rule ( 70 FR 73524) and its interpretive guidance, for their assimilation by the regulated community, and for production, certification and implementation of SPCC Plan amendments.

Submitted by  Independent Petroleum Association of America Comment Text: We strongly support EPA's proposal to extend these compliance dates. We believe that this additional time would allow an opportunity to address fundamental issues in the current regulations that need to be considered during the extension period... One of the first issues that causes concern and confusion is the question of what triggers the need to create an SPCC Plan... a similar issue relates to the interpretation of navigable waters... a number of other significant issues with the new regulations must be either clarified or addressed... past interpretations of the SPCC Plan requirements clearly allowed the operator to consider costs in determining the practicability or impracticability of meeting particular requirements of the planning process. In the new regulation, EPA states, " Thus, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow an owner or operator to consider costs or economic impacts in any determination as to whether he can satisfy the secondary containment requirement." The consequence of this approach could be enormous when applied to the marginal wells in this country... This issue [ produced waters] needs further examination during the delay period; it clearly presents a potentially significant cost... we do not believe these challenges can be met under the current compliance deadlines.

Submitted by  Angie Burckhalter of Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association Comment Text: We strongly support EPA's proposed extension and believe it will allow EPA time to address the critical issues associated with the 2002 SPCC rule. This extension will allow EPA time to conduct future rulemakings that could result in changes to the 2002 rule that would make current costly expenditures by small oil and gas operators unnecessary... We urge the EPA to develop a regulatory approach that is appropriate and reasonable for the E& P industry, especially marginal well producers. This approach would include a practical definition of navigable waters and focus on those facilities that reasonably can be expected to impact those waters, include a benefit/ cost analysis of the requirements being considered and implemented at E& P facilities and focus on those areas where there is a true need for regulation, and provide a practical and economic regulatory scheme that small operators can understand. Such an approach would encourage E& P operators to comply, assure that industry's funds are spent where it can provide the most benefit, and maintain the viability of domestic production. Submitted by  Nicholas DeMarco of The West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association Comment Text: WVONGA fully supports the proposal to extend the dates by which facilities must prepare or amend SPCC Plans. WVONGA believes that the proposed extension until October 31, 2007 is necessary in order for the Environmental protection Agency (" EPA") to promulgate the additional revisions proposed to the SPCC rules that would relieve some of the regulatory burdens on the affected facilities.

Submitted by  P. F. Faggert of Dominion Comment Text: Dominion strongly supports an extension of the dates for preparation and for implementation of SPCC plans.

Submitted by  Food Industry Environmental Council Comment Text: FIEC appreciates the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA's) proposal to extend, until October 31, 2007, compliance with the 2002 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure ( SPCC) Rule ( 70 FR 73518; 12/ 12/ 05), only to the degree that the extension will permit EPA to finalize their proposed amendments ( 70 FR 73524; 12/ 12/ 05) and resolve other important issues.

Submitted by  Steve Travis of Sherwin Williams Comment Text: The extension of the compliance deadline to October 31, 2007 is warranted to allow the regulated community time to review these proposals and modify existing plans as necessary. It is also necessary to allow these proposals to become finalized such that companies have a clear understanding of the requirements of the regulations/ guidance documents.

Submitted by  Vulcan Materials Company Comment Text: Vulcan Materials Company... supports the proposed extension of the SPCC compliance deadlines. The extension is necessary given the delayed release of regulatory guidance and to ensure that the regulated community has time to address compliance requirements.

Submitted by  Greg Huncovsky of WBI Holdings Comment Text: WBIH supports the EPA's proposal to extend the compliance dates for developing and implementing Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans ( SPCC). The extension will provide more time to adequately review and implement material from the lengthy SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors document released in December, 2005... Additionally, EPA's recent proposal to provide SPCC regulatory relief will likely result in the revisions of most of our SPCC plans. An extension of the compliance dates would allow us to avoid costly repetitive revisions to our SPCC plans.

Submitted by  Dick Patyrak of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Comment Text: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC is pleased to acknowledge the proposed SPCC amendments as offered in 70 Federal Register 73524, December 12, 2005. We feel it is important that the EPA extend the plan amendment and implementation deadline to adequately allow for compliance with the currently pending 2002 SPCC amendments.

Submitted by  Shirley Ruffin of SCANA Corporation Comment Text: Based on recent proposed changes to the SPCC rules as published in the December 12, 2005 edition of the Federal Register, the requirements for oil filled operating equipment and small facilities will be significantly different than the requirements of the current SPCC rules. As a member of the regulated community, SCANA will need time to prepare for and ensure compliance with these new rules and balance the business needs of the corporation. Since these proposed rules have not been finalized, there may yet be more changes to the requirements for oilfilled operating equipment in the near future. It would be a waste of finite resources to commit budgets to comply with a rule that is only changing. Therefore, this proposed extension is both timely and essential for our business.

Submitted by  Douglas Greenhaus of National Automobile Dealers Association Comment Text: Extending these compliance deadlines to at least October 31, 2007, is both necessary and appropriate. Just last month, EPA proposed new changes to its SPCC rules that could significantly impact how and if car and truck dealerships must comply with the July 2002 SPCC amendments. 70 Fed. Reg. 73524, et seq. ( December 12, 2005). Also last month, EPA issued a comprehensive guidance document that could significantly impact how regulated facilities comply with the 2002 SPCC amendments. NADA is preparing comments responding to the December 2005 proposal ( due February 11, 2006) and is reviewing EPA's voluminous SPCC guidance. Suspension of the 2006 compliance dates is warranted given that recent events have rendered them irrelevant by making them virtually impossible to comply with. The proposed deadline of October 31, 2007, should allow dealerships enough time to analyze EPA's guidance and a final rule based on the December 2005 regulatory proposal ( assuming it issues sometime this Fall), and to appropriately develop and/ or modify their SPCC plans, as necessary Submitted by  Dee Gavora of American Forest & Paper Association Comment Text: AF& PA strongly supports the proposed extension of the compliance date for amending SPCC Plans. The extension will allow the Agency time to clarify and amend the July 2002 final SPCC rule and provide regulatory relief to affected facilities.

Submitted by  John G. Hill of The Dow Chemical Company Comment Text: Dow fully supports an extension of the implementation date of the SPCC requirements including coordination of the extension with the promulgation of the proposed amendments to the regulation. Submitted by  Caroline Choi of Progress Energy Comment Text: A compliance extension is appropriate to provide EPA adequate time to finalize the proposed SPCC amendments and the regulated community with time to achieve compliance.

Submitted by  Tim Pohle of Aviation Coalition4 Comment Text: The Coalition concurs with EPA's determination that, with the Proposed Rule to further amend the SPCC Rule and effort by EPA to provide clarifications through guidance on certain issues ( particularly via EPA's recently published SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors), the regulated community will need the extra time proposed to amend or prepare and implement SPCC Plans accordingly.

Submitted by  Jeff Gunnulfsen of Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association Comment Text: SOCMA strongly supports this extension and believes that it is warranted... Providing adequate time for companies to review the effect of the proposals on their facilities, analyze and synthesize the material presented in the guidance document in order to properly develop ( or modify existing) plans and begin implementing the new requirements is critical to the success of the expanded requirements of the SPCC program. Give the complexity of the regulations and its implementation, the time permitted under the extension will greatly assist companies in attaining full compliance.

Submitted by  John Arnett of Copper and Brass Fabricators Council Comment Text: The Council agrees that the compliance dates should be extended to October 31, 2007, for the reasons the Agency listed in the Federal Register notice. Chief among these is to allow time for the Agency to take comment on SPCC regulatory relief measures proposed on December 12, 2005, in the same Federal Register notice, and to allow facilities to adapt their plans to the new requirements once adopted.

Submitted by  Robert Fronczak of Association of American Railroads Comment Text: AAR supports this proposed rulemaking... it makes no sense to prepare plans by February 17, 2006, and modify facilities by August 18, 2006 if those plans and facility modifications will have to be modified again in the very near future due to this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Submitted by  Kellie Skelton of Energen Resources Corp. Comment Text: Energen strongly supports the proposed extension of the deadlines. An extension is absolutely essential for both EPA and the regulated community to: 1) resolve and 4 Collectively submitted under one name by: The Air Transport Association of America, Inc., American Association of Airport Executives; Airports Council International  North America; National Air Transportation Association. document all the outstanding issues identified during previous discussions, 2) review proposed amendments, and 3) review the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors... EPA recently released the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors and revisions to the rule. The guidance document contains many clarifications within a several hundred page document. It is prudent that all stakeholders as well as regulators are allowed sufficient time to review and comment on the guidance document. In addition to the guidance documents, additional proposed amendments were published on December 12, 2005 in the federal register. Time is necessary to comment on the amendments. The comments for the amendments are due only one week prior to the February 17, 2006 deadline for necessary changes to the SPCC plans. Since the amendments will affect multiple SPCC plans it only right to extend the deadline for compliance.

Submitted by  Bill Verner of Georgia Electric Membership Corporation Comment Text: GEMC and the Georgia EMCs support EPA's proposal to extend the compliance deadlines until October 31, 2007. By doing so, regulated facilities will have the benefits of being able to review the SPCC guidance now available to the regulated community before preparing or amending their SPCC plans. Moreover, as EPA recognized, extending the compliance deadlines will allow regulated facilities the opportunity to benefit from and take full advantage of any regulatory relief that EPA may promulgate in the near future... These proposed revisions potentially impact GEMC and its member EMCs, and they need the additional time proposed to prepare or amend and implement their SPC plans in accordance with any revisions to the SPCC program that EPA may finalize pursuant to this December 2005 proposal.

Submitted by  Paul Glader of Hecla Mining Company Comment Text: EPA's rationale for the proposed extension of the compliance dates is both valid and appropriate. Numerous smaller facilities have staff limitations and must seek out assistance to interpret many regulatory proposals, such as those applicable to SPCC requirements. The additional time is necessary to interpret the new regulatory requirements recently published by EPA in the Federal Register in addition to reviewing the new SPCC guidance. Further, many facilities trigger the requirements for development of a SPCC but site logistics realistically prevent releases to water in all but bizarre circumstances.

1. C. Other Topic Comment Summary: Several commenters support the extension provisionally. Commenters requested clarification regarding the compliance obligations given the extensions of the compliance dates as compared to the effective date of the 2002 SPCC rule amendments. Additionally, commenters presented other issues they believe EPA should address in conjunction with the proposed extension. Several commenters offered conditional support for the extension, contingent upon EPA establishing a firm timetable to fulfill its obligations as required by the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act ( EORRA) to promulgate separate regulations for animal fats and vegetable oils ( AFVOs) that reflect the different characteristics between these oils and petroleum based oils. Other commenters were concerned about the costs associated with the implementation of the 2002 SPCC rule requirements on the Exploration and Production ( E& P) industry, specifically questioning the economic analysis supporting the 2002 action. These commenters argue that there are continuing burden issues regarding the implementation of the SPCC regulation and, although they agree with the proposed extension, they express concern about the impediments the rule's requirements and stipulations would create on its ability to cost effectively develop and produce its oil and natural gas reserves  particularly for small production facilities.

Topic Response: EPA agrees with the commenters' support of the compliance dates extension. The Agency has not changed the effective date for the July 2002 SPCC final rule amendments, but is finalizing the proposed new extension to the compliance dates for preparing/ amending and implementing SPCC Plans. The interim compliance requirements would remain the same as those stated in the previous compliance date extensions. Specifically, to the extent that the July 2002 rule imposes new or more stringent compliance obligations than did the old SPCC rule, those dates in 40 CFR 112.3( a) and ( b) for fulfillment of those obligations are extended under this rule. Provisions that provide regulatory relief in the 2002 rule are not affected by the compliance dates extension because such provisions are not addressed by 40 CFR 112.3( a) or ( b) and are not provisions that would trigger a revision of the SPCC Plan to ensure compliance with the 2002 amendments. The compliance date extensions do not change the requirement under 112.8( d)( 1), which applies to buried piping installed or replaced on or after August 16, 2002. The Agency believes that the July 2002 SPCC rule amendments provide flexibility that allows owners and operators to prepare and implement SPCC Plans that are commensurate with the risk of spills at their facility and that would not impose undue economic burdens. Although EPA appreciates and understands the concerns regarding the implementation costs associated with the 2002 SPCC amendments, AFVO differentiation and the definition of navigable waters are outside of the scope of this notice.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by  G. H. Holliday of Holliday Environmental Services Comment Text: We oppose the proposed extension because: 1. EPA did not economically justify, in accordance with Executive Order No. 12866, the July 17, 2002 ( 67 FR 47140) SPCC rule promulgation. 2. The 1973 version of 40 CFR Part 112 remains in effect, since EPA has not allowed 40 CFR Part 112 dated 17 July 2002 to become effective. 3. EPA does not need extra time to cancel the 2002 SPCC Plan rule, reinstate the 1973 version and add farm facilities and home facilities to 40 CFR Part 112.

Submitted by  Food Industry Environmental Council5 5 This comment was submitted by the Food Industry Environmental Council and includes fifteen signatories: American Bakers Association; American Feed Industry Association; American Frozen Food Institute; American Meat Institute; Corn Refiners Association; Independent Bakers Association; International Dairy Foods Association; Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils; Midwest Food Processors Association; National Cotton Council; National Oilseed Processors Association; Northwest Food Processors Association; Pet Food Institute; Snack Food Association. Comment Text: Importantly, there are still issues relative to EPA's characterization of animal fats and vegetable oils ( AF/ VO) produced by and used in the food industry compared to petroleum oils which preclude FIEC's full support of the amended rule. FIEC urges EPA to establish a timetable to resolve unique issues associated with the production and use of AF/ VO. Unless critical issues are resolved future compliance extensions may be necessary.

Submitted by  David Fairfield of National Grain and Feed Association Comment Text: The NGFA and GEAPS generally support the Agency's proposed Oct. 31, 2007 compliance date for facilities to amend and implement their SPCC plans. But our support is conditional, and is contingent upon EPA establishing a firm timetable to fulfill its obligations as required by the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act ( EORRA) to promulgate separate regulations for animal fats and vegetable oils ( AF/ VOs) that reflect the different characteristics between these oils and petroleum based oils. Future SPCC plan compliance extensions will be warranted unless EPA promptly addresses the unique issues associated with facilities that produce, handle, and store AF/ VOs and other food grade oils.

Submitted by  Gregory D. Russell of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Comment Text: Because of the potentially destructive impact the most recent amendments to EPA's SPCC program can have on Ohio producers and the citizens they serve, the Association strongly supports EPA's proposal to extend the dates for a facility to amend and implement its SPCC Plan until October 31, 2007. This will provide time to resolve the many issues previously raised by oil and gas producers concerning EPA's SPCC program...[ the] DOE expressed the concern that:

[ New] regulations * * * could negatively affect the supply of affordable natural gas. Specifically, new gathering line definitions and compliance with attendant new rules could impose additional costs on those marginal gas producers that currently provide approximately 10 percent of our onshore supplies of natural gas. Such costs could lead many of these producers to " shut in" production as well as create disincentives for natural gas producers to initiate new exploration and production activities. [ DOE Comments filed in Docket No. RSPA 1998 4868 ( Jan. 14, 2004).]

Similarly, the high costs associated with implementing SPCC plans  estimated by IPAA to range from $ 5,000 to $ 20,000 per facility, most of which relate to secondary containment requirements  could have a ruinous impact on marginal wells in Ohio and elsewhere in the country. The public, however, gets very little environmental benefit, if any, in return for that significant outlay given the marginal  and thus low flow  nature of the wells. An extension of the deadlines, therefore, is appropriate and necessary to address these issues and avoid the premature loss of significant volumes of natural resources in Ohio and elsewhere.

Submitted by  Kellie Skelton of Energen Resources Corp. Comment Text: Energen compliments EPA's proposal to extend the implementation date however, we have three primary concerns associated with any implementation at all. First, the EPA instructed the SPCC economic contractor to assume that all SPCC plans in place prior to the publication dated July 17, 2002 were in full compliance with the revisions in the publication dated July 17, 2002. It is prudent that EPA evaluate cost analysis associated with the implementation of the rule as well as the cost versus the benefit. Without a thorough cost analysis, the EPA does not comply with regulatory statute. Energen compliments EPA in recognizing that there are continuing issues with the implementation of the plan and promotes the extension times as listed in the proposal.

Second, Energen is concerned about the impediments the rule's requirements and stipulations would create on its ability to develop and produce its natural gas reserves. These conditions and restrictions or other provisions, including secondary containment around production equipment ( non bulk storage equipment), prohibit cost effective mineral recovery. The overwhelming cost to small production facilities may even require abandonment of low producing wells.

1. D. Conditional Support Pending Clarification Topic Comment Summary: Representatives from meat and poultry processing facilities asked that their facilities be granted a compliance date extension until all issues unique to the production and use of AFVO are resolved. Representatives from oil and gas exploration and production industry also expressed concern that there remain a number of issues that have not been answered satisfactorily. These groups feel that EPA must quickly resolve these remaining industry specific issues in order for October 31, 2007 to be a realistic final compliance date.

Topic Response: EPA agrees with commenters that it is important to resolve the issues in the pending proposal and is working towards promulgating any amendments in a timely manner. As the Agency works towards resolution of all issues, the need for further targeted compliance date extensions may be considered. At this time the Agency believes that the dates being promulgated adequately balances environmental protection with the social costs imposed on the US economy. The Agency disagrees with commenters that conditioned their support of this compliance date extension to taking final action regarding differentiation of AFVOs. In the pending proposal of December 12, 2005, the Agency requested information specific to the set of criteria specified by the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act ( 33 U. S. C. 2720) that would be required to establish differentiated requirements for AFVOs. The Agency is not prepared at this time to determine whether that request for information will result in information adequate to support such an action, nor can the Agency predict at this time what resources a rulemaking to develop these differentiated requirements may entail. Thus the Agency believes that it is inappropriate to condition the compliance dates in section 112.3 on such uncertain factors. Although the Agency will review and give full consideration to the information it receives related to the AFVO issue, this is outside the scope of the Agency's action to extend the compliance dates for SPCC Plan preparation/ amendment and implementation. Similarly, the issues presented by the exploration and production sector that relate to the 2002 SPCC rule amendments and are outside of the scope of this notice.

Comment Excerpts: Submitted by  Stephen Johnson of American Meat Institute Comment Text: EPA's proposal to extend the date of compliance with the 2002 SPCC rule for all qualified facilities until October 31, 2007, is adequate only if EPA finalizes its proposed amendments and resolves in a timely manner and other important issues relative to the differentiation of AF/ VO from the SPCC requirements for petroleum oils and non petroleum oils other than AF/ VO.

Submitted by  Norbert Dee of National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Comment Text: Since the July 17, 2002 final SPCC rule was published, EPA has worked with industry to identify problem areas. Further, the agency has entered into settlement agreements, and has issued proposed amendments and guidance to the regions in a good faith effort to ensure that the SPCC regulations are workable for our members. We do have a concern, however, as we note that there remain a number of questions which have not been answered satisfactorily.

In the current proposed rule, EPA would extend the dates for facilities to amend and implement SPCC plans, in accordance with the July 17, 2002 final rule, until October 31, 2007. NPRA supports extension of the deadlines. However, in order for October 31, 2007 to be a realistic final compliance date for the 2002 rule, EPA must quickly resolve the remaining questions.

Submitted by  Bob Elam of American Chemical Council Comment Text: In the proposed rule, EPA extends the deadlines by which facilities must amend and implement their SPCC plans to comply with the July 2002 SPCC rule [ e. g., dates in 40 CFR 112.3( a)  ( c)], but EPA does not delay the effective date of the July 2002 rule itself. ACC understands this to mean that to the extent the July 2002 rule imposes new, more stringent compliance obligations than did the previous SPCC rules, the deadline for fulfillment of those obligations is extended under the proposed rule [ including the date in 40 CFR 112.8( d)( 1)], to the same extent as the deadline for implementing amended plans. At the same time, the July 2002 rule relaxes a few aspects of the SPCC rules. Because the proposed rule delays the effective date of the July 2002 rule, those few aspects of the July 2002 rule that are less stringent than before remain in full force. The regulated community does not need more time to comply with provisions that relieve or lessen a compliance burden, so a deferment designed to give the regulated community " more time to comply with the rule" is obviously not intended to defer such provisions. ACC will make this logical assumption unless EPA specifically responds otherwise.

2. Suggestion or clarification of interest to EPA Topic Comment Summary: Several commenters requested that the EPA reaffirm the scope of the compliance requirements that are affected by the proposed extension. Commenters urged EPA to confirm that the extended compliance deadline applies to " new or more stringent compliance obligations" imposed by the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not to provisions in the amendments that provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities. Another commenter urged EPA to extend the deadline under section 112.5 to review and/ or amend the current Plan, thereby providing relief to all facilities in an equitable manner. A representative of the AFVO industry urged EPA to grant all meat and poultry processing facilities an extension until all issues unique to AFVO are resolved. The agricultural sector also suggested a " formal suspension of enforcement for all farms to be appropriate until more information can be gathered about the industry, its needs, its unique characteristics, and its history of spills."

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

Section 112.5( b) requires that, as a result of this periodic review and evaluation, an owner/ operator must amend the SPCC Plan within six months to include more effective prevention and control technology if the technology has been field proven at the time of the review and if it will significantly reduce the likelihood of a discharge as described in § 112.1( b) from the facility. The purpose of the periodic review is to account for improved technologies to reduce the likelihood of a discharge and is therefore an aspect of maintaining an existing SPCC Plan. Owners and operators of existing facilities must conduct the Plan review under § 112.5( b) as part of the task of maintaining the SPCC Plan, and must amend the Plan if appropriate under that provision. However they are not required to amend the Plan in order to comply with the 2002 regulatory revisions prior to the compliance dates in § 112.3 as part of the periodic review under § 112.5( b).

EPA expects that any revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule based on the proposal published in December 2005 will be finalized in time for facilities that qualify for the regulatory relief that may be afforded by any such revisions to be able to take advantage of those revisions. Because any revisions based on the December 2005 proposal would reduce, rather than increase, the requirements for SPCC plans for some facilities, EPA believes that a year is a reasonable amount of time for facilities to determine what revisions to their plans are necessary, or what their new plans need to include, and to implement their plans. Therefore, in anticipation of taking final action on the December proposal by October 2006, EPA believes that extending the compliance dates in 40 C. F. R. 112.3( a) is reasonable.

The purpose of today's rule is solely to extend the dates by which revision, preparation, and implementation of revised or new SPCC plans in compliance with the 2002 SPCC are required. EPA has requested information with respect to animal fats and vegetable oils ( AFVO) in a separate notice ( see 70 FR 73524). There is no basis for providing a special extension for facilities with AFVO in today's rule. Similarly, in that Federal Register notice the Agency proposed a compliance date extension specifically for farms. Comments concerning issues addressed in the separate Federal Register notice will be addressed in the Agency's response to comments on that notice.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by  Beth Van Emburgh of National Air Transportation Association Comment Text:

NATA urges the EPA to apply such an extension to all businesses, not just those with existing plans or those that had plans prior to the 2002 revisions, as these new proposals, such as mobile refueler requirements, are subject to change.

That being said, NATA urges the EPA to clarify to whom the extension actually applies. As the proposal currently stands, it seems the extension applies to all businesses, regardless of whether they currently have a plan. NATA feels this is a problem, as our industry is confused as to whether this extension applies to them. Upon further questioning, the EPA stated that the extension would apply to those facilities in operation prior to the 2002 revision that already have a plan to update that plan, or facilities that began operations after 2002 to create and implement a plan. This is problematic for the following reasons: · Despite the EPA insistence otherwise, the 2002 revision did clarify that a mobile refueler was considered mobile/ portable storage. The industry was surprised by this clarification, and had to scramble to provide secondary containment for these vehicles. Now, the EPA is proposing to remove the sized secondary containment requirement for these same vehicles. NATA urges the EPA to consider the effects of this " back and forth" position when applying the extension to the industry. · An aviation business, despite when they began their operations, often just does not have funds on hand to comply with a mandate that may change in a few months. The EPA should apply the extension dates across the board to the industry, so they can properly fund and plan a system that protects the environment from spills at airports.

Submitted by  Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute Comment Text: As with other deadline extensions of this rule, API continues to have concerns about the scope of the compliance obligations that are affected by the proposed extension of the amendment/ implementation dates. Attached is a letter API sent to EPA on January 29, 2003 describing our understanding of the scope of the extension... EPA should reaffirm API's understand in the preamble to the final rule similar to the confirmation in the April 17, 2003 extension ( 68 Fed. Reg. 18893). [ See attachment to submission.]

Submitted by  Patrick Flowers of Xcel Energy Comment Text: One other note in response to the proposal by EPA: EPA needs to ensure that it is clear in its final rule that the compliance extension extends the compliance deadline for " new or more stringent compliance obligations" that were imposed on the 2002 amendments and not to provisions that provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities. EPA issued a similar statement in the 2004 final extension notice ( 69 FR 48796) and a similar notice is needed for this notice as well.

Some SPCC inspectors are confused about which parts of the amendments apply and which ones do not. Also, the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors foments this confusion by addressing topics that have yet to be fully resolved and have resulted in the three ( now four) compliance deadline extensions.

Submitted by  P. F. Faggert of Dominion Comment Text: At the same time, Dominion requests clarification from EPA in the final rule on the interim compliance requirements. Specifically, Dominion requests clarification from EPA in the final rule on the interim compliance requirements. Specifically, Dominion requests clarification that the same provision included in the previous extensions is still applicable: " to the extent that the July 2002 rule imposes new or more stringent compliance obligations than did the old SPCC rule, ... the deadlines in 40 CFR 112.3( a) and ( b) for fulfillment of those obligations is extended under this final rule. On the other hand, a provision that provides regulatory relief in the revised rule is not affected by the compliance deadline extensions because such provisions are not addressed by 40 CFR 112.3( a) or ( b); these are not provisions for which it would be " necessary" to amend existing Plans " to ensure compliance with" the July 2002 amendments." FR Vol. 68, No. 74, p. 18893.

Submitted by  Stephen Johnson of American Meat Institute Comment Text: AMI urges that all meat and poultry processing facilities be granted an extension from the 2002 amendments until all issues unique to the production and use of AF/ VO are resolved. An adequate resolution would include:

· Regulations and guidance that appropriately distinguish AF/ VO from other oils ( petroleum and non petroleum oils other than AF/ VO), and reflect the significant differences in the substances themselves and the facilities handling these materials;

· Clarification that SPCC requirements should not apply to AF/ VO that is solid at room temperature;

· A reasonable maximum threshold of AF/ VO storage below which meat and poultry processing facilities would not be required to file an SPCC plan and/ or comply with other inappropriate SPCC provisions ( e. g., full fencing, locking, and guarding entrances);

· Visual inspection instead of integrity testing of indoor and outdoor storage tanks containing non corrosive AF/ VO;

· No secondary containment requirement for mobile tanks ( e. g., railroad tank cars, tanker trucks) containing AF/ VO; and · Self certification, instead of Professional Engineer certification, of SPCC plans, prepared in accordance with 40 CFR Part 112, by all meat and poultry packing and processing facilities. Submitted by  Caroline Choi of Progress Energy Comment Text: Progress Energy also asks EPA to reaffirm in the preamble to its final promulgation of the compliance extension that the extended compliance deadline applies to " new or more stringent compliance obligations" imposed by the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not only to provisions in the amendments that provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities.

Submitted by  Tim Pohle of Aviation Coalition6 Comment Text: While apparently there is no dispute that the July 2002 SPCC Rule affected changes with respect to SPCC coverage of motive power, oil filled equipment, the scope of the " impracticability exclusion," and the loading rack definition ( among other things), EPA appears to have taken the position that application of the secondary containment provisions to on airport mobile refuelers was unchanged by and pre dated the July 2002 SPCC Rule. 2 As EPA is aware, the Aviation Coalition disputes this interpretation and continues to maintain that the July 2002 SPCC Rule did change and expand the regulations to require secondary containment for " mobile or portable containers," instead of the previously covered " tanks." In any event, the Aviation Coalition and EPA have worked very hard since July 2002 to clarify the application of the secondary containment provisions, highlighting the considerable confusion and uncertainty generated by the provisions. In light of this history of uncertainty and the new changes set forth in the Proposed Rule affecting on airport mobile refuelers, we believe the extension is and should be applicable to secondary containment for on airport mobile refuelers in addition to the other provisions covered by the July 2002 Rule. While we believe that application of the extension to the secondary containment provisions as applied to on airport mobile refuelers is supported by law and policy, should EPA decline to specifically apply the extension in this way, we respectfully request that the Agency exercise its discretion to not make this issue an inspection priority or otherwise exercise enforcement discretion to decline to enforce the provisions until the October 31, 2007 deadline, providing the air transport industry the time necessary to understand, take account of and address the revisions proposed in the Proposed Rule and new guidance.

Submitted by  John McKinnon of Kimberly Clark Corporation Comment Text: While this extension will in fact cover those facilities that would otherwise need to prepare and amend the plans under Section 112.3 ( a), ( b) and ( c), it has no apparent effect on those facilities which currently have SPCC Plans under the original 1973 SPCC regulations. Since many of these facilities must review and/ or amend their plans under the five year time schedule under Section 112.5, they will be faced with having to either: 1) Pay a Professional Engineer to review the plan under the old 1973 rules plus undertake a second review and amendment once the currently proposed rule is promulgated, or 6 Collectively submitted under one name by: The Air Transport Association of America, Inc., American Association of Airport Executives; Airports Council International  North America; National Air Transportation Association. 2) Pay a Professional Engineer to amend the plan under the 2002 rules assuming that no relief is forthcoming under the proposed rule, and then decide whether to amend the Plan again after the currently proposed rule is promulgated.... Thus, the proposed extension does not in fact provide the same treatment to all facilities as is EPA's stated intent. Facilities that currently have a SPCC Plan, which must be amended under the five year period, but before the proposed deadline extension, will be required to undergo a double financial and regulatory burden that other competitive facilities will not. Therefore, EPA should broaden the scope of its time extension proposal to truly include all regulated facilities. This will allow EPA to properly synchronize the two rules as a matter of good policy and avoid unintended consequences to the affected facilities.

In addition to the time extension in this proposed rule, Kimberly Clark requests that EPA modify the proposal to include all affected facilities...

Submitted by  Steve Hensley of USA Rice Comment Text: USA Rice has worked with EPA since the promulgation of the 2002 rule and its applicability to farmers became known yet much uncertainty surrounds the applicability, deadlines, costs to implement, and definitions of farms.

Although we are pleased with some of the changes EPA has initiated in regard to the 2005 SPCC Proposed Rule, outstanding issues do remain. EPA has taken the position that farms not in compliance with the 1973 SPCC rule will not be covered by the compliance extension deadline of October 31, 2007. Given this, we continue to believe that a formal suspension of enforcement for all farms is appropriate until more information can be gathered about the industry, its needs, its unique characteristics, and its history of spills.

Many if not most of these farms were unaware that the SPCC rule even applied to them; and for greater than 30 years EPA has apparently not regarded these facilities as within the enforcement universe.

Submitted by  Scott Davis of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group Comment Text: As we requested in the prior extensions, we ask EPA to reaffirm in the preamble to its final promulgation of the compliance extension that the extended compliance deadline applies to " new or more stringent compliance obligations" imposed by the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not to provisions in the amendments that provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities. EPA issued such a statement in the 2004 final extension notice. See 69 Fed. Reg. at 48796. USWAG members have often found that EPA regional inspectors are unsure which parts of the 2002 amendments are in effect and which parts are being deferred, and even the newly published SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors has incorrectly stated that new language added in 2002 is in effect when, as a new requirement, it clearly is not. We plan to address this error in comments to be submitted to EPA next month on the Guidance document. 3. Oppose Topic Comment Summary: Three of the four commenters that opposed the extension of compliance dates argued that the proposed extension does not benefit the environment. Two commenters suggested that as the SPCC rule has been in effect since 1974, most facilities should already understand the rule and be in compliance. Commenters were concerned that if EPA extends the compliance deadlines again, EPA will reduce numbers of inspections and enforcement actions, and noncompliant facilities will continue to operate and endanger human health and the environment. One commenter disagreed with EPA's contention that regulated community members needs time to understand the material recently provided in the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors because the commenter believed that " the substance of the guidance document has been in place for almost 35 years". Another commenter opposed the extension of the compliance dates on the basis of opposition to the July 2002 SPCC rule in general, suggesting that EPA did not provide a sufficient justification for the economic impact of the 2002 rule, and making an extension unnecessary because the 1973 version of the rule should still be in effect.

Topic Response: The Agency believes that it is in the best interest of both the regulated community and the environment to address areas of confusion that arose after promulgation of the 2002 amendments. By promulgating a proposal intended to clarify requirements and reduce burdens, particularly on small businesses, and by making the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors available to the regulated community, the Agency believes that a more effective and complete implementation of the SPCC regulation and improved environmental protection will ultimately result. The Agency also believes that the regulated community needs the additional time allowed by the extension in order to better take advantage of the guidance and any further regulatory amendments that are promulgated and that the benefits of this extension outweighs the concerns raised by commenters of increased administrative burdens. The Agency disagrees that this extension would result in reduced environmental protection during the interim period, or that it somehow allows oil spills to continue and the environment to be unprotected. The extension is for preparing and implementing Plans according to the 2002 amendments  facilities are still required to be maintaining their existing Plans and to continue working to prevent oil spills. Even those facilities that have no SPCC Plan because they came into existence or became subject to SPCC since August of 2002 need to work towards spill prevention, and they are still liable for any oil discharges from the facility that may occur. Comments on the Economic Impact Analysis for the 2002 rule are outside of the scope of this notice.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by  M Aponte Comment Text: Please do not extend the dates for compliance of the SPCC plan. It is only in the interest of the operators and does nothing to support the public or environment that these plans are designed to protect. Accountability is key.

Submitted by  D. M. O'Regan Comment Text: A further deferral of the dates for preparation and implementation of SPCC Plans is inappropriate. EPA's rationale for this deferral is a non sequitur. It is not a given that the parallel rule proposals of 70 FR 73524 ( self certification of qualified facilities, etc.) are appropriate to the furtherance of protection of the environment.

Inasmuch as the compliance with the current rules requires the preparation or amendment of SPCC Plans by February 17, 2006, it is likely that owners and operators of facilities subject to 40 CFR 112 have already completed and sealed their plans in anticipation of this deadline. Thus there is no real burden created by maintaining the current compliance dates. ... EPA also uses the recent issuance of the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors as a rationale for deferring the effective dates of the July 2002 rules. This is a specious argument inasmuch as the substance of the SPCC rules have been in place for nearly 35 years. In promulgating the July 2002 amended rules EPA was very clear in presenting its expectations for implementation by the regulated community. The recent Guidance is nothing more than a compilation of informative guidance that EPA Headquarters and the various EPA Regions have provided over the years.

Submitted by  Nancy Stoner of Natural Resources Defense Council Comment Text: NRDC opposes extension of these deadlines for compliance with development and implementation of the SPCC Plans for the reasons given below.

First, it is unnecessary and absurd to extend the deadline a THIRD time to October 31, 2007, four years after the rules should have first been effective, and almost 35 years after the SPCC rules were promulgated. Facilities should already be in compliance with the 1973 rules and the rule changes previously proposed by EPA because the rules primarily REDUCE the requirements for regulated facilities.

Second, most regulated facilities have already developed and implemented SPCC Plans to comply with the earlier proposed rules, because they had to comply with the past three deadlines. These facilities are ready to meet their obligations to prevent oil spills and other releases. It is entirely unnecessary to extend the deadline when most facilities have developed and implemented plans.

Finally, this third compliance deadline extension will extend EPA's practice of reduced inspection and enforcement at SPCC regulated facilities. This will continue the increased likelihood of oil releases and endangerment of facility personnel and neighboring communities. EPA needs to abandon this compliance extension and enforce the rules as of the upcoming 2006 compliance dates. As mentioned above, most facilities have developed and implemented SPCC Plans to meet current regulatory requirements. However, there are still many facilities that have not developed and implemented effective SPCC Plans and installed adequate secondary containment and spill prevention equipment. These facilities need to be inspected and current rules enforced to prevent oil spills and other releases. If EPA extends the compliance deadlines again, these noncompliant facilities will continue to operate and continue to endanger the environment and human health. Submitted by  Anonymous Comment Text: An extension of the deadline for compliance would create an unnecessary administrative burden. Continued extensions only delay the inevitable and costs for compliance could increase with time. There is no incentive to comply if continued extensions are anticipated.

4. Suggested alternative dates Topic Comment Summary: Commenters argued for a number of different options as alternates to the extension period, including various combinations of the following: eighteen months following promulgation of revised rule; a " flexible" extension period to be based on when EPA finalizes the other pending regulatory actions; one year after finalizing all clarifications and making necessary rule amendments; and at least one year after finalizing all clarifications and making necessary rule amendments, with implementation of amended plans to follow at least 6 months later. Others suggested that the Agency extend the deadline for all facilities regardless of whether they would otherwise be required to review and/ or amend their current Plan under 112.5 so as to provide relief to all facilities in an equitable manner. Finally, commenters requested that EPA formally suspend enforcement for all agricultural facilities and extend compliance dates indefinitely for those agricultural facilities ( farms, agricultural cooperatives, and agribusinesses until more information can be gathered about the nature of the industry.

Topic Response: The Agency agrees with commenters in that the regulated community needs time between publication of a final rule amending the SPCC Plan requirements, and the date that amended Plans must be implemented and in place. The Agency believes that one year is an adequate time period between promulgation of new requirements and compliance dates for SPCC Plan preparation, amendment and implementation. Thus, the Agency is working towards taking final action on the proposed amendments as soon as possible so that facilities have as much time as possible before the new compliance deadline. The Agency has already stated in the preamble to the proposal for further SPCC amendments that " to the extent practicable, EPA will establish deadlines for compliance implementation that commence one year after promulgating the regulatory revisions" [ 70 FR 73526]. At this time the Agency believes that the October 31, 2007 deadline is appropriate to both meet regulated community concerns and provide adequate environmental protection. During the development of a final SPCC rule amendment the Agency will revisit the effective dates if it becomes evident that, due to delays in the regulatory process, owners and operators would not have adequate time to prepare, amend and implement their Plans. The Agency disagrees with commenters on the suggestion that a six month period should still be required between Plan preparation/ amendment and Plan implementation. By combining the two dates, the Agency is allowing for an additional six months for the Plan preparation/ amendment work to be completed in accordance with the requirements under sections 112.3( a) through ( c). The Agency believes that this approach provides added flexibility given that facilities are not required to submit SPCC Plans to the Agency at the time of preparation/ amendment. Comments regarding a suspension and indefinite extension of compliance for agricultural facilities are beyond the scope of today's rulemaking. While EPA may address these comments in a future rulemaking, today's extension is not intended to postpone compliance with the SPCC rule to accommodate such a future rulemaking for agricultural facilities. Today's extension is intended only to allow enough time for EPA to take final action on rule revisions proposed in December 2005 and for the regulated community affected by any such revisions to take advantage of them.

Comment Excerpts:

Submitted by  Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute Comment Text: Should EPA not be able to meet this timeline, API recommends the Plan amendment deadline be set at least one year after finalizing all clarifications and making the necessary rule amendments. This year would allow the industry time to prepare its amended plan and to budget and plan for the required facility modifications. The deadline for implementation of amended plans would follow at least six months after that date.

Submitted by  Patrick Flowers of Xcel Energy Comment Text: While Xcel Energy agrees with US EPA that the deadline for compliance with the 2002 amendments to the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations must be extended ( 70 FR 73518), we are not convinced that setting a date without some flexibility is appropriate  The three previous times EPA announced a deadline they have not been able to meet it due to the complexity of dealing with the issues presented in the wake of the 2002 amendments. The current deadline extension seems to be following the pattern set by the previous three. Xcel Energy is concerned that it may require more time to resolve the issues, complete any necessary inter agency review, and promulgate a final rule than the proposed time will allow. Additionally, if it takes more than one year to resolve and promulgate a final rule, EPA will not be allowing enough time for industry to revise plans and make necessary changes/ upgrades to comply with the requirements. In previous deadlines and deadline extensions, EPA has always given industry time between complying with the new SPCC rule and fully implementing any changes necessary to achieve compliance. This proposed rule does not have that same acceptable pattern built into it.

EPA can avoid being backed into another corner by stating that the deadline for compliance is " October 31, 2007, or one year following promulgation of the SPCC amendments, whichever is later."

Submitted by  Nicholas DeMarco of The West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association Comment Text: As the dates for the final rules are unknown, WVONGA suggests that the EPA allow some flexibility for the compliance deadline for facilities, which must amend their SPCC Plan in accordance with such rules. As such, we request that the rule provide facilities until October 31, 2007, or a date no less than one year following promulgation of the final rules, whichever is later, to amend their SPCC Plans. In addition, WVONGA requests that the EPA retain the additional six month period after the amendment of the plan for facilities to implement their amended plan... Therefore, we request that the date for implementing the amended SPCC Plans be revised to include a six month period after the October 31, 2007 deadline for the amended plans.

Submitted by  P. F. Faggert of Dominion Comment Text: Because the dates of promulgation of [ the final rule on qualified facilities and oil filled operational equipment] and the " loose ends" final rules are unknown, Dominion recommends flexibility in the compliance date. Specifically, Dominion recommends that the compliance date be extended to either October 31, 2007, or a date no less than one year following promulgation of the final rule on qualified facilities and oil filled operational equipment, whichever is later. Dominion also recommends that, to the extent the " loose ends" rule incorporates more stringent compliance requirements, a separate compliance date of at least 12 months following promulgation of that rule be established.

Submitted by  Susan Damron of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Comment Text: LADWP is concerned that some uncertainty will exist as to the final content of the 2002 Rule Amendment such that, until this rule is actually finalized, LADWP will not know whether October 31, 2007 deadline will be an adequate period of time to prepare and implement the 2002 Rule Amendments. Due to this level of uncertainty, it would seem unlikely that one would commence plan preparation until it is known what they are or are not subject to in the 2002 Rule Amendments. For this reason, LADWP recommends that the proposed deadline of October 31, 2007 be applied only to the 2002 Rule and that any provisions subject to the 2002 Rule Amendment ( FR 73524) have its own deadline date of at least one year beyond the date that the rule becomes final.

Submitted by  Rick Stott of Agri Beef Co Comment Text: Agri Beef Co. welcomes EPA's proposal to extend the compliance date for all facilities to comply with SPCC regulations. However the extended date of October 31, 2007 does not allow enough time for the EPA to reasonably promulgate the streamlined guidelines, for the regulated community to understand the requirements, for the EPA to communicate to all the affected parties the requirements of the regulation, and most importantly, for the regulated community to initiate compliance.

Submitted by  Dee Gavora of American Forest & Paper Association Comment Text: AF& PA recommends, however, that EPA maintain the six month separation between the deadline for Plan amendment and implementation. Thus, AF& PA recommends that SPCC Plans be amended by October 31, 2007 and implemented by April 30, 2008. This will allow facilities adequate time after Plans have been amended to fully implement required changes.

AF& PA's comments are contingent on EPA promulgating proposed changes to the rule by October 31, 2006. In the event that the final rule is delayed, AF& PA recommends that SPCC Plans be amended one year after promulgation of the final rule and implemented six months later.

Submitted by  John G. Hill of The Dow Chemical Company Comment Text: The extension for implementation of the regulations does not allow adjustment time for the proposed amendments as announced in the notice of proposed rulemaking ( Federal Register Vol. 70 No. 237 Part III)

To achieve one of the intended purposes of the extension, EPA must coordinate the extension of the implementation of the SPCC requirements with the promulgation of the proposed amendments. This would significantly reduce the unnecessary re work and modification of the SPCC Plan and would also adjust capital projects that would be required by the proposed amendments. Such unnecessary expenditures are unreasonable and EPA should take this opportunity to properly extend the dates to offset this unintended impact.

In addition, the issuance of the new proposed rule amendments by the Agency begins a new regulatory cycle. The proposed changes in regulations will certainly impact implementation by the regulated community, both in resources and time. Without addressing the substance of the proposed revisions, it is necessary to discuss the assertion in this proposal that compliance with the proposed rule amendments be completed one year after promulgation. Scoping, budgeting, engineering, estimating, bidding, and construction of implementation requirements often requires more than one year. At least eighteen months should be provided for implementation following promulgation of the revised rule.

In order to avoid a period of uncertainty between the current and to be revised regulations, EPA should revise the language in the current extension proposal and, by reference, set the proposed extension to be the date established as the implementation date of the proposed amendments.

Dow agrees that an extension to the current rule is necessary; however, the duration of the extension must reflect adequate time to properly implement the revised regulations and take into account the final " SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors." ... The effective date of the implementation of the SPCC regulations should be coordinated with the implementation date of the proposed amendments to the rule.

Submitted by  Caroline Choi of Progress Energy Comment Text: Because of the proposed changes to the 2002 amendments, it is difficult for the regulated community to justify expending resources at this time to achieve compliance with the 2002 SPCC amendments. The Company believes that the deadline should be no earlier than October 31, 2007. This should provide enough time for the agency staff to complete the rulemaking process and for affected facilities to respond. However, since the date of final promulgation of the amendments is not certain, The Company is concerned that the proposed October 31, 2007 deadline may be sufficient. Progress Energy suggests that EPA express the extension in terms of either the proposed October 31, 2007 date or one year following promulgation of the pending SPCC amendments, whichever is later. This way, EPA can establish a target for achieving implementation by a specific date, and at the same time ensure a 12 month period to achieve compliance following finalization of the SPCC rule amendments. The final SPCC amendment rule could even provide the precise compliance dates.

Submitted by  Bob Elam of American Chemical Council Comment Text: Further, ACC requests that EPA provide a separation of six months between the deadline for SPCC Plan amendment and implementation to allow owners/ operators time after plan amendment to modify their facilities.

Accordingly, ACC recommends an SPCC Plan amendment compliance deadline of either October 31, 2007, or a date no less than one year following the promulgation of both the final rule for qualified facilities/ oil filled operational equipment ( 70 FR 73524, December 12, 2005) and the " loose ends" final rule ( discussed below), whichever is later. ACC further recommends the SPCC Plan implementation compliance deadline be no less than six months following the amendment deadline.

Submitted by  John McKinnon of Kimberly Clark Corporation Comment Text: Kimberly Clark requests that EPA modify the proposal to... extend the deadline to October 31, 2007 for all facilities, regardless of whether they would otherwise be required to amend their current SPCC Plan under Section 112.5. This change should be in the form of a change in the proposal to include a change of Section 112.5 or a concurrent formal guidance letter stating that the requirements of Section 112.5 would be held in abeyance and would again become effective following the proposed deadline extension to October 31, 2007. This would provide the relief to all facilities that EPA intends in an equitable manner.

Submitted by  Deborah Boyle of TXU Electric Delivery Comment Text: While the proposed deadline of October 31, 2007 seems reasonable, it is impossible to predict whether or not the time will be sufficient for the regulated community to achieve compliance. EPA will be receiving comments on the proposed SPCC amendments, and the time required for EPA to address concerns brought up during this comment period is unknown. EPA can avoid this concern by expressing the extension in terms of the proposed date, October 2007, or, at least 12 months following promulgation of the pending SPCC amendments, whichever is later. The final SPCC amendment could give notice of the precise compliance dates.

Submitted by  Joseph Hurt of International Association of Drilling Contractors Comment Text: ... IADC also recommends EPA maintain the separation of six months between the deadline for SPCC Plan amendment and implementation, to allow facility owners/ operators adequate time after plan amendment to modify their facilities, properly train employees on the amended plan requirements, and allow for full implementation of the amended plan requirements... IADC recommends a SPCC Plan amendment compliance deadline of October 31, 2007 and an implementation compliance deadline of April 30, 2008. Our recommendation is contingent on EPA finalizing no later than October 31, 2006 its responses to all outstanding request for clarification... submitted by industry members.

Submitted by  Robert Fronczak of Association of American Railroads Comment Text: Companies need to be able to understand the new compliance requirements, then budget the money needed to comply with them. If the regulations cannot be finalized by mid year 2006, then AAR suggests that EPA delay the implementation date one more year, to October 31, 2008.

Submitted by  Scott Davis of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group Comment Text: EPA can avoid tying its hands with a specific compliance date by expressing the extension in terms of either the proposed date, October 31, 2007, or one year following promulgation of the pending SPCC amendments, whichever is later. In this way, EPA can establish a target for promulgating the SPCC amendments and achieving implementation by a specific date and simultaneously honoring the Agency's commitment of a 12 month period for achieving compliance following amendment of the current SPCC rule.

Submitted by  June Small of North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation Comment Text: A concern remains, however, that October 31, 2007 may not allow for sufficient time for affected entities to respond if the rulemaking is not completed quickly. We believe EPA should consider language that would tie a compliance date to one year after publication of the final rule.

Submitted by  Michael Bernard of Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association of Oklahoma, Inc. Comment Text:   Mid Continent supports a separation of six months between the deadline for SPCC Plan amendment and implementation to allow exploration and production operators time after plan amendment to modify their facilities. This extension should allow EPA further time to consider the need for and effect of the revised SPCC regulations on domestic oil and gas industries exploration and production operations. A concern remains that the impact to industry has not been clearly and fully addressed.

Submitted by   The Agriculture Coalition on Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure7 7 This comment was not submitted through the docket. Signatories of this submission are listed as follows: Agribusiness Association of Iowa; AgriBusiness Association of Kentucky; Agricultural Retailers Association; Agri Mark, Inc.; Alabama Cattlemen's Association; Alabama Crop Management Association; Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc.; Alabama Farmers Federation; American Corn Growers Association; American Crystal Sugar Company; American Farm Bureau Federation; American Soybean Association; Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association; Arizona Cattle Growers Association; Arkansas Cattlemen's Association; Blue Diamond Growers; California Association of Wheat Growers; California Cattlemen's Association; California Dairies, Inc.; California Rice Commission; CHS Inc.; CoBank; Colorado Farm Bureau; Colorado Livestock Association; Corn Producers Association of Texas; Dairy Farmers of America; Dairylea Cooperative, Inc.; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Farm Credit Council; Florida Cattlemen's Association; Florida Farm Bureau Federation; Georgia Agribusiness Council; Georgia Cattlemen's Association; GROWMARK, Inc.; Idaho Cattle Association'; Idaho Grain Producers Association; Illinois Beef Association; Illinois Corn Growers Association; Illinois Farm Bureau; Indiana Beef Cattle Association; Comment Text:

The Agriculture Coalition on the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure ( SPCC), which includes organizations representing farmers, ranchers, farmer cooperatives, livestock operations and related agribusinesses, requests that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issue a formal statement suspending compliance with the SPCC rule given the uncertainty that surrounds the applicability of the 1973 rule [ FR Dec. 11, 1973, Vol. 38, No. 237, Parts I & II]. Also, the coalition strongly urges that all agricultural facilities   farms, farmer cooperatives and other agribusinesses   be granted an indefinite extension of compliance until more information can be gathered by the EPA on the unique nature of our industries, our needs, our history of spills and how those spills were addressed.

Indiana Grain and Feed Assn; Indiana Plant Food & Ag Chemicals Assn; Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc.; Iowa Cattlemen's Association; Kansas Agricultural Retailers Association; Kansas Association of Wheat Growers; Kansas Cooperative Council; Kansas Corn Growers Association; Kansas Farm Bureau; Kansas Grain Sorghum Producers Association; Kansas Livestock Association; Kentucky Cattlemen's Association; Kentucky Corn Growers Association; Kentucky Farm Bureau; Kentucky Small Grain Growers Association; Land O' Lakes, Inc.; MFA Incorporated; Michigan Agri Business Association; Michigan Cattlemen's Association; Michigan Corn Growers Association; Michigan Farm Bureau; Michigan Milk Producers Association; Mid America CropLife Association; Minnesota Crop Production Retailers; Mississippi Cattlemen's Association; Missouri Agriculture Industries Council, Inc; Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Missouri Corn Growers Association; Montana Agricultural Business Association; Montana Stockgrowers Association; National Agricultural Aviation Association; National Association of Wheat Growers; National Barley Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Farmers Union; National Grange; National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.; National Milk Producers Federation; National Sorghum Producers; Nebraska Cattlemen; Nebraska Cooperative Council; Nebraska Wheat Growers Association; Nevada Cattlemen's Association; New Jersey Farm Bureau; New Mexico Cattle Grower's Association; North Carolina Cattlemen's Association; North Carolina Farm Bureau; North Dakota Stockmen's Association; Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.; Ohio Cattlemen's Association; Ohio Corn Growers Association; Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Inc; Oklahoma Agribusiness Retailers Association; Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association; Oklahoma Farm Bureau; Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association; Olive Growers Council of California, Inc.; Oregon Cattlemen's Association; Oregon Wheat Growers League; Producers Cooperative Oil Mill, OK; South Carolina Cattlemen's Association; South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation; South Carolina Fertilizer and Agrichemicals Association; Southern Crop Production Association; South Dakota Association of Cooperatives; South Dakota Cattlemen's Association; South Dakota Corn Growers Association; South Dakota Wheat Inc; South East Dairy Farmers Association; Southern States Cooperative, Inc.; Soybean Producers of America; Sun Maid Growers of California; Tennessee Cattlemen's Association; Tennessee Farmers Cooperative; Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation; Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers; Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Texas Farm Bureau; Texas Wheat Producers Association; The Fertilizer Institute; United Egg Producers; USA Rice Federation; US Canola Association; U. S. Custom Harvesters, Inc.; US Rice Producers Association; Utah Cattlemen's Association; Virginia Small Grain Association; Washington Association of Wheat Growers; Washington Cattle Feeders Association; Washington State Council of Farmer; Cooperatives; Welch's; West Central; Western Plant Health Association; Western United Dairymen; Wisconsin Fertilizer & Chemical Association; Wyoming Ag Business Association; Wyoming Stock Growers Association